text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'The recently discovered protostellar jet known as HH212 is beautifully symmetric, with a series of paired shock knots and bow shocks on either side of the exciting source region, IRAS 05413-0104 (Zinnecker [[*[et al.]{}*]{}]{} 1998). We present VLA ammonia maps of the IRAS 05413-0104 molecular gas envelope in which the protostellar jet source is embedded. We find that the envelope, with mass of 0.2 M$_{\odot}$ detected by the interferometer, is flattened perpendicular to the jet axis with a FWHM diameter of 12000 AU and an axis ratio of 2:1, as seen in NH$_3$ (1,1) emission. There is a velocity gradient of about 4-5 km sec$^{-1}$ pc$^{-1}$ across the flattened disk-like core, suggestive of rotation around an axis aligned with the jet. Flux-weighted mean velocities increase smoothly with radius with a roughly constant velocity gradient. In young (Class 0) systems such as HH212, a significant amount of material is still distributed in a large surrounding envelope, and thus the observable kinematics of the system may reflect the less centrally condensed, youthful state of the source and obscuration of central dynamics. The angular momentum of this envelope material may be released from infalling gas through rotation in the HH212 jet, as recent observations suggest (Davis [*[et al. ]{}*]{}2000). A blue-shifted wisp or bowl of emitting gas appears to be swept up along the blue side of the outflow, possibly lining the cavity of a wider angle wind around the more collimated shock jet axis. Our ammonia (2,2)/(1,1) ratio map indicates that this very cold core is heated to 14 Kelvin degrees in a centrally condensed area surrounding the jet source. This edge-on core and jet system appears to be young and deeply embedded. This environment, however, is apparently not disrupting the pristine symmetry and collimation of the jet.'
author:
- Jennifer Wiseman
- Alwyn Wootten
- Hans Zinnecker and Mark McCaughrean
title: 'The Flattened, Rotating Molecular Gas Core of Protostellar Jet HH 212'
---
Introduction
============
The youngest protostars are often so deeply embedded in their parental cloud cores that shocks driven by their jets cannot be easily traced in visible shock line emission but are bright in near-infrared molecular hydrogen shock lines. Such is the case for the recently discovered highly collimated jet HH 212, near the Horsehead Nebula region of Orion (Zinnecker, McCaughrean, & Rayner 1998).
HH 212 is remarkable because of its high collimation and symmetric pairs of bow shocks and shock knots on either side of the driving source (Figure 1). Theories of protostellar jet structure often involve a heavy influence of the surrounding medium, with impacts creating shocked globules along the jet, sometimes even redirecting it. But the symmetry of HH 212 suggests that some pulsing mechanism from the source itself is responsible for the nearly periodic bow shock pairs. Somehow the symmetry is maintained even though the jet is moving through a dense gas core. In the innermost region, water masers have been found in motion along the outflow (Claussen et al. 1998).
The inferred position of the jet exciting source coincides with IRAS point source 05413-0104, which was detected at 25, 60, and 100 microns; it is still too cold and embedded to be detected strongly at 12 microns (see Beichman et al. 1986). It is surrounded by a cold (11.5 K), compact ammonia core out of which it presumably formed (Wouterloot, Walmsley, & Henkel 1988). The spectral energy distribution climbs to longer wavelengths. It is detected also at 1.3 mm, with a submillimeter to bolometric luminosity of about 2% (Chini et al. 1997). It has narrow NH$_3$ linewidths compared to emission found at the position of other maser sources. These characteristics suggest that the source is very young.
HH212 is classified as a Class 0 system, the youngest class of protostars with much material to be accreted still in the surrounding molecular gas envelope (André, Ward-Thompson, & Barsony 2000). Class 0 sources have a high rate of submillimeter to bolometric luminosity (over 0.5%) and high rates of infall and outflow (André, Ward-Thompson, & Barsony 1993, Adams, Lada, & Shu 1987). The morphology and kinematics of the surrounding gas at this early stage of the formation of a star are crucial to understand as an important link between prestellar gas cores and the resulting young T Tauri star/disk systems. Our VLA ammonia observations were conducted as a study of the gas density, temperature, and velocity distributions in this pristine, highly embedded young source.
Observations
============
Observations were carried out with the Very Large Array (VLA) of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory[^1]. The ammonia (J,K) = (1,1) and (2,2) inversion transitions were observed simultaneously, at rest frequencies of 23.694495 GHz and 23.722733 GHz, respectively. The width of the antenna primary beam response was approximately 2’ FWHP. The array was in its compact, “D” configuration. The synthesized beamsize was $8.4'' \times 8.8''$ FWHM, with natural weighting and a 20 k$\lambda$ taper applied to the UV data. The bandwidth was 3.125 MHz and the channel separation was 24.4 kHz, corresponding to 0.31 km sec$^{-1}$.
The absolute flux calibrator was 3C286, with a calculated flux density of 2.41 Jy at 1.3 cm. The bandpass calibrator was 3C84, and a phase closure solution was applied based on interleaved observations of the phase calibrator B0605-085 (1950). The “dirty” beam was deconvolved from the maps using the “Imager” algorithm in the NRAO AIPS image processing software.
A Flattened, Rotating, and Heated Gas Envelope
==============================================
The integrated intensity of the NH$_3$ (1,1) line is displayed in the contours of Figure 1, overlaid on the 2.12 $\micron$ image of HH 212 from Zinnecker, McCaughrean, & Rayner (1998). The gas core is flattened with an axis ratio of about 2:1. The major axis has a FWHM extent of 29”, corresponding to 12000 AU at an assumed distance of 400 pc, with full extent of over 15000 AU; it is centered on the jet source, and it lies perpendicular to the jet which has a position angle of about 25 degrees east of north and only 4$\deg$ from the plane of the sky (Claussen et al. 1998).
A velocity gradient is apparent across the flattened gas core. In Figure 2a the integrated intensity (moment 0) is again plotted in contours, while the underlying shades represent the (moment 1) velocity field. Radial velocities change smoothly from blue-shifted gas in the northwest side to redshifted gas in the southeast; the large velocity gradient of about 4-5 km sec[$^{-1}$]{}pc[$^{-1}$]{}is virtually constant. The direction of the gradient within the central FWHM intensity region of the core is perpendicular to the jet axis, with the nodes of constant velocity roughly parallel to the jet.
Along the eastern side of the core, a small amount of blueshifted material is seen to extend to the northeast alongside the northern, blueshifted side of the jet. To a lesser extent, the same effect is also seen to the south with a small protrusion of redshifted gas extending in the same direction as the redshifted side of the jet. Molecular gas is possibly being swept along by the outflow. There is even a hint, at least in the north, that molecular gas is found in a “bowl” surrounding the jet axis, possibly outlining a cavity of a wider-angle flow surrounding the collimated shock emission of the jet (see, e.g., Shu et al. 1995, Shang, Shu,& Glassgold 1998).
Ammonia inversion lines are a convenient probe of both optical depth and temperature. Most ammonia inversion transitions are composed of multiple hyperfine components. The relative intensities of central and satellite component blends of the (1,1) transition can be used to calculate the optical depth. For the main component and total transition of the (1,1) line, we find $\tau$ values of 0.8 and 1.6, respectively, at the core center. Using the procedures and assumptions described in Ho & Townes 1983 (see also Wiseman & Ho 1998), we also estimate an NH$_3$ column density of $1.6 \times
10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$ and a total volume density $n$ of $1 \times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$. The mass of the core gas detected with the interferometer is approximately 0.2 M$_{\odot}$, assuming an NH$_3$/H$_2$ abundance ratio of $2 \times 10^{-8}$ (Harju, Walmsley, & Wouterloot 1993). Within the large uncertainties of this abundance ratio, the mass is the same as that needed to gravitationally bind the rotating system.
The ratio of intensity of the NH$_3$ (2,2) and (1,1) transitions reflects level populations and thus serves as a thermometer for rotational temperature within cold molecular gas cores. In Figure 2b, the contours again show the integrated intensity of (1,1) emission. The shades show the (2,2)/(1,1) ratio, indicating the relatively warmer regions. It is apparent that this is indeed a cold core of gas, with the (2,2) emission showing up only in the central region of the core. The (2,2)/(1,1) ratio peaks near the position of the embedded protostellar source, and extends slightly to the northwest. The peak rotational temperature here is 14 K, as calculated from the line ratio (Ho & Townes 1983). In colder regimes such as this, the kinetic temperature is approximately equal to the NH$_3$ rotational temperature (Danby et al. 1988, Kuiper 1994). The young protostar is evidently still in the center of the gas core, and we may be seeing here the warm gas [*[heated]{}*]{} by the protostar and the jet as they interact with the environment.
Discussion
==========
Rotation in Protostellar Systems
--------------------------------
Envelopes of Class 0 protostars carry much (often most) of the mass of the system and can extend to diameters of several thousands of AU. Interferometric maps of such systems tend to show flattened disks perpendicular to the axis of the associated jet (Myers, Evans, & Ohashi 2000). The flattened molecular gas envelope of the HH 212 jet source has a smooth and roughly constant velocity gradient perpendicular to the jet axis (Figure 2a, 2c).
Turbulence in cloud cores can produce velocity gradients that mimic rotation (Burkert & Bodenheimer 2000 (BB)). However, the gradient we find in HH 212 is faster than the most likely effect produced in the BB turbulence models. It should be noted that the BB models were based on more massive cores, so proper scaling of the models would be required to better assess the possibility of a turbulent component to the observed velocity gradient in HH 212. But it is also true that the HH 212 gradient extends systematically across the long axis of the core, and perpendicular to the jet, for over 5 synthesized beamwidths. Thus the combined evidence suggests that the gradient is more likely dominated by rotation.
The more evolved T Tauri systems often show Keplerian rotation signatures in the less plentiful envelope gas, with the radial velocities increasing and diverging toward the central source ($V\propto R^{-1/2}$). An early report of Keplerian rotation in a young stellar disk was made for $^{13}$CO observations of HL Tau (Sargent & Beckwith 1987, 1991), though in this source the kinematics proved to be much more complicated, with evidence for infall (Hayashi et al. 1993) and outflow (Cabrit et al. 1996). The strongest Keplerian velocity curves are seen in circumstellar disks of a few hundred AU in Class II T Tauri systems without much envelope material left, thus having little confusion from large scale infall or outflow motions (Mundy, Looney, & Welch 2000, Dutrey et al. 1998). Keplerian rotation has been detected in the gas disks of GM Aur (Dutrey et al. 1998) and DM Tau (Guilloteau & Dutrey 1998), for example, as well as in multiple systems such as UY Aur and the beautiful ring of GG Tau (Duvert et al. 1998, Guilloteau, Dutrey, & Simon 1999).
Several Class 0 systems such as HH 212 are in dense gas cores that appear to have a more rigid rotation signature (Myers, Evans, & Ohashi 2000); this is consistent with their character of having much of the system mass still distributed in the gas envelope around the embedded accreting protostar(s). Indeed, the 0.2 M$_\odot$ we detect with the VLA in the HH 212 core is 10 times the circumstellar gas mass found in some T Tauri systems (e.g. $\le 0.01$M$_{\odot}$ for UY Aur (Duvert et al. 1998)). In such early systems, a gradient in the intensity-weighted mean velocity that is constant rather than diverging toward the center can indicate that either a) the non-Keplerian rotation curve is reflecting a mass distribution that is not yet dominated by a central condensation, or b) the system is in Keplerian rotation, but high optical depths result in velocity maps that are dominated by motion in the outer layers along the line of sight toward the center of the core. Models of expected channel map emission can be used to test for Keplerian rotation (e.g. Koerner, Sargent, & Beckwith 1993, Dutrey, Guilloteau, & Simon 1994). Higher spatial and spectral resolution maps would be needed to fully model the HH 212 envelope, although the slightly broader line widths we observe toward the center of the core are possible evidence for some Keplerian component to the motion. In any case, it now appears that [*[the observed kinematics of the protostellar envelope can signify the developmental stage of the embedded YSO]{}*]{}. More high resolution kinematical studies are needed to confirm this pattern. The large envelopes such as we observe in HH 212 may feed mass directly to the embedded protostar (if at the earliest stage) or to the inner circumstellar accretion disk just beginning to form. It is important to note that this inner disk ($<
100$ AU and thus unobservable in our NH$_3$ maps) probably rotates with near-Keplerian velocities (Stahler 2000).
Many rotating cores of these large sizes ($\ge$12000 AU) do not appear to conserve specific angular momentum, defined as V$_{rot}$ $\times$ R$_{rot}$, where V$_{rot}$ is the velocity of rotation at radius R$_{rot}$ (Myers, Evans, & Ohashi 2000). Our results show that, with a specific angular momentum of 0.012 km s$^{-1}$ pc at a radius of 6000 AU, the HH 212 gas envelope would fit well with other cores of similar size in a plot of Ohashi et al. (1997) showing specific angular momentum falling with decreasing source radius. However, Ohashi et al. showed that there is a transition at about this same size scale; smaller dense core regions [*[do]{}*]{} show conserved specific angular momentum in regions of both massive infall and rotationally supported disks. Thus this would serve as the size scale for dynamical collapse, where angular momentum is conserved. The HH 212 core seems to be in fast, bound rotation at the size scale of this transition.
Since the velocity gradient and the long axis of the envelope are both perpendicular to the jet axis, it is suggestive that rotation may contribute to the observed flattening. We calculate rotational energy of the system to reach up to about 3-10% of each of the thermal, turbulent, and gravitational energy (Harju et al. 1993, Myers 1983). Preferential contraction along an axis perpendicular to the disk plane, along possible magnetic field lines, could also produce flattened morphology. Another intriguing possibility is that the outflow itself contributes to the morphology by clearing out dense gas along the flow. Indeed, the blue-shifted wisp of gas extending to the northeast alongside the (northward) blue-shifted side of the jet (Figure 2a) seems to form part of a “bowl” around the jet and the associated CO outflow recently studied by Lee et al. (2000); part of the blue lobe of the CO flow shifts to the east corresponding to the NH$_3$ wisp. It has been suggested that molecular outflows associated with jets may broaden over time, as has been seen in B5-IRS1; the broadening flow could contribute to the eventual decline of accretion (Velusamy & Langer 1998). Thus we may be seeing the HH 212 flow in an early stage of broadening and sweeping out envelope material.
Angular Momentum Release Through the Jet
----------------------------------------
Bipolar outflows appear to be a ubiquitous product of the formation of stars. Strong winds from young stellar sources are collimated into jets which are observed in visible and infrared shock emission. Magnetic fields may be responsible for channeling and collimating the jets (see, e.g., Shu et al. 1995).
Outflows are thought to be a ’release valve’ for the angular momentum carried into the protostellar accretion region by infalling material. Otherwise, matter infalling from even a very slowly rotating circumstellar envelope will have too much conserved angular momentum to fall into the inner accretion region, unless sufficient angular momentum is lost through disk viscosity.
[*[Observational]{}*]{} evidence for jets as significant angular momentum carriers has been virtually nonexistent. Recently, however, results of slit spectroscopy on the shock knots in the HH 212 jet have given some evidence of jet rotation (Davis et al. 2000). Five of six knots studied show similar evidence of rotation; in the inner part of the southern flow, for example, a clear velocity gradient is seen. If this gradient represents rotation, [*[the jet rotation is in the same directional sense as that of the rotating molecular gas envelope we observe in ammonia.]{}*]{} A rough extrapolation of the large scale angular momentum in the envelope gas fits the observed gradient in the jet, assuming a fraction of infalling mass is channeled into the flow. Thus this may be the first observational evidence for a rotating jet carrying away the angular momentum of material falling in from a rotating envelope. Clearly more detailed observations and evidence of jet rotation and inner disk kinematics are needed.
We thank our referee and also P. T. P. Ho for insightful guidance. Support for J.W. was provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant \#HF-01115.01-98A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5-26555.
Adams, F. C., Lada, C. J. & Shu, F. H. 1987, , 312, 788 André, P. , Ward-Thompson, D. & Barsony, M. 1993, , 406, 122 Andre, P., Ward-Thompson, D. & Barsony, M. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV (Book - Tucson: University of Arizona Press; eds Mannings, V., Boss, A.P., Russell, S. S.), p. 59, 59 Beichman, C. A., Myers, P. C., Emerson, J. P., Harris, S., Mathieu, R., Benson, P. J. & Jennings, R. E. 1986, , 307, 337 Burkert, A. & Bodenheimer, P. 2000, , 543, 822 Cabrit, S., Guilloteau, S., Andre, P., Bertout, C., Montmerle, T. and Schuster, K. 1996, , 305, 527 Chini, R., Reipurth, B., Sievers, A., Ward-Thompson, D., Haslam, C. G. T., Kreysa, E. and Lemke, R. 1997, , 325, 542 Claussen, M. J., Marvel, K. B., Wootten, A. & Wilking, B. A. 1998, , 507, L79 Danby, G., Flower, D. R., Valiron, P., Schilke, P. and Walmsley, C. M. 1988, , 235, 229 Davis, C. J., Berndsen, A., Smith, M. D., Chrysostomou, A. and Hobson, J. 2000, , 314, 241 Dutrey, A., Guilloteau, S., Prato, L., Simon, M., Duvert, G., Schuster, K. & Menard, F. 1998, , 338, L63 Dutrey, A., Guilloteau, S., & Simon, M. 1994, , 286, 149 Duvert, G., Dutrey, A., Guilloteau, S., Menard, F., Schuster, K., Prato, L. & Simon, M. 1998, , 332, 867 Guilloteau, S. & Dutrey, A. 1998, , 339, 467 Guilloteau, S., Dutrey, A. & Simon, M. 1999, , 348, 570 Harju, J., Walmsley, C. M. & Wouterloot, J. G. A. 1993, , 98, 51 Hayashi, M., Ohashi, N. & Miyama, S. M. 1993, , 418, L71 Ho, P. T. P. and Townes, C. H. 1983, , 21, 239 Koerner, D. W., Sargent, A. I., & Beckwith, S. V. W. 1993, Icarus, 106, 2 Kuiper, T. B. H. 1994, , 433, 712 Lee, C., Mundy, L. G., Reipurth, B., Ostriker, E. C. & Stone, J. M. 2000, , 542, 925 Mundy, L. G., Looney, L. W., & Welch, W. J. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, eds. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 355. Myers, P. C. 1983, , 270, 105 Myers, P. C., Evans, N. J., & Ohashi, N. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, eds. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 217. Ohashi, N., Hayashi, M., Ho, P. T. P., Momose, M., Tamura, M., Hirano, N. and Sargent, A. I. 1997, , 488, 317 Sargent, A. I. & Beckwith, S. 1987, , 323, 294 Sargent, A. I. & Beckwith, S. V. W. 1991, , 382, L31 Shang, H., Shu, F. H. and Glassgold, A. E. 1998, , 493, L91 Shu, F. H., Najita, J. , Ostriker, E. C. & Shang, H. 1995, , 455, L155 Stahler, S. W. 2000, in “Star Formation from the Small Scale to the Large Scale,” eds. F. Favata, A. A. Kaas & A. Wilson (ESA: SP-44), p. 133. Velusamy, T. & Langer, W. D. 1998, , 392, 685 Wiseman, J. J. and Ho, P. T. P. 1998, , 502, 676 Wouterloot, J. G. A., Walmsley, C. M. and Henkel, C. 1988, , 203, 367 Zinnecker, H., McCaughrean, M. J. & Rayner, J. T. 1998, , 394, 862
[^1]: The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The fabrication of high-quality thin superconducting films is essential for single-photon detectors. Their device performance is crucially affected by their material parameters, thus requiring reliable and nondestructive characterization methods after the fabrication and patterning processes. Important material parameters to know are the resistivity, superconducting transition temperature, relaxation time of quasiparticles, and uniformity of patterned wires. In this work, we characterize micro-patterned thin NbN films by using transport measurements in magnetic fields. We show that from the instability of vortex motion at high currents in the flux-flow state of the $IV$ characteristic, the inelastic life time of quasiparticles can be determined to be about $2$ ns. Additionally, from the depinning transition of vortices at low currents, as a function of magnetic field, the size distribution of grains can be extracted. This size distribution is found to be in agreement with the film morphology obtained from scanning electron microscopy and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy images.'
author:
- 'Shi-Zeng Lin, Oscar Ayala-Valenzuela, Ross D. McDonald, Lev N. Bulaevskii, Terry G. Holesinger, Filip Ronning, Nina R. Weisse-Bernstein, Todd L. Williamson, Alexander H. Mueller, Mark A. Hoffbauer, Michael W. Rabin, Matthias J. Graf'
title: 'Characterization of thin-film NbN superconductor for single-photon detection by transport measurements'
---
Introduction
============
The potential applications of the single-photon detector (SPD) in quantum cryptography, ultrafast photon detection experiments, and dark sky observations are very promising. In particular, superconductor-based SPDs have attracted considerable attention in the last decade.[@Ilin2000; @Goltsman2001; @Romestain2004; @Kerman2006; @Kitaygorsky2005; @Kitaygorsky2007; @Miki2008; @Annunziata2009; @Baek2011; @Clem2011; @Illin2012; @Hofherr2012; @Engel2012; @Natarajan2012] Among these, research focused on the NbN superconducting nanowire SPD (SNSPD) for the following reasons: 1) the superconducting energy gap, $\Delta$, is two orders of magnitude smaller than in semiconductor-based SPDs, which allows for the detection of low energy photons in the infrared region of the spectrum up to $5\ \rm{\mu m}$;[@Marsilin12] 2) potentially fast detection times with gigahertz count rates; [@Ilin2000] \[Currently, the reset time of devices is limited by the kinetic inductance of the superconducting nanowire and the shunt resistor, for details see Refs. .\] 3) low dark count rates are attainable, because the SNSPD is operated in a cryogenic environment; [@Kitaygorsky2005; @Kitaygorsky2007; @Bartolf2010; @Yamashita2011] 4) their device efficiency is high. [@Natarajan2012] So far, most of the work has focused on the NbN SNSPD, because thin NbN has an extremely short superconducting coherence length of a few nanometers, $\xi\sim 4$ nm, with a relatively high superconducting transition temperature, $T_c\sim 14$ K, and strong electron-phonon coupling for fast energy relaxation times. The small $\xi$ permits one to reduce the dimensionality of SNSPDs to nanoscale-sized wires for increased sensitivity to infrared photons with wavelengths $\lambda > 1.5\ \rm{\mu m}$. Since the superconducting condensation energy density per unit volume is materials specific and allows for little variability, given the constraints listed above, the obvious dimensional tunability of the device is to reduce the volume element of the detector that needs to go normal to trigger a photon count. Recently, the sensitivity of SNSPDs to ions at low energy and soft x-rays was explored.[@Sclafani2012; @Inderbitzin2012] For a review of SNSPDs based on other superconductors see e.g. Ref. .
The operating principle of the NbN SNSPD is as follows.[@Goltsman2001; @Kerman2006; @Yang2007; @Natarajan2012] The nanowire is biased by a DC current close to the critical current. When an incident photon interacts with the NbN nanowire, it excites a cloud of quasiparticles, that diffuses and drives a belt-like normal region across the wire. When this extended normal region appears, it expands due to Joule heating until the resistance of the NbN nanowire becomes much larger than that of a parallel shunt resistor. As a result, the current redistributes to the shunt and a voltage pulse is detected. The process of heat diffusion and transition of belt-like region to the normal state is very fast and takes place within $\sim 10$ ps for a 100 nm wide wire. It takes much longer for the normal region in the nanowire to recover back to the superconducting state and for the bias current to flow back into the nanowire. The redistribution of the current at this stage is slow (1-10 ns) due to the large kinetic inductance of the NbN nanowire and the shunt resistance. [@Kerman2006; @Yang2007; @Kerman09; @Marsili12b] During this time the nanowire cools down to the bath temperature (with phonon escape time $\sim 160$ ps [@Semenov95]) and the SNSPD is again ready for the detection of incoming photons. In the absence of incident photons, some part of the nanowire may become normal as well because of thermal fluctuations, which cause the detection of so-called dark counts.[@Engel2006; @Kitaygorsky2007; @Bartolf2010] It was proposed that the dominant contribution to the dark count rate is from the crossing of single vortices in the NbN nanowire due to thermal fluctuations in the metastable DC-biased superconducting state.[@Bulaevskii2011; @Bulaevskii2012]
The operation of the NbN SNSPD involves the excitation and relaxation of quasiparticles, a complex nonequilibrium problem. The excited quasiparticles relax into the equilibrium state through electron-electron scattering, electro-phonon scattering and recombination of quasiparticles into Cooper pairs. [@Kaplan1976] The relaxation of quasiparticles is characterized by a relaxation time $\tau$, which plays an important role in determining the physically limiting SNSPD performance. On the other hand, grain boundaries are inevitably introduced during the growth process of thin NbN films. These boundaries work as pinning centers for vortices, and thus may affect the vortex crossing in nanowires and their dark count rate. We expect that knowledge of the inelastic relaxation time of quasiparticles and the size distribution of grains in thin films are important for the device optimization of NbN SNSPDs.
In this work, we measure the standard materials properties given by the normal-state resistivity $\rho(T)$ and superconducting transition temperature $T_c$. These are supplemented by the extraction of the inelastic relaxation time $\tau$ of quasiparticles and the distribution of grain sizes $P(L)$ in thin NbN superconductors from transport measurements of the $IV$ characteristics. The former is extracted from the instability of vortex motion in the flux-flow state, while the latter is obtained from the depinning transition of vortices. The inelastic relaxation time of quasiparticles in the vortex state is found to be about $\tau\sim 2$ ns in our NbN films. The nondestructive determination of the grain size distribution is dominated by domains of linear dimension of less than $5 \xi$ with an exponential tail for domains larger than $\sim 50 \xi$. This result is confirmed by morphology studies of the NbN film with electron microscopy.
The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. Sec. II describes thin film growth, fabrication, micropatterning, morphology analysis, and standard transport characterization. In Sec. III.A, we discuss the instability of the flux-flow state and inelastic quasiparticle relaxation time. This is followed by Sec. III.B, with the investigation of the depinning transition and nondestructive extraction of grain size distribution. The paper concludes with a short summary in Sec. IV.
Thin film growth and characterization
=====================================
Growth and fabrication
----------------------
The thin NbN films in this study were grown by a molecular-beam-epitaxy-type growth process called Energetic Neutral Atom Lithography and Epitaxy (ENABLE). ENABLE utilizes an energetic beam of neutral N atoms (kinetic energies of 1 to 5 eV) to activate nitride thin-film growth. The high energy and reactivity of N atoms allow for growth of high-quality, uniform crystalline thin films with high yield that are difficult to grow by conventional chemical vapor deposition (CVD), molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) techniques or magnetron sputtering. ENABLE has previously been used for the growth of III-nitride semiconductors.[@Williamson11b; @Williamson11; @Mueller06] The thin film was grown on a 50 mm diameter substrate of c-axis sapphire wafer that was first pre-nitrided at 400$^\circ$ C under the ENABLE N-atom beam for 20 minutes. Following pre-nitridation, the NbN film was grown at 600$^\circ$ C by having the Nb metal flux and N atom beams concurrently bombard the substrate. The Nb flux was provided by a Nb rod in a miniature electron-beam cell manufactured by Mantis Deposition Ltd (Oxfordshire, UK). The resulting NbN film was cooled to ambient temperature in vacuum and was $d=11.2$ nm thick. The face-centered cubic crystallographic structure of NbN was confirmed with X-ray diffraction. Finally, the fabricated NbN micron-sized wires were photolithographically defined using MicroChemicals AZ 5214E photoresist and Microposit MF 319 developer. The pattern defined in the photoresist was transferred into the underlying film using a 50% chlorine in argon inductively coupled plasma (ICP) etch. The contact pads were patterned via a lift-off technique with the metal (5 nm Ti, 200 nm Au) deposited by an electron-beam evaporator. The wafer was then diced using a resin bonded diamond blade.
Film structure and morphology
-----------------------------
Structural characterization of the films was accomplished with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission and scanning transmission electron microscopy (TEM and STEM). SEM and TEM were carried out in either a FEI Tecnai F30 Twin S/TEM or FEI Titan 80-300 S/TEM, both operated at 300 kV. The film morphology of ENABLE-grown films is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. The SEM image in panel (a) shows the uniformity of the film in a $1 \mu{\rm m}\times 1\mu{\rm m}$ view. The contrast giving rise to the grainy morphology arises from the 1 to 2 unit-cell deep grooves above the grain boundaries in the film. This grain boundary morphology is shown in the TEM cross-sectional view of this film in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b). The average thickness of the film from the TEM measurements was $d=11.2\pm 0.4$ nm. The image was taken near a zone axis. Some of the NbN grains are crystallographically aligned to the beam to create highly-diffracting conditions and thus appear dark in the bright-field TEM images. Nearby grains misoriented by only a few degrees are not in the highly diffracting conditions and appear light in contrasts. Of particular note is the grain boundary grooving observed between these grains. The grain boundary morphology or grooving is used to define grain sizes in the other parts of the image where adjacent grains are not distinguishable by diffraction contrast. From this contrast and microstructure, we infer grain sizes in this image to be on the order of 15-20 nm. The Z-contrast STEM image of the Fig. \[fig:fig1\](c) shows the lattice fringes of the NbN film and the ability of the film to conform to surface irregularities on the substrate. The high-resolution TEM image of Fig. \[fig:fig1\](d) was taken from a sister sample to the sample shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a)-(c). In this image, it appears that the top layers of the substrate have been modified by the pre-nitridation step used in the film preparation. Laterally, the film interface is abrupt and well-defined. Grain boundaries can again be identified by changes in the atomic structure and the grain boundary grooving described above. Grain sizes in this image are in the 5-20 nm range and are typical of the films grown in this series. The grain boundary structures shown here are important for providing the collective pinning of the vortex lattice in the superconducting state and determine the value of the critical current, as will be revealed in the next section in the analysis of the $IV$ characteristics.
The grooving along grain boundaries can provide sufficient contrast in high magnification, plane-view SEM images to enable a much broader analysis of grain sizes in these films. An in-depth analysis of the large 1 $\mu{\rm m}^2$ SEM image in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a) is performed after converting the gray-scale image of different grain orientations to a binary black and white image in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](a). This allows a better delineation of grains (black domains) for further identification. Because the identification of domains depends on the specific threshold used for creating a black and white image one should keep in mind that our quantitative analysis provides only an approximate count of domains that in principle should be verified by a series of TEM cross-sectional images. For a quantitative analysis of domains in the large 1 $\mu{\rm m}^2$ view area, we used the “Analyze Particles” method of the image tool [*ImageJ*]{} [@imageJ; @imageJdoc; @Dunes2011] to generate a histogram of grain size area $A$ of the black domains with bins of size 10 nm$^2$. The corresponding linear size, $L=\sqrt{A}$, histogram is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b). $L$ varies over several orders of magnitude between 1.75 nm and 81.2 nm with a mean value of $L_{\rm{avg}} = 6.7$ nm. The grains that were mapped onto black domains in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](a) account for roughly 47% of the completely covered film.
The key result of the quantitative SEM analysis is that the distribution of grains is dominated by small grains, which are reasonably well described by an inverse power-law $1/L^3$, as shown by the red solid line in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b). Notably the majority of grains extracted from the large view SEM image is less than 20 nm, which is consistent with the TEM cross-sections shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b) and (d). The importance of the peculiar inverse power-law will reappear in the analysis of the depinning current of the flux lattice state in Sec. III.B.
Resistivity
-----------
Standard film characterization was performed by transport measurements in the micron-sized wire using four-point probe technique in Physical Property Measurement System (PPMS). Figure \[fig:resistivity\] shows the resistivity data close to the superconducting transition $T_c=13.7\pm 0.2$ K at zero-applied magnetic field $B=0$ T. $T_c$ was determined by the midpoint of the resistive transition, with error bars determined by the temperatures at which the resistance was at the $10\%$ and $90\%$ value of the normal state. The resistivity is in agreement with reports for thicker films in Ref. . The transition is suppressed with the field applied perpendicular to the film. At $B=1$ T and 5 T we observe $T_c(B) = 13.2$ K and $11.2$ K, respectively. From this field dependence we estimate for the slope of the upper critical field at the phase transition, $d B_{c2}/dT=-2.0$ T/K, and derive a zero-temperature coherence length $\xi(0)= \sqrt{-\Phi_0/(2\pi T_c d B_{c2}/d T)}= 3.5$ nm, where $\Phi_0$ is the flux quantum. In addition, in superconductors where the mean-free-path $\ell$ of electrons is shorter than the zero-temperature coherence length $\xi(0)$, i.e., superconductors in the [*dirty*]{} limit, the diffusion constant of electrons can be obtained directly from $D=4 k_B/(\pi e \, d B_{c2}/d T) = 0.55\ \rm{cm^2/s}$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $e$ is the negative electron charge.
We use electronic structure calculations of the electronic dispersion along high-symmetry directions to estimate the Fermi velocity in bulk NbN to be of the order $v_f \approx 100 - 150$ km/s.[@Fong1972; @Klintenberg2012; @Klintenberg; @Ortiz2009] Then from the diffusion coefficient $D=v_f \ell/3 = 0.55\ \rm{cm^2/s}$, we obtain for the mean-free-path $\ell \approx 1.0 - 1.5 \ \rm{nm}< \xi(0)$, which is roughly three to ten times larger than reports for disordered thick films ($d>50$ nm) grown by magnetron sputtering.[@Chand2009] We can perform a consistency check to see whether these values compare reasonably well with a rough estimation from superconducting parameters by employing $v_f \sim \pi\xi_0 \Delta/\hbar$. If we assume $v_f \approx 150$ km/s, the superconducting gap $\Delta \approx 3$ meV,[@Hajenius2004; @Chockalingam2009; @Kamlapure2010] and the relation between the clean and dirty limit coherence length in superconductors [@deGennes] $\xi_0 \simeq 1.4\, \xi(0)^2/\ell$, then for $\xi_0 = 3\xi(0)$ the mean-free-path is $\ell\approx 0.46\, \xi(0)=1.6$ nm. In conclusion, all these estimates are in agreement with each other and our earlier analysis of the film morphology of ENABLE grown NbN films, which points toward a superconductor in the dirty limit.
The inset in Fig. \[fig:resistivity\] shows the temperature dependence of the resistivity $\rho(T)$ up to 300 K for a wire of size $l \, (\text{length})\times w \, (\text{width})\times d \, (\text{thickness})=100\rm{\ \mu m}\times 5\ \mu m\times 11.2\ nm$. We extract a resistivity ratio of RRR=0.83 between room temperature and slightly above $T_c$, which is indicative of charge transport in a *bad metal*, where defect and grain boundary scattering are important. Such a scenario is consistent with a short mean-free-path $\ell \alt \xi_0$ and superconductivity in the dirty regime.
NbN thin films with different thickness grown on sapphire were investigated systematically in Ref. . For films with similar thickness, the $T_c$ of our samples is about $1.5$ K lower, while other quantities such as diffusion constant $D$, electron mean-free-path $\ell$, and zero-field superconducting critical current $j_d(0)$ (see Sec. III B) are similar to those reported in Ref. .
Transport measurements in the flux-flow state
=============================================
In type-II superconductors ($\lambda\gg\xi$) vortices enter the superconductor above the lower critical field $B_{c1}$. Under an applied DC transport current, vortices are driven by the Lorentz force perpendicular to the current, which is balanced by the pinning force in inhomogeneous superconductors as long as the transport current is smaller than the depinning current. In this case, vortices do not order into a vortex lattice state due to pinning at inhomogeneities. Finally, when the transport current exceeds the depinning current, vortices move, resulting in the flux-flow state. In the flux-flow state, the inhomogeneities in the superconductor are quickly averaged out by vortex motion and the lattice order is recovered.[@Koshelev94; @Besseling03]
In our experiments, sample environments at fixed temperature down to 2.3 K were controlled in a Janis flow cryostat in low DC magnetic fields, from 0 to 0.1 T, generated by an electromagnet at room temperature and in a single shot fridge in an Oxford superconducting magnet with a Variable Temperature Insert for fields between 0.1 T and 15 T. The critical current measurements were carried out by means of two different pulsed techniques to avoid damage, self-heating and/or thermal runaway of the samples. We varied pulse duration and duty cycle as a mean of assessing and minimizing the self-heating. In the first method the commercial set of Keithley instruments, Nanovoltmeter Model 2128A and Model 6221 AC/DC Current Source, was used in synchrony to create the characteristic *IV* curves of the superconducting NbN films at fixed magnetic fields and temperatures. In the second method two waveform generators were used to create a periodic signal applied to the sample through a shunt resistor used to record the current. Voltage was measured from the corresponding sample leads, both signals were linearly amplified and stored in a scope. Both pulsed techniques show results in excellent agreement. The dimensions of the NbN film are $l \, (\text{length})\times w \, (\text{width})\times d \, (\text{thickness})=100\rm{\ \mu m}\times 5\ \mu m\times 11.2\ nm$. All $IV$ transport measurements were performed at $T=2.3$ K. For our analysis we use $\xi(0)\approx 3.5\rm{\ nm}$. In addition, from the London penetration depth, $\lambda(0)\approx 410$ nm, reported for films of similar thickness,[@Kamlapure2010] we deduce the Pearl length $\Lambda(0)\equiv 2\lambda^2/d\approx 30\rm{\ \mu m}$ relevant for screening of magnetic flux in thin films. Typical *IV* curves at several magnetic fields are depicted in Fig. \[f1\]. Three different regions can be clearly seen. Below the depinning current $I_d$ vortices are pinned and the superconductor is in the zero-voltage state. Above the depinning current, the vortex lattice moves in the flux-flow state causing dissipation. At a critical current $I_{\rm{LO}}$ (voltage $V_{\rm{LO}}$) an instability occurs and the superconductor switches to the normal state. The dependence of $I_d$ and $I_{\rm{LO}}$ on the external magnetic field is nonlinear, and both decrease with field as $-\ln(B)$ as will be discussed below. As $B\rightarrow 0$, $I_d$ and $I_{\rm{LO}}$ become the same and they are close to the depairing current.
Larkin-Ovchinnikov instability
------------------------------
The jump at $I_{\rm{LO}}$ is due to the instability of the collective motion of the vortex lattice as predicted by Larkin and Ovchinnikov (LO) several decades ago.[@Larkin1975] The instability is related to the quasiparticle relaxation, thus one can extract the inelastic quasiparticle relaxation time in the magnetic field from the instability. The argument for this effect is as follows: as vortices move, an electric field is induced in the normal core of vortices resulting in dissipation. Additionally, the electric field shifts the distribution of quasiparticles and pushes them outside the normal core. As a consequence, the size of the vortex core shrinks $$\label{eq1}
\xi^2(v)=\frac{\xi^2(0)}{1+v^2/v_{\rm{LO}}^2}.$$ where $\xi^2(0)$ is the coherence length at the velocity of vortex $v=0$ and $v_{\rm{LO}}$ is the critical velocity of the instability. Because of the reduction of the size of the vortex core $\xi(v)$ at a velocity $v$, the Bardeen-Stephen viscosity also decreases $$\label{eq2}
\eta^2(v)=\frac{\eta^2(0)}{1+v^2/v_{\rm{LO}}^2}.$$ For a given Lorentz force, the increase of vortex velocity diminishes $\eta(v)$, and hence increases $v$ even further. This positive feedback speeds up the vortex motion and renders the flux-flow state unstable at a critical velocity $$\label{eq3}
v_{\rm{LO}}^2=1.31\frac{D }{\tau} \sqrt{ 1-T/T_c}.$$ where $D=v_f \ell/3$ is the quasiparticle (electron) diffusion constant with Fermi velocity $v_f$. Thus one can determine $\tau$ by measuring the instability velocity of the flux-flow state. The LO instability of the flux-flow state has been observed both in conventional [@Klein1985; @Samoilov1995; @Ruck1997; @Ruck2000; @Armenio2007; @Cirillo2011] and high-$T_c$ cuprate superconductors.[@Doettinger1994; @Doettinger1997]
Typical *IV* curves at several magnetic fields are depicted in Fig. \[f1\]. Above the depinning current $I_d$, vortices move giving rise to the flux-flow state. The resistance in the flux-flow state increases with current because of the shrinkage of the vortex core as a result of the nonequilibrium LO effect. At a critical current (voltage), the system switches to the normal state. The critical velocity $v_{\rm{LO}}$ is given by $v_{\rm{LO}}=V_{\rm{LO}}/(\mu_0 B l)$ with $V_{\rm{LO}}$ the voltage at the end of the flux-flow branch, $B$ the applied magnetic field, and $\mu_0$ the vacuum permeability. At higher field, the transition to the normal state becomes smooth due to the increase of vortex viscosity. We extract $V_{\rm{LO}}$ from the $IV$ characteristics using the criteria that at $V_{\rm{LO}}$ the derivative $d V/dI$ jumps.
The dependence of $v_{\rm{LO}}$ on $B$ is shown in Fig. \[f2\]. It decreases as $1/\sqrt{B}$ for a weak $B$ and then saturates at a constant value. By assuming a uniform distribution of quasiparticles in superconductors, LO predicted that the critical velocity $v_{\rm{LO}}$ is independent on the applied magnetic field, see Eq. (\[eq3\]). The uniform distribution of quasiparticles is realized at high magnetic fields where the inter-vortex distance $a$ is small, such that $v_{\rm{LO}} \tau \gg a$ with $a\approx \sqrt{\Phi_0/{B}}$. In the low magnetic field region, Eq. (\[eq3\]) becomes inapplicable, because the quasiparticle distribution at $v_{\rm{LO}}^*$ given by Eq. (\[eq3\]) is nonuniform and is confined inside the unit cell of the vortex lattice, i.e. $v_{\rm{LO}}^* \tau\ll a$. When the velocity of vortices increases such that quasiparticles are no longer confined in the unit cell of vortex lattice, i.e. the condition $v \tau \gg a$ is fulfilled, the flux-flow instability is triggered [@Doettinger1995]. Therefore $v_{\rm{LO}}\sim a/\tau$ in the low magnetic field region, as shown in Fig. \[f2\]. A magnetic-field independent critical velocity $v_{\rm{LO}}$ in the high-field region indicates that the heating effect due to vortex motion is weak and can be neglected. In the opposite case of large self-heating, it was found theoretically[@Bezuglyj1992] and experimentally [@Kunchur2002; @Peroz2005] that $v_{\rm{LO}}$ decreases as the magnetic field increases, $v_{\rm{LO}}\sim 1/\sqrt{B}$, which is clearly not the case here.
In the next step, we use Eq. (\[eq3\]) to find the inelastic relaxation time for quasiparticles at high fields, as shown in Fig. \[fig:tau\]. The plateau of $\tau\approx 2\ \rm{ns}$ above 8 T is expected for flux-flow dominated by the LO instability at high fields, while the origin of the rise in $\tau$ between 6 T and 8 T is not understood at this time. A similar plateau in the relaxation time of NbN was reported in Ref. . Obviously, for technical applications a shorter relaxation time for excited quasiparticles is preferred in order to achieve a faster response of the NbN SNSPD after the formation of a hot spot. For that reason the authors of Ref. fabricated NbN/ferromagnetic hybrids, where $\tau$ is two orders of magnitude smaller than in conventional NbN film due to the additional scattering channel of quasiparticles by magnetic impurities in the ferromagnetic layer, leading to a faster relaxation of excited nonequilibrium quasiparticles.
The quasiparticle relaxation time at high magnetic fields can be extracted from the LO instability of flux flow. It might be interesting to ask how the relaxation time at high fields extrapolates to the zero field case, where usually the SNSPD is operated. Recently, time-resolved, optical pump-probe measurements on a thin $\rm{Nb_{0.5}Ti_{0.5}N}$ film show that the quasiparticle relaxation time (around 1 ns) depends weakly on the magnetic fields up to $8$ T. [@Zhang2006] Thus one expects that the quasiparticle relaxation time at zero magnetic field has the same order of magnitude as the one extracted from the LO instability at high fields.
The *IV* curves including the LO instability can be described by the following phenomenological equation [@Ruck2000] $$\label{eq4}
I(V)=\frac{V}{R_n}\left[\frac{\alpha(B)}{1+V^2/V_{\rm{LO}}^2}+\frac{\beta(B) (V/V_{\rm{LO}})^{-c}}{1+V^2/V_{\rm{LO}}^2}+1\right] ,$$ where the first term in the bracket accounts for the reduced Bardeen-Stephen viscosity in the nonequilibrium region, the second term accounts for the pinning effect, and the last term is the damping due to the suppression of superconductivity around the vortex core. Here $R_n\approx 2.8\ \rm{k\Omega}$ is the normal-state resistance at $T_c$ and $\alpha$, $\beta$, $c$ are fit parameters that depend on $B$. In the limit $V\ll V_{\rm{LO}}$, we should recover the linear $IV$ curve for $I-I_d=V/R_f$ where $R_f=R_n B/B_{c2}$ is the Bardeen-Stephen flux-flow resistance. By expanding Eq. with respect to $V/V_{\rm{LO}}\ll 1$ and comparing with the linear $IV$ curve, we thus obtain $c=1$ and $\alpha(B)=B_{c2}/B$. Our experimental data can be fitted very well by Eq. (\[eq4\]) as presented in Fig. \[f4\]. The fit parameter $\alpha(B)$ is shown in Fig. \[fa4\], where $\alpha(B)= B_{c2}/B$ as expected for high fields not too close to $B_{c2}$ and from the limit of $V/V_{\rm{LO}} \ll 1$. The other fit parameter is $c\approx 1$. From the fitted curves, an unstable branch of the *IV* curve near the LO instability becomes visible and the system develops hysteresis around the instability region. The hysteretic *IV* curve, due to the LO instability, has also been observed experimentally in Ref. .
Vortex pinning at grain boundaries
----------------------------------
We proceed with the investigation of the depinning transition of vortices. We use the practical criterion that a depinning transition occurs when the measured voltage $V$ is larger than an arbitrary threshold of 1 mV. From that we can obtain the dependence of the depinning current $I_d$ on magnetic field from the *IV* curves. The results are compiled in Fig. \[f5\]. The depinning current $I_d$ depends weakly on $B$ when $B<10$ mT and decreases as $I_d\sim -\ln B$ above. It is worth to note that this logarithmic dependence cannot be explained by the collective pinning theory,[@Blatter94] which predicts $I_d\sim B^{-2}$ for thin films.
It is known from thin-film growth parameters and confirmed by TEM and SEM images that our NbN films exhibit island-like growth resulting in granular morphology. Since superconductivity is suppressed at grain boundaries, they provide a pinning potential for vortices and thus may affect SNSPD detector performance. The pinning due to grain boundaries has also been observed experimentally in high-temperature superconductor $\rm{YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-\delta}}$ films,[@Fedotov2002] where the dependence of $I_d$ on $B$ is similar to that in Fig. \[f5\]. The depinning current density at $B=0$ T of our thin film is $j_d(0)=I_d(0) / (w d) = 7.7$ MA/cm$^2$, which is close to the depairing current density $j_c(0)=c \Phi_0/(12\pi^2 \sqrt{3} \lambda^2\xi(0))\approx 16\ \rm{MA/cm^2}$. Thus the pinning of vortices by grain boundaries can achieve a depinning current that is close to the depairing current.
The depinning current depends crucially on the size distribution of superconducting grains (domains), which can be extracted from the dependence of $I_d$ on $B$. We use a model for collective breakaway of pinned vortices developed by Fedotov *et al.*[@Fedotov2002] For simplicity we further assume square domains in our thin-film NbN. A pinning theory for more general shapes of domains was presented in Ref. and the results are qualitatively similar to those with square domains. One starts with a given probability density distribution $P(L)$ of grains with linear dimension $L$, where the probability density for a vortex inside the square domain of size $L$ is $W(L) = \mathcal{N} L^2 P(L)$ with normalization constant $\mathcal{N}$. The probability for finding a single vortex pinned in a domain is normalized to unity, $\int_0^\infty W(L) dL = 1$.
Not all vortices can sit at the energy minimum of the pinning potential due to the competition between the pining energy and elastic energy of vortex lattice. The resulting vortex configuration is a compromise between these two energies. Assuming a square pinning potential with strength $\epsilon_p={\Phi_0^2 r_c^2}/{(8\pi\lambda\xi_0)^2}$ and using the expression for the elastic energy of vortex lattice $\epsilon_e=\Phi_0 B \delta^2/(8\pi\lambda)^2$, we obtain the maximal displacement for pinned vortex, $\delta(B)=\sqrt{4\pi r_c^2 B_{\text{c2}}/{B}}$, i.e., if the displacement of the vortex from the grain boundary is less than $\delta$, then the vortex remains pinned. Here $r_c\sim\xi_0$ characterizes the strength of pinning potential and $\delta$ is deviation from the perfect lattice. Under these conditions the vortex core gains condensation energy of superconductivity over the elastic deformation energy by staying at the grain boundary. It follows that the probability of a vortex to lie less than a distance $\pm\delta$ away from the grain boundary is approximately equal to the ratio of the area of four strips of width $\xi$ to the total area $L^2$ \[see the inset (b) in Fig. \[f6\]\] $$\begin{aligned}
{P}(L; \delta)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1, & {\rm{if\ }}\ L\leq 2\delta , \\
1-\frac{(L-2\delta)^2}{L^2}, & {\rm{if\ }}\ L>2\delta .
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ For this case it was shown that the depinning current, normalized to its value at $B=0$, is simply the ratio of pinned vortices $n_p$ to the total number of vortices $n_{tot}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Id}
\frac{I_d(B)}{I_d(0)} &=& \frac{n_p}{n_{tot}} = \int_0^\infty W(L) {P}(L; \delta) dL
\nonumber \\
&=& 1- \mathcal{N} \int_{2\delta }^{\infty } P(L) (L-2\delta )^2 dL . \end{aligned}$$ Here the magnetic field enters only through the vortex displacement $\delta(B)$.
Since a weak magnetic field corresponds to soft elastic shear stiffness of the vortex lattice, i.e., $\delta \sim \sqrt{\Phi_0/4B}$, low-field measurements probe primarily large domains, i.e. $L\gg \sqrt{\Phi_0/4B}$. From the measured $I_d$ as a function $B$, we can obtain the distribution function from Eq. (\[eq:Id\]) by taking the third derivative with respect to $y=2\delta$ to attain $$\label{eq:dis}
P(y)= \frac{1}{2 \mathcal{N} I_d(0)}\frac{d^3 I_d(y)}{dy^3}.$$ The resulting $P(y)$ is just the distribution function of the grain sizes $y$. To get rid of the small oscillations in Fig. \[f5\], we first smooth the experimental data and then use Eq. (\[eq:dis\]). The smoothed curves (not shown) are very close to the lines in Fig. \[f5\]. The resulting distribution function is shown in Fig. \[f6\], which is in reasonable agreement with the experimental one shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. The probability distribution in Fig. \[f6\] for small grains is much larger than that for larger grains. The distribution function for small grains follows $1/L^3$, while for large grains, it follows an exponential distribution. Since the smallest length scale for vortex is of order of $\xi$, we cannot resolve the distribution for grain sizes smaller than $\xi$ from the measurements in the flux-flow state. Finally we confirm the agreement between the measured and calculated critical current by inserting the extracted distribution of Fig. \[f6\] back into Eq. (\[eq:Id\]), as shown in Fig. \[f5\].
Summary
=======
In summary, we characterized the quality and uniformity of ENABLE-grown thin-film NbN superconductors for potential SNSPD applications. From transport measurements we derived superconducting material parameters $T_c=13.7$ K, $\xi(0)=3.5$ nm, and depinning current density $j_d(0)=7.7$ MA/cm$^2$. In addition, we determined that our thin films of thickness $d=11.2$ nm are in the dirty limit with the mean-free-path much shorter than the coherence length of the hypothetically clean superconductor, $\ell\approx 0.15 \xi_0$. This length scale was further corroborated by the distribution of grain sizes extracted from the analysis of SEM and TEM images and the field-dependence of depinning currents. The presented vortex theory successfully explained the collective vortex lattice motion in the flux-flow state with the Larkin-Ovchinnikov instability in the $IV$ characteristics at high bias currents, as well as the depinning current $I_d$ at low bias currents. The detailed analysis of the Larkin-Ovchinnikov instability revealed a relatively long inelastic quasiparticle relaxation lifetime of order $\sim 2$ ns, which might provide the bottleneck for the hot spot relaxation in NbN-based SNSPD devices. Finally, from the nondestructive measurement of the depinning current with magnetic fields, we extracted the characteristic domain size distribution of grains, which resulted in comparable values to the independent, yet destructive, analysis using TEM techniques. While the prevalence of grain boundaries in thin-film NbN superconductors crucially affects transport properties like critical currents, their potential for vortex pinning at low bias currents is negligible for SNSPD applications, which are typically biased close to the critical current. This study has shown the potential use of field-dependent measurements of the depinning current in micron-sized wires for determining the grain size distribution in thin-film superconductors. The advantage of a nondestructive characterization method of the uniformity of thin superconducting films may prove beneficial for the pre-screening of films for further nano-patterning.
Acknowledgement
===============
This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. DOE contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396 through the LDRD program at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, an Office of Science User Facility operated for the U.S. DOE, and the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which is jointly supported by the U.S. DOE, NSF, and the State of Florida.
[64]{}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 [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10..1063/1.3600793) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.174510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10909-011-0424-3) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s10909-012-0495-9) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.86.140506) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/nl302245n) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.79.100509) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3691944) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.174510) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0957-4484/23/6/065501) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4759046) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.52.581) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.14.4854) [**](http://imagej.nih.gov/ij) (, , ) [**](http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/docs/guide) (, , ) [**](http://www.dunesciences.com/files/Particle_Size_Analysis_SOP.pdf) (, ) [ ****, ()](\doibase 10.1116/1.3581870) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/pssc.201001168) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2166485) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [**](http://cint.lanl.gov/viz_at_cint.shtml) (, ) [**](http://gurka.fysik.uu.se/esp) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.79.094509) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) Chap. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.054510) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.2355034) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.147.295) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Nowadays, deep learning technology is growing faster and shows dramatic performance in computer vision. However, it turns out that the deep learning model is highly vulnerable to small perturbation called an *adversarial attack*. So far, although many of the *defense mechanism* has been proposed to mitigate the effect of the adversarial attack, all of them are under rigorous assumptions. However, our approach is not tied up any assumptions since our insight stems from the *Tensor Decomposition*. In this paper, we experimentally demonstrated that decomposing the tensor would be an effective countermeasure against several adversarial attacks. We conducted experiments with well-known benchmarks such as MNIST, CIFAR-10, and ImageNet dataset. Our experimental results show that this simple method has capable of having attack resilience and robustness against adversarial attacks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach to leverage the tensor decomposition as a defense mechanism. We hope that leveraging the tensor decomposition becomes a universal approach to solve inherent corner cases of deep learning models.'
author:
- 'Seungju Cho, Tae Joon Jun, Mingu Kang, Daeyoung Kim'
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Applying Tensor Decomposition for the Robustness against Adversarial Attack
---
Introduction
============
Over the past several years, advances in deep neural networks (DNNs) have widely expanded the ability of what the machine can deal with. Especially, DNNs have achieved remarkable successes for image classification [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @sermanet2013overfeat] and it even goes beyond human capability [@he2016deep]. With this performance, deep learning technology has started to be applied to various areas. However, some papers [@szegedy2013intriguing; @goodfellow2014explaining; @carlini2017towards; @kurakin2016adversarial; @kurakin2016adversarial_scale; @moosavi2016deepfool; @Eykholt_2018_CVPR; @Chen2017EADEA] proved that even DNNs can be easily fooled by small changes to input that is imperceptible to a human eye. According to these studies, carefully crafted perturbations to the vision-based applications can induce systems to behave in unexpected ways. Indeed, this is small enough to be inconspicuous, but some researches show that its influence might be more than expected since even state-of-the-art models get an almost zero-classification accuracy under [@carlini2017towards].
Considering the deep learning models do not hesitate whenever judge the output, it might cause crucial accidents. For instance, Fig. \[fig:AdvExample\] represents the adversarial examples in the image classification task. Although all of the images can be seen as an ostrich by human visible intuition, deep learning model outputs clearly different labels due to lack of such intuition. From a more theoretical perspective, misclassification occurs when the adversarial perturbations cross the decision boundary, but the existing classifier has no such intuition that can ward it off. Now, the corner case of DNNs which have been alluded to adversarial attacks is getting pervasive and being more sophisticated. As a result, the vulnerability of adversarial attacks hinders its adoption for some safety-critical system and also security-sensitive application, including an autonomous-driving car [@Eykholt_2018_CVPR; @sitawarin2018darts].
Since the advent of such adversarial attacks, many researchers or vendors have paid significant attention to adversarial examples. This is because they might not want to go through all the risks of their applications or models. They might as well choose to verify the robustness rather than take risks. However, the resistance against adversarial examples renders another challenge, for no method can be a cure-all against adversarial attacks. To make up for corner cases of DNNs, several studies [@goodfellow2014explaining; @szegedy2013intriguing; @meng2017magnet; @papernot2016distillation; @song2017pixeldefend; @jia2019comdefend; @Liao_2018_CVPR; @xie2019feature] have proposed the defense mechanism against adversarial attacks to mitigate the potential of the risk by adversary. These defense mechanisms can be viewed as two main approaches: (1) changing the model itself, which can improve the robustness by training with adversarial examples, e.g., *adversarial training* [@goodfellow2014explaining; @szegedy2013intriguing; @tramer2017ensemble], (2) preprocessing the inputs to diminish the effect of adversarial noise, e.g., *Magnet, Comdefend, PixelDefend, Defense-GAN, HGD, etc.* [@meng2017magnet; @jia2019comdefend; @song2017pixeldefend; @samangouei2018defense; @Liao_2018_CVPR; @xie2019feature]. However, (1) are designed to deal with specific adversarial attack strategies in mind, so generalization is likely to be restricted. It implies that the models using this method may be vulnerable to another attack optimized with such attack strategies. On the other hand, (2) utilize models with a vast amount of legitimate data to purify the inputs itself, instead of assuming some attack strategies. The main point of (2) is to measure the distance between the inputs and manifold of the legitimate images, and then approximate or guide the adversarial images closer to the manifold of the legitimate images. To purify the inputs, therefore, a well-generalized model should be required to assure the performance. Given that the adversarial images occupy the low probability region trained with legitimate samples [@song2017pixeldefend], poorly generalized models cannot ensure that the aforementioned approaches get a good result. Also, another attack technique might be created by an adversary who knows the model’s structure. In a nutshell, as these approaches are likely to be a temporary expedient, the universal defense approaches which can cover a myriad of risk should be explored. Here, we propose a novel intuition for deep learning models, which can make the model universally robust. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach to explore the defense in terms of the universal point of view. Our approach leverages the potential power of the tensor decomposition to diminish the effect of adversarial noise by using the reconstructed images as an input of a deep learning model. The reconstructed inputs are fed into the classifier, and we experimentally demonstrate that such simple preprocessing could be an effective countermeasure against the adversarial attack. On MNIST, a degradation of top-1 accuracy on adversarial example is less than 1% against four adversarial attacks and less than 10 % on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet. This result outperforms recent defense mechanisms [@Liao_2018_CVPR; @jia2019comdefend]. To ensure that deep learning applications extend their potential of utilization toward other domains, it would be better to take into account the robustness of those applications. If you want to avoid cherry-picking doubt and make the model more general across a variety of risks including adversarial attacks, our insight would be an interesting candidate. Our contribution is as follows:
1. **High Compatibility.** Our approach leverages the tensor decomposition for preprocessing the inputs which might have been affected by the adversary. We do not assume anything such as attack strategies or classifiers, just use an input as a reconstructed input by using the tensor decomposition method, which indicates that our proposed method can be relatively easy to utilize and be applied to whatever the classifier is.
2. **Efficient Engineering Complexity.** As we mentioned above, tensor decomposition just depends on what the input it is, so it is not tied up with the attack strategies or classifiers. Therefore, we do not need to focus on how the model classifies the input since tensor decomposition is free from the model dependency. It implies that retraining the model or augmenting the training data could no longer be required. It requires only processing time to reconstruct inputs. Even more, the processing time is negligible.
3. **Integrity of the inputs.** When it comes to the reconstruction process, some information that in charge of the important role might be lost. Although state-of-the-art approaches [@Liao_2018_CVPR; @jia2019comdefend] have gotten remarkable performance, their proposed model degrades the performance with even the clean images. This is some kind of a trade-off. It thus makes it difficult to apply defense mechanisms. However, tensor decomposition could incur less adverse effects on the clean images, and ensure its performance even at the high-dimension dataset such as ImageNet.
Related work
============
#### **Adversarial Attacks.**
Szegedy *et al.* found the existence of adversarial perturbation that breaks the image classifier thorough solving adversarial optimization problem [@szegedy2013intriguing; @goodfellow2014explaining]. They show the model accuracy is dropped even though the perturbed image looks similar to human eyes. Goodfellow *et al.* [@goodfellow2014explaining] uses the sign of the gradient of input with respect to the loss function of the target model. This method is called Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) since it updates input once. With a similar idea, [@kurakin2016adversarial] uses FGSM in an iterative way. Chen *et al.* [@Chen2017EADEA] leverages $L_{1}$ distortion to generate effective adversarial examples and improve the attack transferability which refers to the attack success rate using the adversarial examples which come from the substitute models. In other words, high transferability implies that the performance of the target model might depreciate even without the knowledge about the model, i.e., *black box attack*. Carlini and Wagner [@carlini2017towards] changes the optimization problem defined in [@szegedy2013intriguing] for achieving more powerful attack. [@moosavi2016deepfool] measures the minimum size required for the attack. They approximate the decision boundary of the model and update input repeatably until the model misclassifies it. Besides the image classification task, [@Eykholt_2018_CVPR; @sitawarin2018darts] demonstrated that adversarial attacks can be applied beyond the digital space, so security concerns could arise in even physical space such as the autonomous-driving car.
#### **Adversarial Defense.**
To counter adversarial attacks, some works trained the model with adversarial examples to ensure that the model has a resilience against those adversarial examples, which have been called *adversarial training*. During the process of training, they generate adversarial images for improving the performance. Although it works, it depends on the particular adversarial data used in the training process. For instance, [@kurakin2016adversarial_scale] shows their approach is robust in the simple attack, but not in a more sophisticated attack. In addition, it has an engineering penalty since it requires retraining the model. If it takes longer to create an adversarial example, it will take more time to retrain the model. Instead of using the data augmentation, methods to change the model itself were also proposed [@papernot2016distillation]. They change the objective function of the problem for obtaining the robustness. However, this approach also has to retrain the model, so it also boils down to increasing the engineering complexity.
In recent years, several papers [@meng2017magnet; @jia2019comdefend; @song2017pixeldefend; @Liao_2018_CVPR; @xie2019feature; @samangouei2018defense] preprocess the inputs before putting into the classifier. They propose the model which serves the direction to approximate the distribution of the adversarial images as close as possible to the decision boundary. All of the methods require a well-generalized defense model, so the even clean images could be affected when the model is poorly generalized. It results in damage to the integrity of the inputs. To guarantee the integrity of the model, all of them require well-generalized classifiers to detect if the input is adversarial or approximate the manifold of legitimate samples. Our approach is similar to those approaches in terms of the preprocessing, yet differentiation is our method does not need any premises, including the detector or well-generalized models. Consequently, our method does not hurt the performance in terms of integrity.
Background
==========
Adversarial Attack
------------------
Basically, all of the attacks use the gradient of data with respect to the loss function of the target model. In this section, we briefly review the basic method of adversarial attack.
**Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM):** The *FGSM* is proposed by [@goodfellow2014explaining]. It is a simple and effective attack method. The image $X$ is perturbed as follows. $$X = X + \epsilon \cdot | sign(\triangledown_{X} l(X,y_{true})) |$$ Where $\epsilon$ is a magnitude of noise and $l(X,y_{true})$ is a loss with respect to the true label of the image. It adjusts input X by adding a sign of the gradient of X. It increases the loss function of the target model so that the model misjudges the adjusted input. Since it updates input X once, it is also called *single-step* method.
**Basic Iterative Method (BIM):** The *BIM* is a repetitive version of FGSM [@kurakin2016adversarial]. it is a more powerful attack method compared to the FGSM. And it is also called *Iterative FGSM*. It uses the following equations: $$X_{t+1} = \text{clip}_{X,\epsilon}(X_{t} + \alpha \cdot | sign(\triangledown_{X} l(X_{t},y_{true})) |)$$ Where $X_{0} = X$, $\alpha$ is a step size for adjusting $X_t$ , and clip function ensures that $X_t \in (X-\epsilon,X+\epsilon )$ for all $t$. It is also called *multi-step* method. Here $\alpha$ is the $1$ in the scale of 0 to 255 in the original paper.
**DeepFool:** DeepFool attack approximates the decision boundary of a classifier, and measure the minimal perturbations that are sufficient to fool the classifier [@moosavi2016deepfool]. For the affine multiclass classifier, they calculate the distance $d$ as follows. $$d = \frac{|f_k(x) - f_l(x)|}{w'} ~ \text{where}~ w' = \|\nabla f_k(x) - \nabla f_l(x) \|_2$$ Here $f_k$ and $f_l$ are classifier for $k$ and $l$-th class. Similar to BIM, they update $x$ in an iterative way. For nonlinear classifiers, they approximate the linear boundary and find the distance to fool the nonlinear classifier.
**Carlini & Wagner (C&W):** Carlini and Wagner [@carlini2017towards] define an optimizaion problem to find an adversarial example. They define following optimizaion formulation. $$\text{min}_{\delta} ~ D(x,x+\delta) + c \cdot f(x+\delta)$$
Here $D$ is a distance metric to measure the distance between the clean image and adversarial image. $f(\cdot)$ is an objective function to control the result of original classifier $C$. C&W attack is one of the most powerful attacks in this literature. We visualize the adversarial image generated by each method in Fig. \[fig:advs\]
[0.19]{} ![Visualization of adversarial examples on each method. The pre-trained Resnet101 [@he2016deep] model classifies clean image as a *monarch*, image with FGSM as a *sea slug*, image with BIM as a *Doberman*, image with DeepFool as a *hornbill* and image with C&W as a *longicorn*. However, we can check that theses images seem to the same in the human eye[]{data-label="fig:advs"}](Images/clean.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.19]{} ![Visualization of adversarial examples on each method. The pre-trained Resnet101 [@he2016deep] model classifies clean image as a *monarch*, image with FGSM as a *sea slug*, image with BIM as a *Doberman*, image with DeepFool as a *hornbill* and image with C&W as a *longicorn*. However, we can check that theses images seem to the same in the human eye[]{data-label="fig:advs"}](Images/FGSM.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.19]{} ![Visualization of adversarial examples on each method. The pre-trained Resnet101 [@he2016deep] model classifies clean image as a *monarch*, image with FGSM as a *sea slug*, image with BIM as a *Doberman*, image with DeepFool as a *hornbill* and image with C&W as a *longicorn*. However, we can check that theses images seem to the same in the human eye[]{data-label="fig:advs"}](Images/bim.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.19]{} ![Visualization of adversarial examples on each method. The pre-trained Resnet101 [@he2016deep] model classifies clean image as a *monarch*, image with FGSM as a *sea slug*, image with BIM as a *Doberman*, image with DeepFool as a *hornbill* and image with C&W as a *longicorn*. However, we can check that theses images seem to the same in the human eye[]{data-label="fig:advs"}](Images/deepfool.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.19]{} ![Visualization of adversarial examples on each method. The pre-trained Resnet101 [@he2016deep] model classifies clean image as a *monarch*, image with FGSM as a *sea slug*, image with BIM as a *Doberman*, image with DeepFool as a *hornbill* and image with C&W as a *longicorn*. However, we can check that theses images seem to the same in the human eye[]{data-label="fig:advs"}](Images/carlini.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Tensor Decomposition
--------------------
A *tensor* is a multi-dimensional array. For instance, the color image is a tensor consists of height, width, and the color channel. A tensor decomposition method decomposes a tensor into low dimension tensors. The *CANDECOMP/PARAFC* [@carroll1970analysis; @harshman1970foundations] decomposition approximates a tensor $X$ as a sum of the outer product of the tensor belonging to each dimension as Fig. \[fig:cp\]. We refer to this as a *CP* decomposition.
Let $X \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times J \times K}$, $a_i \in \mathbb{R}^{I}, b_i \in \mathbb{R}^{J} \ \text{and}\ c_i \in \mathbb{R}^{K}$ for $i = 1,\dots,r$. Here $r$ is the number of components and it is a hyperparameter. If $r$ is small, tensor$X$ is approximated into low dimension tensor. So we call deciding $r$ as choosing the dimension for convenience. Then $x_{ijk}$ is approximated as follows. $$x_{ijk} \approx \sum_{l = 1}^{r} a_{il}b_{jl}c_{kl}$$
The *Tucker* decomposition [@tucker1963implications; @tucker1966some] is another way to decompose a tensor. It is a kind of higher order principal component analysis [@kolda2009tensor]. It decomposes tensor as a core tensor and factor tensors as Fig. \[fig:tucker\].
Let $X \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times J \times K}$, $A \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times P}, B \in \mathbb{R}^{J \times Q} , C \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times R} \text{and} \ G \in \mathbb{R}^{P \times Q \times R} $ for $i = 1,\dots,I, j = 1,\dots,J,k = 1,\dots,K$. Here the size of the core tensor $P,Q$ and $R$ are the number of the components and it is hyperparameter. When the size of the core tensor is fixed, the size of the factor tensor is decided according to the size of the core tensor. Similar to the number of the components of *CP* decomposition, we call deciding the size of the core tensor as a choosing the dimension. Then $x_{ijk}$ is approximated as follows.
$$x_{ijk} \approx \sum_{p = 1}^{P}\sum_{q = 1}^{Q}\sum_{r = 1}^{R} g_{pqr}a_{ip}b_{jq}c_{kr}$$
Method
======
To mitigate the effect of the adversarial attacks, our insight stems from the tensor decomposition. In this section, all the paragraphs that describe revolve around how we can apply this magic, i.e., tensor decomposition, as a defense mechanism against the adversarial attacks.
Tensor decomposition as a preprocessing
---------------------------------------
As you can see in Fig. \[fig:advs\], adversarial examples are too sophisticated to be recognized by human senses, including well-generalized deep learning models. To prevent the potential threat, our model simply uses the reconstructed image from the tensor decomposition as an input. We conjecture that the effect of the adversarial perturbations could be reduced by approximating the tensors toward the low dimension. To cast light on our hypothesis, we conduct brief experiments based on the visual sense. Fig. \[fig:noise\] represents the examples of the noise. Intuitively, adversarial noise crafted by the FGSM seems to distinguishable from others, while the rest of them are relatively similar to each other. In other words, the tensor decomposition can transform adversarial noise into random noise, e.g., gaussian noise. We can say that the tensor decomposition has an ability to purify the adversarial noise in this regard. Even though such random noise might also degrade the performance, it would be no worse than original adversarial noise considering they are crafted by adversarial intend.
[0.24]{} ![Visualization of example noises. (a) is the adversarial noise crafted by FGSM. (b) is the gaussian noise, (c),(d) are reconstructed images by using *Tucker*, *CP* decomposition respectively[]{data-label="fig:noise"}](Images/adv_noise.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.24]{} ![Visualization of example noises. (a) is the adversarial noise crafted by FGSM. (b) is the gaussian noise, (c),(d) are reconstructed images by using *Tucker*, *CP* decomposition respectively[]{data-label="fig:noise"}](Images/gaussian.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.24]{} ![Visualization of example noises. (a) is the adversarial noise crafted by FGSM. (b) is the gaussian noise, (c),(d) are reconstructed images by using *Tucker*, *CP* decomposition respectively[]{data-label="fig:noise"}](Images/cp_noise.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.24]{} ![Visualization of example noises. (a) is the adversarial noise crafted by FGSM. (b) is the gaussian noise, (c),(d) are reconstructed images by using *Tucker*, *CP* decomposition respectively[]{data-label="fig:noise"}](Images/tucker.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
![We show a change of reconstructed images using *CP* and *Tucker* decomposition by varying the value of the dimension (The value is getting higher order by left $\rightarrow$ right)[]{data-label="fig:gradation"}](Images/cp_gradation.png){width="\textwidth"}
![We show a change of reconstructed images using *CP* and *Tucker* decomposition by varying the value of the dimension (The value is getting higher order by left $\rightarrow$ right)[]{data-label="fig:gradation"}](Images/tucker_gradation.png){width="\textwidth"}
Based on this light, we utilize *CP* and *Tucker* decomposition methods to verify how effective these methods actually are under various attack strategies. Before the main experiments, both methods require to set the dimension, e.g., $r$ for the *CP* and $P,Q$, $R$ for the *Tucker*. As the dimension of the tensor increases, the quality of the reconstructed image gets better as shown in Fig. \[fig:gradation\]. The high quality of the reconstructed image is not always better, however, so the dimension needs to be decided in a heuristic manner. We thus studied the ablation study to find out the effective hyperparameters under *CP* and *Tucker* and consider two kinds of factors to decide the hyperparameters, accuracy and time complexity. We randomly sampled 1,000 images from CIFAR-10, and then generate the adversarial images by applying FGSM, BIM, DeepFool, and C&W, respectively. As follow, those images are reconstructed by *CP* and *Tucker* decomposition. Finally, we measured the accuracy and time complexity using the reconstructed images.
[0.48]{} ![ (a) Accuracy with respect to dimension (b) Mean time for processing single image with respect to dimension[]{data-label="fig:graph"}](Images/accuracy.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.48]{} ![ (a) Accuracy with respect to dimension (b) Mean time for processing single image with respect to dimension[]{data-label="fig:graph"}](Images/time.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
The result summarized in Fig. \[fig:graph\]. While accuracy increased as dimensions increased by the middle, accuracy tends to decrease gradually. And the processing time increases as dimension increases. So we decide to use 40 % of the original dimension. For instance, the size of the image is 32 by 32 in the CIFAR-10 dataset. In the case of *CP* decomposition, the size of the three tensors in Fig. \[fig:cp\] will be 32,32 and 3. So we choose rank $r = 8$. We use a similar argument when choosing the size of the core tensor of *Tucker* decomposition. In particular, we don’t compress the channel dimension $3$ in *Tucker* decomposition since we don’t want to lose color information. Thus, the size of the core tensor of the *Tucker* decomposition is in the form of height, width and $3$. We use an open-source library [@kossaifi2019tensorly] for each decomposition method.
Denoise Autoencoder as a supplement
-----------------------------------
We should consider one more thing before putting the input value into the classifier. When it comes to reconstructing the images, we should consider the loss of information as it might affect the classification result. If the input is clean images, it would work even worse. To diminish the adverse effect from that point, we add denoise autoencoder into the procedure. Our method is based on a coarse-to-fine approach. Through the reconstructed inputs from decomposed tensors, we remove the coarse-grained adversarial features. We expect that some fine-grained features that might be lost by the coarse-grained approach—which is more likely to occur in high-dimension, could be compensated pass through the denoise autoencoder. Equipped with this approach, we set up the denoise autoencoder architecture as follows. The numerical value in Table \[table:autoencoder\] stands for input channel and output channel respectively. And the filter size is $3 \times 3$.
---------- ---- ---- ---------- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MNIST CIFAR
Conv,ELU 1 2 Conv,ELU 3 6
Conv,ELU 2 4 Conv,ELU 6 12
Conv,ELU 4 8 Conv,ELU 12 24
Conv,ELU 8 16 Conv,ELU 24 48
Conv,ELU 16 32 Conv,ELU 48 96
Conv,ELU 32 16 Conv,ELU 96 48
Conv,ELU 16 8 Conv,ELU 48 24
Conv,ELU 8 4 Conv,ELU 24 12
Conv,ELU 4 2 Conv,ELU 12 6
Conv,ELU 2 1 Conv,ELU 6 3
---------- ---- ---- ---------- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Architecture of autoencoder trained with each dataset[]{data-label="table:autoencoder"}
We utilize the CIFAR-10 images at the RGB scale and MNIST image at the grayscale. We set the learning rate to $1e-4$ and used Adam [@kingma2014adam] as an optimizer. And we use mean square error (MSE) for loss function. For both models, we train autoencoder for 10 epochs. We henceforth denote autoencoder as *AE*.
Overall architecture
--------------------
We describe the overall architecture in detail. Fig. \[fig:architecture\] represents the overall flow of our proposed method. First, we approximate the input image via the tensor decomposition method. The inputs could be adversarial images or clean images. Our method does not spend time deciding whether the input is adversarial or not. That’s the reason why our model does not require a well-generalized model. In other words, whatever the input is, our model splits the input into several tensors based on *CP* or *Tucker* decomposition, and then reconstruct them. As follows, the reconstructed images are passed through the denoise autoencoder, which might compensate for losing the information that may in charge of an important role in that image. Note that our method does not have a model dependency, so it can be applied in conjunction with every classifier.
Experiment
==========
Dataset
-------
For the MNIST, CIFAR-10 data, we test on the full test data, which are composed of 10,000 images on MNIST and 50,000 images on CIFAR-10. For ImageNet, we select randomly 1,000 images as similar setting [@jia2019comdefend; @kurakin2018adversarial]. Since our proposed method decomposes the input whichever clean image or adversarial image, we tested on both clean images and adversarial images.
Evaluation
----------
We measure the top-1 accuracy on clean images and adversarial images on each dataset. For MNIST, we use a simple model consists of two convolutional layers. For CIFAR-10 and ImageNet, we basically use pre-trained Resnet101 [@he2016deep]. In particular, for CIFAR-10, we finetune pre-trained Resnet101 for 10 classes. We use FGSM, BIM, DeepFool and C&W attack methods. For the distance metric, a related research area mainly uses $L_{\infty}$ and $L_2$ norm [@carrara2018adversarial; @jia2019comdefend]. In detail, we use $L_{\infty}$ for FGSM, BIM, and DeepFool attack. And for the C&W attack, we use a $L_2$ metric. We try to find small perturbation when applying the adversarial attack since the noise is visible when the perturbation is not small enough. We generate adversarial images by using open source library Foolbox [@rauber2017foolbox]. In detail, we try 100 epsilons from 0 to 1 for FGSM. For BIM, we set 5 as a number of iteration. And for DeepFool, we set 50 as a maximum number of steps and set 50 as a maximum iteration number of C&W. And we measure the pre-processing time for calculating the additional time consuming for the proposed method. Also, we compare our results to other state-of-the-art defense models. For a fair comparison, we compare the ratio between the accuracy of the clean image and the adversarial image since the accuracy of a clean image is a little bit different depending on the setting.
Results
-------
We achieve remarkably high accuracy against adversarial attacks. In most cases, the *CP* is better than *Tucker* decomposition method. In some case of ImageNet dataset, *Tucker* decomposition method is better than *CP*. For instance, when attack with FGSM and C&W method, the result was the best by using *Tucker* decomposition. And in the case of clean images, the accuracy reduction was about 1% on all datasets. It means that we do not harm the original model in a normal case which is the input image is clean. The autoencoder is highly effective on MNIST dataset. Although the autoencoder does not have much effect on clean images, it improves the performance of various adversarial attacks on MNIST dataset. In addition to MNIST dataset, there have been small performance improvements for other datasets by using the denoise autoencoder. The numerical results are summarized in Table \[table:MNIST\], \[table:CIFAR\] and \[table:Imagenet\].
------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- -------
Model Method Clean FGSM BIM DeepFool C&W
Original 99.06 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00
CP 99.01 71.62 95.42 81.68 88.29
CP+AE 98.64 96.15 98.88 98.83 98.6
Tucker 99.06 71.95 91.81 79.32 84.52
Tucker+AE 98.06 95.26 98.65 98.54 98.05
------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- -------
: Top-1 accuracy of each method on MNIST dataset[]{data-label="table:MNIST"}
------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- -------
Model Method Clean FGSM BIM DeepFool C&W
Original 98.87 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CP 97.96 92.52 92.49 94.67 93.63
CP+AE 98.11 92.88 93.21 94.93 94
Tucker 95.99 87.74 87.68 90.73 90.57
Tucker+AE 96.00 88.44 88.56 91.28 91.2
------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- -------
: Top-1 accuracy of each method on CIFAR-10 dataset[]{data-label="table:CIFAR"}
------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- ------
Model Method Clean FGSM BIM DeepFool C&W
Original 77.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CP 76.3 61.2 75.4 75.7 61.2
CP+AE 74.8 62.9 75.00 75.5 62.1
Tucker 76.4 65.00 73.4 73.8 65.3
Tucker+AE 74.7 65.6 73.7 74.7 66
------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- ------
: Top-1 accuracy of each method on ImageNet dataset[]{data-label="table:Imagenet"}
Even the DeepFool and C&W attacks are more accurate and powerful attack compared to the FGSM and BIM attacks, the accuracy after decomposition is higher than the case of FGSM and BIM attacks.
Comparison with other defense methods
-------------------------------------
We measure the ratio of accuracy on clean images and adversarial images generated by FGSM, BIM, DeepFool and C&W attack for a fair comparison. Here the $L_{\infty}$ is restricted to $8$ in $255$ scale. The defense ratio is defined as follows. $$\textit{Defense ratio} = \frac{\textit{Top-1 accuracy on adversarial images}}{\textit{Top-1 accuracy on clean images}}$$ We compare the performance of recent defense methods, HGD [@Liao_2018_CVPR] and Comdefend [@jia2019comdefend]. Fig. \[fig:bar\] shows the results. We select Resnet101 [@he2016deep] and Inception V3 (IncV3) [@szegedy2016rethinking] as base model. And we tested on 1,000 images from the ImageNet data. Our methods outperform in all cases compared to two recent defense methods. This result verifies that our method is effective. Moreover, our method does not depend on attack methods and the target model classifier, thus it can be easily combined with every model.
[0.48]{} ![ (a) Defense ratio of each attack method on Resnet101 (b) Defense ratio of each attack method on IncV3. Note that our method outperforms other defense methods[]{data-label="fig:bar"}](Images/bar_1.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.48]{} ![ (a) Defense ratio of each attack method on Resnet101 (b) Defense ratio of each attack method on IncV3. Note that our method outperforms other defense methods[]{data-label="fig:bar"}](Images/bar_2.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Time analysis
-------------
We measure the preprocessing time of each method. We pick randomly 1,000 images in MNIST,CIFAR-10, and ImageNet. And we calculate the average processing time per image. In most case, the *CP* decomposition requires more time compared to *Tucker* decomposition. In the case of MNIST and CIFAR-10, the time required to reconstruction is similar in both cases. However, In the case of ImageNet, the *CP* decomposition takes about 10 times more than the *Tucker* method. Table \[table:time\] summarizes preprocessing time of each dataset on each method.
[\*5c]{} dataset&CP&CP+AE&Tucker&Tucker + AE\
MNIST & 0.005 & 0.006 & 0.003 & 0.004\
CIFAR-10 & 0.1052 & 0.1161 & 0.01268 & 0.015\
ImageNet & 1.07 & 1.18 & 0.1566 & 0.17\
White box scenario
------------------
In the white box scenario, we should assume the adversary knows full defense mechanism according to [@carlini2017adversarial]. In our method, note that the input image is always decomposed and reconstructed, and the decomposed components are always started from the random tensor. In detail, the component tensors of each decomposition method initialized to random tensor and then trained to approximate the original tensor. Thus, the input is always random tensor and the original image is a label itself like unsupervised learning. Therefore, there are no fixed weights, so the adversary can not generate adversarial examples concerning the tensor decomposition method. Hence, our propose method is robust on the white box attack scenario.
Conclusions
===========
In this work, we verify the tensor decomposition is a simple and powerful method for purifying the adversarial perturbation. When we combine denoise autoencoder with the tensor decomposition method, the proposed method achieves higher accuracy against adversarial attacks. We experiment with our method against various adversarial attacks such as DeepFool and C&W attacks and discuss why this method is robust in the white box scenario.
Our intuition applying tensor decomposition into the adversarial attack is as follows. Since the adversarial perturbation is so small that it is hard to catch a difference, such a small perturbation would be removed by approximating the image tensor using low dimensional tensors. Since there is no straightforward algorithm to choose the dimension of the component tensors of the *CP* and *Tucker* decomposition, finding the best dimension remains for future work. Also, establishing a theoretical base why tensor decomposition is robust against adversarial attack is left to our future work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of all possible quantum states. We study the convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$ with attention focused on the lattice theoretical structure of these convex subsets and, as a result, find a framework capable of unifying several aspects of quantum mechanics, including entanglement and Jaynes’ Max-Ent principle. We also encounter links with entanglement witnesses, which leads to a new separability criteria expressed in lattice language. We also provide an extension of a separability criteria based on convex polytopes to the infinite dimensional case and show that it reveals interesting facets concerning the geometrical structure of the convex subsets. It is seen that the above mentioned framework is also capable of generalization to any statistical theory via the so-called convex operational models’ approach. In particular, we show how to extend the geometrical structure underlying entanglement to any statistical model, an extension which may be useful for studying correlations in different generalizations of quantum mechanics.'
author:
- '[Federico Holik]{}$^{1}$ [,]{} [César Massri]{}$^{2}$ [ ,]{} [Leandro Zuberman]{}$^{1}$ [ ,]{} [A. Plastino]{}$^{1,\,3,\,4}$'
bibliography:
- 'pom.bib'
title: On the lattice structure of probability spaces in quantum mechanics
---
\[section\] \[theo\][Definition]{} \[theo\][Lemma]{} \[theo\][Proposition]{} \[theo\][Corollary]{} \[theo\][Example]{} \[theo\][Remark]{} \[theo\][Example]{} \[theo\][Principle]{}
\[theo\][Axiom]{}
1- Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Instituto de Física (IFLP-CCT-CONICET), C.C. 727, 1900 La Plata, Argentina\
2- Departamento de Matemática - Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales\
Universidad de Buenos Aires - Pabellón I, Ciudad Universitaria\
Buenos Aires, Argentina. Becario CONICET\
3- Universitat de les Illes Balears and IFISC-CSIC, 07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain\
4- Instituto Carlos I de Fisica Teorica y Computacional and Departamento de Fisica Atomica, Molecular y Nuclear, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
*Key words: entanglement-quantum information-convex sets -MaxEnt approach*
Introduction
============
In this work we will tackle the entanglement phenomenon from a special viewpoint, that of regarding quantum states as “probability measures" \[see for example [@stulpe2001]\], which leads us to discuss convex sets of probability measures. Quantum probabilities are of a very different nature than that of classical ones. After setting preliminary mathematical notions and notations in section \[s:preliminaries\] (which may be optionally complemented with appendix \[s:ApendixA\]), we shortly review the differences and definitions between classical and quantal probabilities in section \[s:probabilities\]. Preliminary matters may be skipped by the reader familiarized with the quantum formalism in infinite dimensions.
The existence of probability models of a very different nature, of which the classical and the quantum instances are just two particularly important examples of a wider family, was one of the motivations for the study of the so called operational or convex approach (COM), one of the protagonists of our present discourse. Refs. [@Barnum-Wilce-2006; @Barnum-Wilce-2009; @Barnum-Wilce-2010; @Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000; @Gudder-StatisticalMethods; @Cattaneo-Gudder-1999] deal with the subject of COMs, for which states (understood as probability measures) and their convex structure play a key role, while other related quantities emerge in rather natural fashion. Note that there exist generalizations of quantum mechanics, including non-linear versions, that are axiomatized using the convex structure of the set of states (see [@MielnikGQS], [@MielnikTF], and [@MielnikGQM]). The approach treats in geometrical fashion the statistical theory of systems, which includes quantum and classical mechanics (and several other theories as well). In these generalized probabilistic models, generalized observables are used. In the particular case of quantum theory, one encounters the important notion of Positive Operator Valued Measures (POVM’s). We will review the COM approach as well as POVM’s in section \[s:COMapproach\]. In section \[s:introduction to QL\] we will revisit the formal structure and associated definitions of entanglement including the infinite dimensional case.
Lattices are other main character in our present discourse. They have been studied in the context of quantum mechanics since the seminal paper of von Newmann [@BvN] and characterize the structure of the subspaces of the Hilbert space of a quantum system. The paper of reference [@BvN] has motivated several investigations in logics, philosophy [@Putnam], foundations of physics, and algebraic logic. In the particular case of the foundations of quantum mechanics, several lines of investigation have been developed. It is difficult to list all of them. We just cite here [@mackey57; @jauch; @piron; @kalm83; @kalm86; @vadar68; @vadar70; @greechie81; @gudderlibro78; @giunt91; @pp91; @belcas81]. For a complete bibliography see for example [@dallachiaragiuntinilibro], [@dvupulmlibro], and [@HandbookofQL].
Part of the study of composite quantum systems was developed in [@aertsdaub1; @aertsdaub2; @FR81]. As we will show in sections \[s:New language\] and \[s:Convex lattice\] of this work, the convex set of quantum states is endowed with canonical lattice structures, which allow us to disclose a new structural feature of quantum mechanics that, in particular, allows for an extension to the infinite dimensional case of the standpoint developed in [@extendedql; @Holik-Massri-Ciancaglini-2010]. The reader non familiarized with lattice theory may find it useful to take glance at appendix \[s:ApendixB\].
Our new lattice structures are not only mathematical curiosities. Instead, they are the key factor for achieving a unifying viewpoint regarding several constructs linked to the geometrical properties of the quantum set of states. As a first example of their power, we will use this approach to provide a generalization and reformulation of the celebrated Jaynes Max-Ent principle [@Jaynes-1957a; @Jaynes-1957b] to arbitrary COM’s in section \[s:Max-Ent\] (see also [@Holik-Plastino-2011b] for more developments), thus displaying an interesting convergence between lattice theory and COM approaches.
In section \[s:EntanglementWittness\] we restrict ourselves to the finite dimensional case to study a particular reformulation of entanglement witnesses in lattice theoretical terms, which provides new proofs of known results. Surprisingly enough, these new proofs serve i) as the source of new abstract entanglement criteria, which can be expressed in lattice “format" and ii) to study the volume of the space of separable states, a theme to be tackled elsewhere. We added appendix \[s:ApendixC\] for refreshing mathematical notions indispensable in this respect.
We return in section \[s:The Relationship for convex\] to the infinite dimensional case to discuss the problem of characterizing entanglement, both from the geometrical and algebraic viewpoints. Emphasis will be put on maps that can be defined between the lattice of the system and its subsystems. We will extend to infinite dimension a recently advanced, abstract entanglement criterium [@Holik-Plastino-2011a] and study some consequences thereof. In particular, we will underline an interesting unifying characteristic of entanglement that is known to hold for pure states and reads\
It is also well known that no such a simple statement is valid for mixed states. Using both the lattice theoretical approach and our criteria we will show that it is possible to suitably generalize the above mentioned assertion from pure states to arbitrary states, thus leaving the pure instance as a particular case. In order to do so, we will introduce first the notion of informational invariant (advanced in [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]). This concept
- is advantageously cast in purely geometrical terms and holds for the infinite dimensional case as well, uncovering non trivial geometric and algebraic properties, and
- also provides us with a simple, unifying abstract framework to characterize separability properties of arbitrary states (not only pure ones).
Furthermore, we will extend in section \[s:PositiveMaps\] some of our results to [any]{} probabilistic model via the COM approach. In particular, we discuss how the geometrical structure found for the quantum case in section \[s:The Relationship for convex\] can be extended via the COM approach to any probabilistic model. Such generalization is due to the purely geometrical nature of our criteria, and may be useful to define entanglement for theories more general than that of quantum mechanics (for example, semiclassical models or non-linear versions of quantum mechanics). Finally, in section \[s:Conclusions\] some conclusions are drawn.
Preliminaries {#s:preliminaries}
=============
For a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ of dimension $N > 2$ the set of pure states forms a $(2N - 2)$-dimensional manifold, of measure zero, in the $(N^2 - 2)-$dimensional boundary $\partial
\mathcal{C}_N$ of the set $\mathcal{C}_N$ of density matrices. The set of mixed quantum states $\mathcal{C}_N$ consists of Hermitian, positive matrices of size $N$, normalized by the trace condition, that is
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_N= \{\rho: \rho = \rho^{\dagger};\,\,\, \rho
\ge 0;\,\,\, tr(\rho) = 1;\,\,\, dim(\rho) = N\}.\end{aligned}$$
It can be shown for finite dimensional bipartite states that there exist always a non-zero measure $\mu_s$ in the neighborhood of separable states containing maximum uncertainty ones. $\mu_s$ tends to zero as the dimension tends to infinity. Finally, for an infinitely dimensional Hilbert space almost all states are entangled (i. e., separable states are *never dense*) [@Clifton-Halvorson-1999; @Clifton-Halvorson-Kent-2000].
Notation
--------
Let us fix the notation to be employed here. $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})$ will denote the set of all closed subspaces of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ (arbitrary dimension), which are in a one to one correspondence with the projection operators. Because of this one to one link, one usually employs the notions of “closed subspace” and “projector” in interchangeable fashion. An important construct is $\mathcal{A}$, the set of bounded Hermitian operators on $\mathcal{H}$, while the bounded operators on $\mathcal{H}$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. The projective Hilbert space $\mathbf{C}\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{H})$ of a complex Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is the set of equivalence classes of vectors $v$ in $\mathcal{H}$, with $v \ne 0$, given by $v \sim w$ when $v = \lambda
w$, with $\lambda$ a non-zero scalar. Here the equivalence classes for $\sim$ are also called projective rays. A trace class operator is a compact one for which a finite trace may be defined (independently of the choice of basis). We will appeal below to the set $\mathcal{C}$ containing all positive, hermitian, and trace-class (normalized to unity) operators in $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$.
Let us remind the reader that a [lattice ]{} $\mathcal{L}$ is a partially ordered set (also called a poset) in which any two elements $a$ and $b$ have a unique supremum (the elements’ least upper bound “$a\vee b$"; called their join) and an infimum (greatest lower bound “$a\wedge
b$"; called their meet). Lattices can also be characterized as algebraic structures satisfying certain axiomatic identities. Since the two definitions are equivalent, lattice theory draws on both order theory and universal algebra. For additional details, see Appendix \[s:ApendixB\].
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a separable Hilbert space of arbitrary dimension representing a quantum system. As stated above, the bounded operators on $\mathcal{H}$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. There are many topologies and relevant subsets of $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. In the literature, $\mathcal A$ has denoted different subsets of $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. While mainly it denotes the Hermitian operators, in some works it denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt operators [@zyczkowski1998]. In this work we will use the following notation
$$\mathcal A =\{T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}):T^\dag=T\}$$
Suppose that $T$ is a compact operator such that
$$\sum_{i\in I}\langle v_{i}|T v_{i}\rangle<\infty$$
for all orthonormal basis $\{|v_{i}\rangle\}_{i\in I}$. Then, the map $\mbox{tr}(\cdot)$ defined as
$$\mbox{tr}(T)=\sum_{i\in I}\langle v_{i}|T v_{i}\rangle$$
is independent of the choice of basis. The set of Hilbert Schmidt operators will be denoted by $\mathcal{B}_2(\mathcal{H})$ and are defined by $$\mathcal{B}_2=\{T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}):\mbox{tr}(T^2)<\infty\}.$$ The space $\mathcal{B}_2$ endowed with the inner product $\langle
T_1,T_2\rangle=\mbox{tr}(T_2^\dag T_1)$ is a Hilbert space. For $T\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ the absolute value of $T$ is defined by $|T|=(T^\dag T)^{1/2}$. We can also consider the subspace formed by the trace class operator, defined by $$\mathcal
B_1
=\{T\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}):|T|^{1/2}\in\mathcal{B}_2(\mathcal{H})\}.$$ It can be shown that the following statements are equivalent:
1. $T\in \mathcal{B}_1$.
2. $T=AB$ for $A,B\in \mathcal{B}_2(\mathcal{H})$.
3. $|T|\in\mathcal{B}_1(\mathcal{H})$.
4. $\mbox{tr}(|T|)<\infty$.
The space of trace class operators is a Banach space endowed with the norm $\|T\|=\mbox{tr}(|T|)$.
Notice that in $\mathcal{B}_2(\mathcal{H})\cap \mathcal
A$, the norm induced by the inner product is given by $\|T\|=\mbox{tr}(T^\dag T)^{1/2}=\mbox{tr}(T^2)^{1/2}$ and it coincides with the $\ell^2$ norm of the eigenvalues while in $\mathcal{B}_1(\mathcal{H})\cap \mathcal A$ the norm coincides with the $\ell ^1$ norm of the eigenvalues. Thus, $\mathcal{B}_2\subset\mathcal{B}_1$ in $\mathcal A$.
Coming back to the closed subspaces of $\mathcal{H}$ which are in a one to one correspondence with the projection operators, an operator $P\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is said to be a projector if it satisfies
$$P^{2}=P$$
and
$$P=P^{\dag}$$
Elementary measurements and projection operators {#s:COMandEffects}
------------------------------------------------
A projection operator represents an elementary measurement given by a yes-no experiment, i.e., a test in which we get the answer “yes" or the answer “no". If $\mathcal{R}$ is the real line, let $B(\mathcal{R})$ be the family of subsets of $\mathcal{R}$ such that
- 1 - The family is closed under set theoretical complements.
- 2 - The family is closed under denumerable unions.
- 3 - The family includes all open intervals.
The elements of $B(\mathcal{R})$ will be called the *Borel subsets* of $\mathcal{R}$ [@ReedSimon]. A projection valued measure (PVM) $M$, is a mapping
$$M: B(\mathcal{R})\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})$$
such that
$$M(0)=0$$
$$M(\mathcal{R})=\mathbf{1}$$
$$M(\cup_{j}(B_{j}))=\sum_{j}M(B_{j}),\,\,$$
for any disjoint family ${B_{j}}.$ Also,
$$M(B^{c})=\mathbf{1}-M(B)=(M(B))^{\bot}$$
All operators representing observables may be expressed in terms of projection operators (and so by elementary measurements) via the spectral decomposition theorem, which asserts that the set of spectral measurements may be put in a bijective correspondence with the set $\mathcal{A}$ of Hermitian operators of $\mathcal{H}$. A list of set-theory concepts used in this work can be found in Appendix \[s:ApendixA\]
Elementary (sharp) tests in quantum mechanics are represented by projection operators that form the well known von Newmann’s lattice ${\mathcal{L}}_{vN}$, an orthomodular one (see Appendix \[s:ApendixB\]). The Born-rule implies that probabilities in quantum mechanics are linked to measures over the von Newmann’s lattice. Using Gleason’s theorem, it is possible to link in a bijective way density matrixes and non-kolmogorovian probability measures (more on this below).
Quantum vs. classical probabilities {#s:probabilities}
===================================
The reader is advised to consult the Appendixes regarding some mathematics concepts appealed to below. It is a well known fact, since the 30’s, that a quantum system represented by a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is associated to a lattice formed by all its closed subspaces ${\mathcal{L}}_{v\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{H}})=
<{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}}),\ \cap,\ \oplus,\ \neg,\ 0,\ 1>$, where $0$ is the empty set $\emptyset,$ $1$ the total space $\mathcal{H}$, $\cap$ the intersection, $\oplus$ the closure of the sum, and $\neg(\mathcal{S})$ the orthogonal complement of a subspace $\mathcal{S}$ [@mikloredeilibro]. This is the Hilbert lattice, named “Quantum Logic" by Birkhoff and von Neumann [@BvN]. We will refer to this lattice as ${\mathcal{L}}_{v\mathcal{N}}$, the ‘von Neumann lattice’. Thus, the set of elementary yes-no tests has an orthomodular lattice structure, which is itself non-boolean, modular in the finite dimensional case, and never modular in the infinite one. We will relate below elementary tests to quantum probability spaces and study their lattice structure.
Given a set $\Omega$, let us consider a $\sigma$-algebra (see Appendixes) $\Sigma$ of $\Omega$. Then, a probability measure will be given by a function $\mu$ such that
\[e:kolmogorovian\] $$\mu:\Sigma\rightarrow[0,1]$$ which satisfies $$\mu(\emptyset)=0$$ $$\mu(A^{c})=1-\mu(A),$$
where $(\ldots)^{c}$ means set-theoretical-complement and for any pairwise disjoint denumerable family $\{A_{i}\}_{i\in
I}$
$$\mu(\bigcup_{i\in I}A_{i})=\sum_{i}\mu(A_{i})$$
where conditions (\[e:kolmogorovian\]) are the well known axioms of Kolmogorov.
In the formulation of both classical and quantum probabilities, states can be regarded as representing consistent probability assignments [@wilce]. In the quantum mechanics instance [*this “states as mappings" visualization*]{} is achieved via a function [@mikloredeilibro]
$$\label{e:nonkolmogorov}
s:\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})\rightarrow [0;1]$$
such that:
$$s(\textbf{0})=0 \,\, (\textbf{0}\,\, \mbox{is the null subspace}).$$
$$s(P^{\bot})=1-s(P),$$
and, for a denumerable and orthogonal family of projections
$$\,\, {P_{j}}, \,\,s(\sum_{j}P_{j})=\sum_{j}s(P_{j}).$$
The above equation defines a probability, but in fact, not a classical one, because classical probability axioms obey the Kolmogorov’s axioms of equation (\[e:kolmogorovian\]). The main difference comes from the fact that the $\sigma$-algebra in (\[e:kolmogorovian\]) is boolean, while $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})$ is not. Thus, quantum probabilities are also called non-kolmogorovian (or non-boolean) probability measures. The crucial fact is that, in the quantum case, we do not have a $\sigma$-algebra, but an orthomodular lattice of projections. Most importantly, Gleason’s theorem [@Gleason; @Gleason-Dvurechenski-2009] asserts that if $dim(\mathcal{H})\geq 3$, then:
More generally, consider a $C^{\ast}$-algebra $\mathbf{A}$. The prototypical example of a such an algebra is the algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ of bounded (equivalently continuous) linear operators defined on a complex Hilbert space. In general, a state $\varphi$ will be a positive linear functional of norm equal to unity. If the algebra has a unit (as is the case for $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$), states will be given by the intersection of the closed affine hyperplane $\varphi(\mathbf{1})=1$ and the set of positive linear forms on $\mathbf{A}$ of norm $\leq
1$ (which is compact in the topology of pointwise convergence) and then the concomitant extension of the set $\mathcal{C}$ will be a . If $P\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})$ the correspondence between $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$ and its induced probability measure is given by
$$\label{e:bornrule}
s_{\rho}(P)=\mbox{tr}(\rho P)$$
Equation (\[e:bornrule\]) is essentially Born’s rule. Any $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$ may be written as
$$\label{e:convexity}
\rho=\sum_{i}p_{i}P_{\psi_{i}}$$
where the $P_{\psi_{i}}$ are one dimensional projection operators on the rays (subspaces of dimension one) generated by the vectors $\psi_{i}$ and $\sum_{i}p_{i}=1$ ($p_{i}\geq 0$). Thus, it is clear that $\mathcal{C}$ is a convex set. If the sum in (\[e:convexity\]) is finite, then $\rho$ is said to be of finite range. It is important to remark that in the infinite dimensional case, the sum in (\[e:convexity\]) may be infinite in a non-trivial sense. $\mathcal{C}$ is then a set formed of non-boolean probability measures. That $\mathcal{C}$ is a closed convex set can also be seen by the fact that if we define the half-planes
$$H_x=\{\rho\in\mathcal{A}\,|\,x^\dag\rho x < 0\}$$
$$H_x^+=\{\rho\in\mathcal{A}\,|\,x^\dag\rho x\geq0\}$$
then
$$\mathcal{C}=\bigcap_{x\in\mathcal{H}}H_x^+\cap\{\rho\,|\,\text{tr}(\rho)=1\}$$
If we consider now $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ as the set of all convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$, that is
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}=\{C\subseteq\mathcal{C}\,\,|\,\,C\,\,\mbox{is
convex}\}$
then any element of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ will be itself a “probability space", in the sense that it is a set of non boolean probability measures closed under convex combinations (not to be confused with the usual mathematical notion of sample space). We will show that $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is endowed with a canonical lattice structure in Section \[s:Convex lattice\].
A general (pure) state can be written as (using Dirac’s notation):
$$\rho=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$$
We will denote the set of all pure states by
$$P(\mathcal{C}):=\{\rho\in\mathcal{C}\,|\, \rho^{2}=\rho\}$$
This set is in correspondence with the rays of $\mathcal{H}$ via the association:
$$\mathcal{F}:\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})\rightarrow
\mathcal{C}, \quad [|\psi\rangle]\mapsto|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$$
where $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})$ is the projective space of $\mathcal{H}$, and $[|\psi\rangle]$ is the class defined by the vector $|\psi\rangle$ ($|\varphi\rangle\sim|\psi\rangle\longleftrightarrow|\varphi\rangle=\lambda|\psi\rangle$, $\lambda\neq 0$). If $M$ represents an observable, its mean value $\langle M\rangle$ is given by
$$\label{e:meanvalueoperator}
\mbox{tr}(\rho M)=\langle M\rangle$$
Notice that the set of positive operators forms a cone, and that the set of trace class operators (of trace one) forms an hyperplane. Thus, $\mathcal{C}$ is the intersection of a cone and an hyperplane embedded in $\mathcal{A}$. This structure (or geometrical convex setting) is susceptible of considerable generalization (see [@Barnum-Wilce-2006; @Barnum-Wilce-2009; @Barnum-Wilce-2010] for an excellent overview, partly reproduced in this work for the sake of completeness).
Quantal effects and convex operational approach (COM) {#s:COMapproach}
=====================================================
In modelling probabilistic operational theories one associates to any probabilistic system a triplet $(X,\Sigma,p)$, where
1. $\Sigma$ represents the set of states of the system,
2. $X$ is the set of possible measurement outcomes, and
3. $p:X\times \Sigma\mapsto [0,1]$ assigns to each outcome $x\in
X$ and state $s\in\Sigma$ a probability $p(x,s)$ of $x$ to occur if the system is in the state $s$.
4. If we fix $s$ we obtain the mapping $s\mapsto p(\cdot,s)$ from $\Sigma\rightarrow
[0,1]^{X}$.
Note that
- This again identifies all the states of $\Sigma$ with maps.
- Considering their closed convex hull, we obtain the set $\Omega$ of possible probabilistic mixtures (represented mathematically by convex combinations) of states in $\Sigma$.
- In this way one also obtains, for any outcome $x\in X$, an affine evaluation-functional $f_{x}:\Omega\rightarrow [0,1]$, given by $f_{x}(\alpha)=\alpha(x)$ for all $\alpha\in \Omega$.
- More generally, any affine functional $f:\Omega\rightarrow
[0,1]$ may be regarded as representing a measurement outcome and thus use $f(\alpha)$ to represent the probability for that outcome in state $\alpha$.
For the special case of quantum mechanics, the set of all affine functionals so-defined are called effects. They form an algebra (known as the *effect algebra*) and represent generalized measurements (unsharp, as opposed to sharp measures defined by projection valued measures). The specifical form of an effect in quantum mechanics is as follows. A generalized observable or *positive operator valued measure* (POVM) [@Busch-Lahti-2009; @Thesis-Heinonen-2005; @Ma-Effects] will be represented by a mapping
$$E:B(\mathcal{R})\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$$
such that
$$E(\mathcal{R})=\mathbf{1}$$
$$E(B)\geq 0, \,\,\mbox{for any}\,\, B\in B(\mathcal{R})$$
$$E(\cup_{j}(B_{j}))=\sum_{j}E(B_{j}),\,\, \mbox{for any disjoint
familly}\,\, {B_{j}}$$
The first condition means that $E$ is normalized to unity, the second one that $E$ maps any Borel set B to a positive operator, and the third one that $E$ is $\sigma$-additive with respect to the weak operator topology. In this way, a generalized POVM can be used to define a family of affine functionals on the state space $\mathcal{C}$ (which corresponds to $\Omega$ in the general probabilistic setting) of quantum mechanics as follows
$$E(B):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow [0,1]$$
$$\rho\mapsto \mbox{tr}(E\rho)$$
Positive operators $E(B)$ which satisfy $0\leq
E\leq\mathbf{1}$ are called effects (which form an *effect algebra* [@Cattaneo-Gudder-1999; @EffectAlgebras-Foulis-2001]). Let us denote by $\mathrm{E}(\mathcal{H})$ the set of all effects. [Indeed, a POVM is a measure whose values are non-negative self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space. It is the most general formulation of a measurement in the theory of quantum physics]{}. A rough analogy would consider that a POVM is to a projective measurement what a density matrix is to a pure state. Density matrices can describe part of a larger system that is in a pure state (purification of quantum state); analogously, POVMs on a physical system can describe the effect of a projective measurement performed on a larger system. Another, slightly different way to define them is as follows:
Let $(X, M)$ be measurable space; i.e., $M$ is a $\sigma-$algebra of subsets of $X$. A POVM is a function $F$ defined on $M$ whose values are bounded non-negative self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ such that $F(X) = I_H$ (identity) and for every i) $\xi \in \mathcal{H}$ and ii) projector $P=
|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|;\,\, |\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$, $P
\rightarrow\, \langle F(P)\xi \vert \xi \rangle$ is a non-negative countably additive measure on $M$. This definition should be contrasted with that for the projection-valued measure, which is very similar, except that, in the projection-valued measure, the $F$s are required to be projection operators.
Convex operational approach
---------------------------
Returning now to the general model of probability states we may, as explained in the Appendix, consider the convex set $\Omega$ as the basis of a positive cone $V_{+}(\Omega)$ of the linear space $V(\Omega)$. Thus, every affine linear functional can be extended to a linear functional in $V(\Omega)^{\ast}$ (the dual linear space). It can be shown that there is a unique unity functional such that $u_{\Omega}(\alpha)=1$ for all $\alpha\in\Omega$ (in quantum mechanics, this unit functional is the trace function). The general operational or convex approach may be viewed as the triplet $(A,A^{\sharp},u_{A})$, where
1. $A$ is a normed space endowed with
2. a strictly positive linear functional $u_{A}$, and
3. $A^{\sharp}$ is a weak-$\ast$ dense subspace of $A^{\ast}$ ordered by a chosen regular cone $A_{+}^{\sharp}\subseteq A_{+}^{\ast}$ containing $u_{A}$.
4. Effects will be given by functionals $f$ in $A_{+}^{\sharp}$ such that $f\leq u_{A}$.
As viewed from the COM’s standpoint, one of the characteristic features which distinguish classical from quantum mechanics is the fact that in the classical instance any non-pure state has a unique convex decomposition in pure states, while this is no longer true in the quantum case. The forthcoming section reviews the principal features of the convex set of states and relates them to entanglement. This will be useful for studying canonical maps defined between the probability spaces of a composite system and those of its subsystems. Afterwards, in subsequent sections, [*we will i) show that $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is endowed with a canonical lattice theoretical structure, ii) find its main features, and iii) relate them to quantum entanglement and positive maps*]{}. Of course, some of these results can easily be extended to the general setting of convex operational models.
Entanglement and the convex set of states: an overview {#s:introduction to QL}
======================================================
Consider composite quantal systems $S$ of subsystems $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$, with associated separable Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{2}$. The pure states are given by rays in the tensor product space $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}$. It is not true that any pure state of $S$ factorizes after the interaction into pure states of the subsystems, a situation very different to that of classical mechanics, where for state spaces $\Gamma_{1}$ and $\Gamma_{2}$ we assign $\Gamma=\Gamma_{1}\times\Gamma_{2}$ for their composition. This is an absolutely central issue.
Let us now briefly review the quantal relationship between the $S-$states and the states of the subsystems. Consider for simplicity the bipartite case with systems $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$. If $\{|x_{i}^{(1)}\rangle\}$ and $\{|x_{i}^{(2)}\rangle\}$ are the corresponding orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{2}$, respectively, then the set $\{|x_{i}^{(1)}\rangle\otimes|x_{j}^{(2)}\rangle\}$ constitutes an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}$.
For observables of the form $A_{1}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{2}$ and $\mathbf{1}_{1}\otimes A_{2}$ (with $\mathbf{1}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{1}_{2}$ the identity operators in $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{2}$ respectively), then reduced state operators $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ can be defined for systems $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ such that
$$\label{e:conditiononreducedstate}
\mbox{tr}(\rho A_{1}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{2})=\mbox{tr}(\rho_{1}A_{1})$$
with an analogous equation for $\rho_{2}$. This assignation of reduced states is done via *partial traces maps*. It is of interest for us to study how to define these maps in detail. In order to do so and given a state $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$, consider the functional
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{\rho}:\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H}_{1})\otimes\mathbf{1}_{2}\longrightarrow \mathcal{R}\nonumber\\
A\otimes\mathbf{1}_{2}\mapsto\mbox{tr}(\rho A\otimes\mathbf{1})\end{aligned}$$
Clearly $F_{\rho}$ induces a map
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{\rho}:\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H}_{1})\longrightarrow \mathcal{R}\nonumber\\
A\mapsto\mbox{tr}(\rho A\otimes\mathbf{1})\end{aligned}$$
which specifies a state as defined in (\[e:nonkolmogorov\]) when restricted to projections in $\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H}_{1})$. Thus, using Gleason’s theorem, there exists $\rho_{1}$ such that $f_{\rho}(A)=\mbox{tr}(\rho_{1}A)$ (where now the trace is taken on Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{1}$). We have thus shown that for any $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$ there exists $\rho_{1}\in\mathcal{C}_{1}$ such that for any $A_{1}\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H}_{1})$ Equation (\[e:conditiononreducedstate\]) is satisfied.
This assignment is the one which allows to define the partial trace $\mbox{tr}_{2}(\cdot)$ given by equation (\[e:partialtrace\]) below. An analogous reasoning leads to $\mbox{tr}_{1}(\cdot)$. Accordingly, we can consider the maps:
\[e:partialtrace\]
$$\mbox{tr}_{i}:\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mathcal{C}_{j}$$
$$\rho\mapsto\mbox{tr}_{i}(\rho)=\rho_{j}$$
In [@Clifton-Halvorson-1999; @Clifton-Halvorson-Kent-2000] it is shown that these maps are continuous and onto. *Thus, partial traces defined in equation (\[e:partialtrace\]) are continuous and onto, a fact that will be used in section \[s:The Relationship for convex\]*.
Operators of the form $A_{1}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{2}$ and $\mathbf{1}_{1}\otimes A_{2}$ represent magnitudes related to $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$, respectively. When $S$ is in a product state $|\varphi_{1}\rangle\otimes|\varphi_{2}\rangle$, the mean value of the product operator $A_{1}\otimes A_{2}$ will be
$$\mbox{tr}(|\varphi_{1}\rangle\otimes|\varphi_{2}\rangle\langle\varphi_{1}
|\otimes\langle\varphi_{2}|A_{1}\otimes A_{2})=\langle
A_{1}\rangle\langle A_{2}\rangle$$
reproducing statistical independence. Separable states are defined (see [@Werner]) as those states of $\mathcal{C}$ which can be approximated by a succession of states written as a convex combination of product states of the form
$$\rho_{Sep}=\sum_{i,j}\lambda_{ij}\rho_{i}^{(1)}\otimes\rho_{j}^{(2)}$$
where $\rho_{i}^{(1)}\in\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\rho_{j}^{(2)}\in\mathcal{C}_{2}$, $\sum_{i,j}\lambda_{ij}=1$ and $\lambda_{ij}\geq 0$. Thus, the set $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ of separable states is defined as the convex hull of all product states closed in the trace norm topology (i.e., the trace norm topology given by $\|\rho\|_{\mbox{tr}}=\mbox{tr}((\rho^{\dag}\rho)^{\frac{1}{2}}$). Accordingly,
$\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}):=\{\rho\in\mathcal{C}\,|\,\rho\,\,
\mbox{is separable}\}$
There exist very many non-separable states in $\mathcal{C}$, called entangled ones [@bengtssonyczkowski2006]. They form a set we will call $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{H})$, i.e.,
$\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{H})=\mathcal{C}\backslash\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$
Alike entangled states, separable states are reproducible by local classical devices (but this by no means implies that they *are* classical). It is a fact that, equipped with the trace-norm distance, $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is a complete separable metric space. Also that a sequence of quantum states converging to a state in the weak operator topology converges to it as well in the trace norm. Stated in a more technical form, a state in $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2})$ is called separable if it is in the convex closure of the set of all product states in $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2})$.
Estimating the volume of $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is of great interest (see –among others–[@zyczkowski1998], [@horodecki2001] and [@aubrum2006]). For pure states we have at hand the superposition principle
\[e:superposition principle\] Superposition Principle. If $|\psi_{1}\rangle$ and $|\psi_{1}\rangle$ are physical states, then $\alpha|\psi_{1}\rangle+\beta|\psi_{1}\rangle$ ($|\alpha|^{2}+|\beta|^{2}=1$) will be a physical state too.
Additionally, when we include mixtures we have
\[e:mixing principle\] Mixing Principle. If $\rho$ and $\rho'$ are physical states, then $\alpha\rho+\beta\rho'$ ($\alpha+\beta=1$, $\alpha,\beta\geq 0$) will be a physical state too.
There exist many studies which concentrate on mixtures. For example, this is the case for works on quantum decoherence [@Schlosshauer; @Castagnino-2011; @Castagnino-2008], quantum information processing, or generalizations of quantum mechanics which emphasize its convex nature (not necessarily equivalent to “Hilbertian" $QM$). The set of interest in such studies is $\mathcal{C}$ and not the lattice of projections. Consequently, it seems adequate to consider in some detail the notion of structures, including improper mixtures [@extendedql; @d'esp; @Kirkpatrik; @ReplytoKirkpatrik] and pure states, acknowledging their important place in the physical “discourse", as anticipated in the Introduction, in the hope that such structures will provide a natural framework for studying foundational issues.
A good question to ask is under which conditions a given state may be decomposed in terms of other states, separable states being a particular case of decomposing a given state in terms of product states. This is the subject of decomposition theory (see [@OlaBratteli], chapter four). Given a $C^{\ast}$-algebra $\mathbf{A}$ with identity $\mathbf{1}$, the set of states forms a convex compact space of the dual space $\mathbf{A}^{\ast}$ (compact in the weak$^{\ast}$ topology). Given a state $\rho$ such that $\rho\in K$, with $K$ a closed convex set, one attempts to write an expression of the form
$$\label{e:baricentric}
\rho=\int_{K} d\mu(\rho')\rho',$$
where $\mu$ is a measure supported by the set of extremal points of $K$ (see Appendix). Equation (\[e:baricentric\]) is referred to as the *barycentric decomposition of $\rho$*. The example of interest refers to the $C^{\ast}$-algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, the relevant set of states being $\mathcal{C}$, while $K=\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$. In this specific instance, and according to the above definition, it is possible to show that [@Kholevo-Schirikov-Werner]
$$\rho=\int_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}\int_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}\rho_{\mathcal{H}_{1}}\otimes\rho_{\mathcal{H}_{2}}\nu(d\rho_{\mathcal{H}_{1}}
d\rho_{\mathcal{H}_{1}})$$
and also that
$$\label{e:integralpureproduct}
\rho=\int_{P(\mathcal{C}_{1})}\int_{P(\mathcal{C}_{2})}|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\otimes|\varphi\rangle\langle\varphi|\nu(d\psi
d\varphi)$$
Before concentrating attention on more general convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$, we will restrict ourselves in next section to a special mathematical construct, closely linked to $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{H})$.
The Lattice $\mathcal{L}$ {#s:New language}
=========================
On $\mathcal{H}$ we find, among many, two particularly important constructs, namely, i) $\mathcal{A}$, the set of bounded [*and*]{} Hermitian operators together with ii) the set of (“merely") bounded operators (they map bounded sets to bounded sets), denoted by $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. This set of bounded linear operators, together with the addition and composition operations, the norm and the adjoin operation, is a C\*-algebra (see Appendix \[s:ApendixA\]). We [*begin now to present our new results*]{}.
Let us start by extending some developments and definitions of [@extendedql] to Hilbert spaces of arbitrary (possibly infinite) dimension. Let us define $G(\mathcal{A})$ as the lattice associated to the pair $(\mathcal{A},\mbox{tr})$ $$G(\mathcal{A}):=\{S\subset \mathcal{A}\,|\, S \text{ is a
\underline{closed} }\mathcal{R}\text{-subspace}\}.$$ It is well-known that $G(\mathcal{A})$ is a modular, orthocomplemented, atomic and complete lattice (see Appendix \[s:ApendixB\]). It is not distributive and hence not a Boolean algebra. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the associated, induced lattice in $\mathcal{C}$:
$$\mathcal{L}:=\{S\cap\mathcal{C}\,|\, S\in G(\mathcal{A})\}$$
for which we will define now canonical lattice operations.
Characterizing $\mathcal{L}$
----------------------------
Note that there are many subspaces $S^{\,'}\in
G(\mathcal{A})$ such that $S\cap \mathcal{C}=S^{\,'}\cap
\mathcal{C}$. In order to deal with them and appropriately define the lattice induced in $\mathcal{C}$ by $G(\mathcal{A})$, we need a subspace that will represent the set $S\cap \mathcal{C}$. For each $L\in\mathcal{L}$ we will choose as this representative that subspace possessing the minimum dimension
$$S_{L}=\bigcap\{S\in G(\mathcal{A})\,|\,S\cap\mathcal{C}=L\,\}$$
We need to characterize the subspace $S_L$. To this end notice that $S_{L}$ satisfies
$$\label{clas}
S_{L}\cap\mathcal{C}=L,$$
(notice that $S_{L}$ may be infinite dimensional). Let consider the class $[S]$ of elements satisfying (\[clas\]): $\,\,[S]=L$, with $S\in G(\mathcal{A})$ being an element of the class.
We introduce some math-notation now. First, closure of a set will be indicated by an overbar over the set’s name. Secondly, given a set $M$ we will denote by $<M>_E$ the set of linear combinations of $M-$elements with coefficients extracted from the set of scalars $E$. Then
$$S\cap\mathcal{C}\subseteq\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}_{\mathcal{R}}\subseteq
S\Rightarrow
S\cap\mathcal{C}\cap\mathcal{C}\subseteq\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}_{\mathcal{R}}\cap\mathcal{C}
\subseteq S\cap\mathcal{C}\Rightarrow$$
$$\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}\cap\mathcal{C}=S\cap\mathcal{C}$$
Accordingly, $\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}$ and $S$ are in the same class $L$. Note that $\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}\subseteq S$ and if $S$ equals $S_{L}$, we will also have $S_{L}\subseteq
\overline{<S_{L}\cap\mathcal{C}>}$ (because $S_{L}$ is the intersection of all the elements in the class). Consequently,
$$\overline{<S_{L}\cap\mathcal{C}>}=S_{L}$$
The above equation also implies that $S_{L}$ is the unique subspace with that property, because if we choose $S'$ such that $S'\cap\mathcal{C}=S\cap\mathcal{C}$, then
$$S=\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}=\overline{<S'\cap\mathcal{C}>}=S'$$
Summing up, the representative of a class $L$ is the unique $\mathcal{R}$-subspace $S\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ such that
$$S=\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}_{\mathcal{R}}$$
and we have proved that it is equal to $S_{L}$, that we call the [*good representative*]{}.
### Math interlude
We need at this point to remind the reader of some lattice concepts (See appendix \[s:ApendixB\]). Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a poset, partially ordered by the order relation “less or equal". An element $a \in
\mathcal{P}$ is called an [atom]{} if it covers some minimal element of $\mathcal{P}$. As a result, an atom is never minimal. A poset $\mathcal{P}$ is called atomic if for every element $p \in
\mathcal{P}$ (that is not minimal) an atom $a$ exist such that $a
\le p$. For instance,1. Let $A$ be a set and $\mathcal{P} =2^A$ its power set. $\mathcal{P}$ is a poset ordered by the “inclusion" relation, with a unique minimal element. Thus, all singleton subsets $a$ of $A$ are atoms in $\mathcal{P}$ (a set is a singleton if and only if its cardinality is 1). Accordingly, in the set-theoretic construction of the natural numbers, the number 1 is defined as the singleton $\{0\}$. 2. The set of positive integeres is partially ordered if we define $a\le b$ to mean that $b/a$ is a positive integer. Then 1 is a minimal element and any prime number $p$ is an atom. Given a lattice $\mathcal{L}$ with underlying poset $\mathcal{P}$, an element $a
\in \mathcal{L}$ is called an atom (of $\mathcal{L}$) if it is an atom in $\mathcal{P}$. A lattice is called an atomic lattice if its underlying poset is atomic. An atomistic lattice is an atomic lattice such that each element that is not minimal is a join of atoms. Finally (see Appendix \[s:ApendixB\]), we call [*modular*]{} a lattice that satisfies the following self-dual condition (modular law) $ x \leq b$ implies $x \vee (a \wedge b) =
(x \vee a) \wedge b$, where $\le$ is the partial order, and $\vee$ and $\wedge$ (join and meet, respectively) are the operations of the lattice.
Operations in $\mathcal{L}$
---------------------------
Let us now define “$\vee$", “$\wedge$" and “$\neg$" operations and a partial ordering relation “$\longrightarrow$" (or equivalently “$\leq$") in $\mathcal{L}$ as
1. $$(S\cap\mathcal{C}) \wedge (T\cap\mathcal{C})\Longleftrightarrow
(\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}\cap\overline{<T\cap\mathcal{C}>})\cap\mathcal{C}$$
2. $$(S\cap\mathcal{C}) \vee (T\cap\mathcal{C})\Longleftrightarrow
(\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>}+\overline{<T\cap\mathcal{C}>})\cap\mathcal{C}$$
3. $$(S\cap\mathcal{C}) \longrightarrow
(T\cap\mathcal{C})\Longleftrightarrow
(S\cap\mathcal{C})\subseteq(T\cap\mathcal{C})$$
4. $$\neg(S\cap\mathcal{C})\Longleftrightarrow
<S\cap\mathcal{C}>^\perp\cap\mathcal{C}. \label{fouroper}$$
Let us consider now some consequences of the above definitions. It is easy to see that (see Appendix \[s:ApendixB\]):
$\mathcal{L}$ is an atomic and complete lattice. If $\dim(\mathcal{H})<\infty$, $\mathcal{L}$ is a modular lattice.
$\mathcal{L}$ is not an orthocomplemented lattice, but it is easy to show that non-contradiction holds
$$L\wedge\neg L=\mathbf{0}$$
and also contraposition
$$\noindent L_{1}\leq L_{2}\Longrightarrow \neg L_{2}\leq \neg L_{1}$$
The following proposition is important because it [*links atoms and quantum states*]{}:
There is a one to one correspondence between the states of the system and the atoms of $\mathcal{L}$.
Let $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$ be any state. Next, consider the subspace $S_{\rho}=<\rho>$. Then, $Q_{\rho}=S_{\rho}\cap\mathcal{C}=\rho$ is a singleton because $\rho$ is the only [trace one]{} operator in $S_{\rho}$, and thus an atom since it covers the minimal element $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$. This completes the bijective correspondence.
The reader is now adviced to peruse Appendix \[s:ApendixC\] and remember that a [*face*]{} of a convex set $\mathcal{C}$ is the intersection of $\mathcal{C}$ with a supporting hyperplane of $\mathcal{C}$. It is well known [@bengtssonyczkowski2006] that in the finite dimensional case there is a lattice isomorphism between the complemented and complete lattice of faces of the convex set $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}$ (see Appendix \[s:ApendixB\] for definitions). We also repeat that $\mathcal{L}$ is a set of intersections, Which ones? Those between $\mathcal{R}-$subspaces that belong to $G(\mathcal{A})$ and $\mathcal{C}$. Let us put forward the following proposition
\[p:FacesAreElements\] Every face of $\mathcal{C}$ is an element of $\mathcal{L}$.
If $F$ is a face of $\mathcal{C}$, then there exists a closed hyperplane $H_{F}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ such that $H_{F}\cap\mathcal{C}=F$ and $\mathcal{C}$ stands on one side of the half-spaces defined by $H_{F}$. If $\hat{H}_{F}$ is the continuous linear functional on $\mathcal{A}$ defined by the real sub-vector space $H_{F}$ (that is, the map that assigns a scalar to each member of $H_{F}$), then there exists $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $$H_{F}=\{x\,|\,\hat{H}_{F}(x)=\alpha\},\quad
\mathcal{C}\subseteq \{x\,|\,\hat{H}_{F}(x)\leq\alpha\}.$$
Consider the continuous linear functional $$\hat{L}(x):=\hat{H}_{F}(x)-\alpha\text{tr}(x).$$ In the Banach space of trace class operators $\mathcal{B}_1$ we have the norm $\| T\|=\text{tr}(|T|)$, then the linear functional $\text{tr}:\mathcal{B}_1\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is continuous. Given that $\hat{H}_{F}$ is continuous on $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}_1\subseteq \mathcal{A}$ we have that $\hat{L}$ is continuous on $\mathcal{B}_1$. Its kernel, or null space (the set of all functions that the functional maps to zero) will be a closed subspace of $\mathcal{B}_1$ (we call it $S$). Now notice that $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathcal{B}_1$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
&S\cap\mathcal{C}=\{x\,|\,\hat{H}_{F}(x)=\alpha\mbox{tr}(x)\}\cap\mathcal{C}=\{x\,|\,\hat{H}_{F}(x)=\alpha\mbox{tr}(x)\,\mbox{and}\,\mbox{tr}(x)=1\}\cap\mathcal{C}=&\nonumber\\
&\{x\,|\,\hat{H}_{F}(x)=\alpha\}\cap\mathcal{C}=H_{F}\cap\mathcal{C}=F.&\end{aligned}$$
We conclude that $F\in\mathcal{L}$.
Using this result and the isomorphism between faces of the convex set and subspaces, we conclude that (at least for the finite dimensional case)
The complete lattice of faces of the convex set $\mathcal{C}$ is essentially a subposet of $\mathcal{L}$.
The previous Corollary shows that $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}$ are closely connected. We have stated that any convex subset of $\mathcal{C}$ can be considered as a probability space by itself, and certainly, the elements of $\mathcal{L}$ are convex sets, because they are built as the intersection of a closed subspace of $\mathcal{A}$ and a convex set ($\mathcal{C}$). Thus, we have found not only that closed subspaces of $\mathcal{H}$ may be considered as yes-no tests (via their one to one correspondence with projection operators), but also that they may be considered as probability spaces (endowed with “mixing principle" mentioned above), because of their one to one correspondence with the elements of $\mathcal{L}$. The crucial question now is: what is the relationship between their respective operations? If $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ are faces we have
1. $F_1,F_2\in\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}$, then $F_1\wedge F_2$ in $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}$ is the same as in $\mathcal{L}$. Thus, the inclusion $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}\subseteq\mathcal{L}$ preserves the $\wedge$-operation.
2. $F_1\vee_{\mathcal{L}} F_2\leq
F_1\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}} F_2$ and $F_1\leq
F_2\Rightarrow F_1\vee_{\mathcal{L}}
F_2=F_1\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}} F_2=F_2$
3. $\neg_{\mathcal{L}}F\leq \neg_{\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}}F$
Given two systems with Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{2}$, we can construct the lattices $\mathcal{L}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{2}$. We can also built up $\mathcal{L}$, the lattice associated to the product space $\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}$. We define
$$\Psi:\mathcal{L}_{1}\times\mathcal{L}_{2}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}\quad|\quad(S_{1}\cap\mathcal{C}_{1},S_{2}\cap\mathcal{C}_{2})\longrightarrow
S\cap\mathcal{C}$$
where $S=(\overline{<S_{1}\cap\mathcal{C}_{1}>}\otimes\overline{<S_{2}\cap\mathcal{C}_{2}>})$. In terms of good representatives, $\Psi([S_1],[S_2])=[S_1\otimes
S_2]$. An equivalent definition (in the finite dimensional case) states that $\Psi$ is the induced morphism in the quotient lattices (See Appendix \[s:ApendixA\]) of the tensor map:
$$G(\mathcal{A}_1)\times G(\mathcal{A}_2)\rightarrow
G(\mathcal{A}_1\otimes_{\mathcal{R}} \mathcal{A}_2)\cong
G(\mathcal{A})$$
Given $L_{1}\in\mathcal{L}_{1}$ and $L_{2}\in\mathcal{L}_{2}$, we can define the following convex tensor product:
\[d:convex tensor product\] $L_{1}\widetilde{\otimes}\,L_{2}:=\{\sum\lambda_{ij}\rho_{i}^{1}\otimes\rho_{j}^{2}\,|\,\rho_{i}^{1}
\in L_{1},\,\,\rho_{j}^{2}\in L_{2},\,\, \sum\lambda_{ij}=1
\,\,\mbox{and} \,\,\lambda_{ij}\geq 0\}$
This product is formed by all possible convex combinations of tensor products of elements of $L_{1}$ and elements of $L_{2}$, and it is again a convex set. Let us compute $\mathcal{C}_{1}\widetilde{\otimes}\,\mathcal{C}_{2}$. Remember that $\mathcal{C}_{1}=[\mathcal{A}_{1}]\in\mathcal{L}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{2}=[\mathcal{A}_{2}]\in\mathcal{L}_{2}$:
$$\mathcal{C}_{1}\widetilde{\otimes}\,\mathcal{C}_{2}=
\{\sum\lambda_{ij}\rho_{i}^{1}\otimes\rho_{j}^{2}\,|\,\rho_{i}^{1}
\in \mathcal{C}_{1},\,\,\rho_{j}^{2}\in \mathcal{C}_{2},\,\,
\sum\lambda_{ij}=1 \,\,\mbox{and} \,\,\lambda_{ij}\geq 0\}.$$
Thus, if $\mathcal{S(\mathcal{H})}$ is the set of all separable states, we have by definition
$$\label{e:separablestates}
\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})=\overline{\mathcal{C}_{1}\widetilde{\otimes}\,\mathcal{C}_{2}}$$
If the whole system is in a state $\rho$, using partial traces we can define states for the subsystems $\rho_{1}=tr_{1}(\rho)$ and a similar definition for $\rho_{2}$. Then, we can consider the maps
$$\mbox{tr}_{i}:\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mathcal{C}_{j}
\quad|\quad \rho\longrightarrow \mbox{tr}_{i}(\rho)$$
from which we can construct the induced projections:
$$\tau_{i}:\mathcal{L}\longrightarrow \mathcal{L}_{i} \quad|\quad
S\cap\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mbox{tr}_{i}(
\overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>} )\cap \mathcal{C}_i=
\mbox{tr}_{i}( \overline{<S\cap\mathcal{C}>} )\cap \mathcal{C}_i$$
In terms of good representatives $\tau_i([S])=[\mbox{tr}_i(S)]$. As a consequence, we can define the product map
$$\tau:\mathcal{L}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}_{1}\times\mathcal{L}_{2}
\quad|\quad L\longrightarrow(\tau_{1}(L),\tau_{2}(L))$$
The maps defined in this section are illustrated in Figure \[f:maps1\].
\[f:maps1\]
(5,5)(0,0) (-3,23)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (3,23)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (-2,4)[(0,2)[16]{}]{} (2,20)[(0,-2)[16]{}]{} (8,0)[(3,0)[15]{}]{} (-8,0)[(-3,0)[15]{}]{} (0,25)[(0,0)[$\mathcal{L}$]{}]{} (-27,0)[(0,0)[${\mathcal{L}_{1}}$]{}]{} (27,0)[(0,0)[${\mathcal{L}_{2}}$]{}]{} (0,0)[(0,0)[${\mathcal{L}_{1}\times\mathcal{L}_{2}}$]{}]{} (-1,11)[(-10,0)[$\psi$]{}]{} (-1,11)[(13,0)[$\tau$]{}]{} (-15,16)[(0,0)[$\tau_{1}$]{}]{} (15,16)[(0,0)[$\tau_{2}$]{}]{} (-15,2)[(0,0)[$\pi_{1}$]{}]{} (15,2)[(0,0)[$\pi_{2}$]{}]{}
The Lattice of Convex Subsets {#s:Convex lattice}
=============================
The elements of $\mathcal{L}$ are the intersections between closed (real) subspaces of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{C}$. Now we drop the restriction and consider [*all*]{} possible probability subspaces of $\mathcal{C}$, i.e., all of their possible convex subsets. Because of linearity, partial trace operators preserve convexity and so they will map probability spaces of the system into probability spaces of the subsystems, as desired. Let us begin then by considering the set of all convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$ ():
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}:=\{C\subseteq\mathcal{C}\,|\,
\mbox{C is a convex subset of} \,\,\,\mathcal{C}\}$
In order to give $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ a lattice structure, we introduce the following operations (where $conv(A)$ stands for convex hull of a given set $A$):
\[definitionlattice\]
For all $C,C_1,C_2\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$
1. : $C_1\wedge C_2:= C_1\cap C_2$
2. : $C_1\vee C_2:=conv(C_1,C_2)$. It is again a convex set, and it is included in $\mathcal{C}$ (using convexity).
3. : $\neg C:=C^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{C}$
4. : $C_1\longrightarrow C_2:= C_1\subseteq C_2$
With the operations of definition \[definitionlattice\], it is apparent that $(\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}};\longrightarrow)$ is a poset. If we set $\emptyset=\mathbf{0}$ and $\mathcal{C}=\mathbf{1}$, then, $(\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}};\longrightarrow;\mathbf{0};\emptyset=\mathbf{0})$ will be a bounded poset.
It is very easy to show that
$(\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}};\longrightarrow;\wedge;\vee)$ satisfies
1. $C_1\wedge C_1= C_1$
2. $C_1\wedge C_2=C_2\wedge C_1$
3. $C_1\vee C_2=C_2\vee C_1$
4. $C_1\wedge (C_2\wedge C_3)=(C_1\wedge C_2)\wedge C_3$
5. $C_1\vee (C_2\vee C_3)=(C_1\vee C_2)\vee C_3$
6. $C_1\wedge (C_1\vee C_2)=C_1$
7. $C_1\vee (C_1\wedge C_2)=C_1$
Regarding the “$\neg$" operation, if $C_1\subseteq C_2$, then $C_2^{\perp}\subseteq C_1^{\perp}$. Accordingly, $C_2^{\perp}\cap \mathcal{C}\subseteq C_1^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{C}$, and hence
$$C_1\longrightarrow C_2\Longrightarrow \neg C_2\longrightarrow
\neg C_1$$
Given that $C\cap(C^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{C})=\emptyset$, we also have:
$$C\wedge(\neg C)=\mathbf{0}$$
Contraposition and non contradiction thus hold. But if we take the proposition $C=\{\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{1}\}$, then an easy calculation yields $\neg C=\mathbf{0}$. Then, $\neg(\neg
C)=\mathbf{1}$, and thus $\neg(\neg C)\neq C$ in general. Double negation does not hold. Consequently, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is not an ortholattice. $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is a lattice which includes all convex subsets of the quantum space of states. It includes $\mathcal{L}$, and then all quantum states (including all improper mixtures), [*as propositions*]{} (understood as elements of the lattice). Compare with classical physics, where the lattice of propositions is formed by all measurable subsets of Gibbs’ phase-space (the space of states).
As any convex subset of $\mathcal{C}$ is a probability space by itself, we can define on each of these subsets a lattice structure in analogous way to that used for $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$. In other words, we encounter an inheritance of the same structure.
Effects, mean values and maximum entropy principle {#s:Max-Ent}
--------------------------------------------------
Let us discuss, as an example, the family of elements of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ that is associated to effects. Given an effect $E$, consider the set of states
$$C_{(E,\lambda)}:=\{\rho\in \mathcal{C}\,|\,\mbox{tr}(\rho
E)=\lambda,\,\,\lambda\in[0,1]\}.$$
It is easy to verify that $C_{E}$ is a convex set and, consequently, an element of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$. $C_{(E,\lambda)}$ represents all the states for which the probability of having the effect $E$ is equal to $\lambda$. Furthermore, there exists $S$, an $\mathcal{R}$-subspace of $\mathcal{A}$, such that
$$\label{e:effectconvex}
C_{(E,\lambda)}=S\cap\mathcal{C},$$
and thus, $C_{E}$ is also an element of $\mathcal{L}$. The proof of (\[e:effectconvex\]) is as follows. Consider the linear functional
$$F_{(E,\lambda)}(\rho):=\mbox{tr}(E\rho)-\lambda\mbox{tr}(\rho),$$
As in the proof of Proposition \[p:FacesAreElements\], we will have that the set $S=Ker(F_{(E,\lambda)})$ is a closed subspace of $\mathcal{B}_1$. Then, an element $\rho\in
C_{(E,\lambda)}$ will be given by an element of $\mathcal{C}$ of trace one, and thus $F_{(E,\lambda)}(\rho)=\mbox{tr}(E\rho)-\lambda$, plus the equality to $\lambda$ requirement imply that $\rho$ also belongs to $S$. We have thus demonstrated Eq. (\[e:effectconvex\]). More generally, if we have the equation for the mean value of an operator
$$\label{e:setofmatrixes}
\langle R\rangle=r,$$
the operator may be considered as represented by the set of density matrices which satisfy the above equality. The ensuing set is obtained as the intersection of the Kernel of the functional $F_{R}(\rho):=\mbox{tr}(R\rho)-r\mbox{tr}(\rho)$ with $\mathcal{C}$. Accordingly, each equation of the form (\[e:setofmatrixes\]) (understood as an equation to be solved) can be represented as an element $C\in\mathcal{L}$, and also as an element of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$. Note that $\mathcal{C}$ is also a closed convex set because it is the intersection of the following closed half-spaces $$H_x=\{\rho\in\mathcal{A}\,|\,x^\dag\rho x=0\},\quad
\mathcal{C}=\bigcap_{x\in\mathcal{H}}\{\rho \,|\,x^\dag\rho
x\geq0\}\cap\{\rho\,|\,\text{tr}(\rho)=1\}.$$
With such materials at hand, we can now re-express the celebrated Jaynes’ maximum entropy principle [@Jaynes-1957a; @Jaynes-1957b] in lattice theoretical fashion. Jaynes assumes that for a quantum system one knows the mean values
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:conditionsmean}
&\langle R_{1}\rangle=r_{1}&\nonumber\\
&\langle R_{2}\rangle=r_{2}&\nonumber\\
&\vdots&\nonumber\\
&\langle R_{n}\rangle=r_{n},\end{aligned}$$
and we want to determine the most unbiased density matrix compatible with conditions (\[e:conditionsmean\]). Jaynes’ MaxEnt principle asserts that the solution to this problem is given by the density matrix that maximizes entropy, given by
$$\rho_{max-ent}=\exp^{-\lambda_{0}\mathbf{1}-\lambda_{1}R_{1}-\cdots-\lambda_{n}R_{n}},$$
where the $\lambda$’s are Lagrange multipliers satisfying
$$r_{i}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_{i}}\ln Z,$$
while the partition function reads
$$Z(\lambda_{1}\cdots\lambda_{n})=\mbox{tr}[\exp^{-\lambda_{1}R_{1}-\cdots-\lambda_{n}R_{n}}],$$
and the normalization condition is
$$\lambda_{0}=\ln Z.$$
Our point here is that the set of conditions (\[e:conditionsmean\]) can be expressed in an explicit lattice theoretical form as follows. Using a similar procedure as in (\[e:setofmatrixes\]) we easily conclude that each of the equations in (\[e:conditionsmean\]) can be represented as a convex (and closed) sets $C_{R_{i}}$. In this way we can now express conditions (\[e:conditionsmean\]) via the lattice theoretical expression
$$C_{max-ent}:=\bigcap_{i}C_{R_{i}}=\bigwedge_{i}C_{R_{i}}.$$
Now, $C_{max-ent}$ is also an element of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ (but not necessarily of $\mathcal{L}$) and we must maximize entropy in it. We have thus encountered a MaxEnt-lattice theoretical expression: [*given a set of conditions represented generally by convex subsets $C_{i}$, one should maximize the entropy in the set $C_{max-ent}=\bigwedge_{i}C_{i}$.*]{}
The Relationship Between $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}$, $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ {#s:The Relationship}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, refer here to Appendix \[s:ApendixB\].
\[p:Inclusion of Lvn\] For finite dimension $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}\subseteq\mathcal{L}\subseteq\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ as posets.
We have already seen that $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}\subseteq\mathcal{L}$ as sets. Moreover it is easy to see that if $F_1\leq F_2$ in $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}$ then $F_1\leq F_2$ in $\mathcal{L}$. This is so because both orders are set theoretical inclusions. Similarly, if $L_{1},L_{2}\in\mathcal{L}$, because intersection of convex sets yields a convex set (and closed subspaces are convex sets also), $L_{1},L_{2}\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$, then we obtain set theoretical inclusion. And, again, because of both orders are set theoretical inclusions, we obtain that they are included as posets.
Regarding the $\vee$ operation, let us compare $\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}}$, $\vee_{\mathcal{L}}$ and $\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{C}}$. If $L_{1},L_{2}\in\mathcal{L}$, then they are convex sets and so, $L_{1},L_{2}\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$. Thus we can compute
$$L_{1}\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{C}}L_{2}=conv(L_{1},L_{2}).$$
On the other hand (if $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ are good representatives for $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$), then:
$$L_{1}\vee_{\mathcal{L}}L_{2}=(\overline{<S_{1}\cap\mathcal{C}>}+\overline{<S_{2}\cap\mathcal{C}>})\cap\mathcal{C}.$$
The direct sum of the subspaces $\overline{<S_{1}\cap\mathcal{C}>}$ and $\overline{<S_{2}\cap\mathcal{C}>}$ contains as a particular case all convex combinations of elements of $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$. We then conclude (including infinite dimensional case)
$$L_{1}\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{C}}L_{2}\leq L_{1}\vee_{\mathcal{L}}L_{2}.$$
The faces of $\mathcal{C}$ can be considered as elements of $\mathcal{L}_{C}$ because they are convex. If $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ are faces we can also state (finite dimension)
$$F_{1}\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{C}}F_{2}\leq
F_{1}\vee_{\mathcal{L}}F_{2}\leq
F_{1}\vee_{\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}}F_{2}.$$
Intersection of convex sets is the same as intersection of elements of $\mathcal{L}$ and so we have (infinite dimension)
$$L_{1}\wedge_{\mathcal{L}_{C}}L_{2}=
L_{1}\wedge_{\mathcal{L}}L_{2},$$
and similarly (finite dimension)
$$F_{1}\wedge_{\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}}F_{2}=
F_{1}\wedge_{\mathcal{L}_{C}}F_{2}= F_{1}\wedge_{\mathcal{L}}F_{2}.$$
What is the relationship between $\neg_{\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}}$ and $\neg_{\mathcal{L}}$? Suppose that $L_{1}\in\mathcal{L}$, then they are convex sets as well and $L_{1}\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$. We can now compute $\neg_{\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}}L_{1}$ and obtain
$$\neg_{\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}}L_{1}=L_{1}^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{C}.$$
On the other hand, if $L_{1}=S\cap\mathcal{C}$, with $S$ a good representative,
$$\neg_{\mathcal{L}}L_{1}=<S\cap\mathcal{C}>^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{C}.$$
As $L_{1}\subseteq <S\cap\mathcal{C}>$, then $<S\cap\mathcal{C}>^{\perp}\subseteq L_{1}^{\perp}$, and finally (infinite dimension)
$$\neg_{\mathcal{L}}L_{1}\leq\neg_{\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}}L_{1}.$$
Identifying entanglement in the finite dimensional case {#s:EntanglementWittness}
=======================================================
After introducing the new lattice theoretical frameworks, it is interesting to look back again to the finite dimensional case, condition that will we assume through this section. In doing so, we will find a separability criteria. We will include in this section proofs of various well established facts because in doing so, we illuminate the lattice structure behind those facts which allow us to deduce our novel separability criteria. In future works we will use these proofs to compute effectively *the volume of the space of separable states*. Let $\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})$ denote the space of product states
$$\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})=\{a\otimes
b\,|\,a\in\mathcal{C}_1,\,b\in\mathcal{C}_2\} \subseteq
S(\mathcal{H})$$
By definition, $S(\mathcal{H})$ is the convex hull of $\mathcal{S}_0(\mathcal{H})$. Using a well known fact about the theory of convex sets, we know that $S(\mathcal{H})$ is the intersection of all the closed half-hyperplanes containing $\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})$ [@rocka 11.5.1]. For any functional $\ell$ representing a half-plane and a real number $m$, we have
$$\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})\subseteq\{\ell\geq m\}\iff
\ell(\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H}))\subseteq [m,+\infty)\iff
\ell(\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H}))\text{ has a minimum value }m.$$
We work with i) $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ and ii) its isomorphic space $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_1)\otimes
\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_2)$. The composition for $\rho_1,\rho_2\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is $\rho_1\rho_2,$ and for $a\otimes b,c\otimes d\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_1)\otimes
\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_2),$ is $ac\otimes bd$. The induced trace in $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_1)\otimes \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_2)$ is $\text{tr}(a\otimes b)=\text{tr}(a)\text{tr}(b)$. In $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ we have a canonical inner product, $$\langle \rho_1,\rho_2\rangle=\text{tr}(\rho_1\rho_2^\dag)$$ In $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_1)\otimes \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_2)$ we have the induced inner product, $$\langle a\otimes b,c\otimes d\rangle=\text{tr}(ac^\dag)\text{tr}(bd^\dag)$$ In particular, in $\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H}_1)\otimes\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H}_2)$ one has
$$\langle a\otimes b,c\otimes d\rangle=\text{tr}(ac)\text{tr}(bd).$$
This inner product gives to $\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})$ the structure of an $\mathcal{R}$-vector space with an inner product. Hence, any linear functional $\ell$ is associated to a vector $\rho\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})$ such that $\ell=\langle\rho,-\rangle$.
It is important to notice here that any functional of the form $\ell=\langle\rho,-\rangle$ defines by varying $m\in\mathcal{R}$ a family of elements of $\mathcal{L}_{C}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ by considering the families of convex subsets $\{\ell\leq m\}\cap\mathcal{C}$ and $\{\ell= m\}\cap\mathcal{C}$ respectively. It is possible to show that
The space of product states $\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})$ is compact. In particular, every linear functional of the form $\ell_\rho$ on $\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})$ has a maximum $M_\rho$ and a minimum $m_\rho$ values.
It is well known that for every matrix in $a\in\mathcal{C}_1$ there exist a unitary matrix $U\in\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_1)$ such that $UaU^\dag$ is diagonal. In particular, if we take the subgroup $$\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_1)\times\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_2)\hookrightarrow
\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})=\{U\in
\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})\,|\,UU^\dag=I\}$$ we have that every product state is conjugate to a product of two diagonal matrixes $$(U_1,U_2)(a_1\otimes a_2)(U_1^\dag,U_2^\dag)=(U_1a_1U_1^\dag)\otimes (U_2a_2U_2^\dag)=
d_1\otimes d_2.$$ Note that the subgroup $\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_1)\times\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_2)$ preserves the space of product states and the space of separable states. Let us define the space of diagonal product states $$\mathcal{D}=\{d_1\otimes d_2\in\mathcal{S}\,|\, d_1=\text{diag}(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n),\,
d_2=\text{diag}(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_m)\}.$$ Note that $\mathcal{D}$ is isomorphic, as a topological space, to the product of simplexes $\triangle^n\times\triangle^m$. Indeed, we have the following continuous surjective map from a compact space to $\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})$
$$\Gamma:
\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_1)\times\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_2)\times\triangle^n\times\triangle^m
\longrightarrow\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H}),$$
$$\Gamma(U_1,U_2,(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n),(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_m))=
U_1^\dag\text{diag}(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)U_1\otimes
U_2^\dag\text{diag}(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_m)U_2.$$
It is also known that
The space of separable states $S(\mathcal{H})\subseteq
A(\mathcal{H})$ is compact.
We remind the reader that Carathéodory’s theorem states that if a point $x$ of $\mathcal{R}^d$ lies in the convex hull of a set $P$, there is a subset $P'$ of $P$ consisting of $d+1$ (or fewer) points such that $x$ lies in the convex hull of $P'$. Equivalently, $x$ lies in an $r-$simplex with vertices in $P$, where $r \le d$. The result is named for Constantin Carathéodory, who proved the theorem in 1911 for the case when $P$ is compact. In 1914, Ernst Steinitz expanded Carathéodory’s theorem for any sets $P$ in $\mathcal{R}^d$. Let $N=\dim_{\mathcal{R}}A(\mathcal{H})$. Then, it is seen by Carathéodory’s theorem [@rocka 17.1] that the following continuous map is surjective,
$$\triangle^{N+1}\times(\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H}))^{N+1}\stackrel{\Gamma}{\longrightarrow}S(\mathcal{H})$$
$$\Gamma((\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_N),(a_0,\ldots,a_{N}))=\sum_{i=0}^N
\lambda_i a_i.$$
Hence $S(\mathcal{H})$ is a compact convex space.
Entanglement witnesses are useful to characterize entanglement [@bengtssonyczkowski2006; @Horodeki-2009] and have became a fundamental tool. They originate in geometry, being a consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem [@bengtssonyczkowski2006]. This theorem is a central tool in functional analysis. It allows the extension of bounded linear functionals defined on a subspace of some vector space to the whole space, and it also guarantees that there are “enough" continuous linear functionals defined on every normed vector space to make the study of the dual space “interesting." Another version of the HB theorem, known also either i) as the HB-Banach separation theorem or ii) the separating hyperplane theorem, has numerous uses in convex geometry, and interest us here. If $\rho\notin
\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$, and because $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is closed and convex, then there exists a plane (and so a functional) which separates $\rho$ and $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$. This means that $\rho$ stands in one side of the plane and $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ on the other. The existence of such a plane is closely linked to the existence of an observable $W$ (and this is the entanglement witness) which satisfies that if $\rho\in\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{H})$, then $\mbox{tr}(\rho W)<0$ and $\mbox{tr}(\sigma)\geq 0$ for any $\sigma\in\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$. It is possible to show that for any entangled state there exists an entanglement witness. Also:
Let $\ell_\rho=\langle\rho,-\rangle$ an $\mathcal{R}$-linear functional with $\rho\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})$. Then $$\min_{S(\mathcal{H})}\ell_\rho=\min_{\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})}\ell_\rho=
\min\{\langle\rho,vv^\dag\otimes
ww^\dag\rangle\,|\,\|v\|=\|w\|=1\}=:m_\rho,$$ $$\max_{S(\mathcal{H})}\ell_\rho=\max_{\mathcal{S}_{0}(\mathcal{H})}\ell_\rho=
\max\{\langle\rho,vv^\dag\otimes
ww^\dag\rangle\,|\,\|v\|=\|w\|=1\}=:M_\rho.$$
Suppose that $\lambda_0a_0+\ldots+\lambda_s a_s\in S(\mathcal{H})$ is the maximum of $\ell_\rho$ and consider the following linear functional $$(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_s)\longrightarrow\sum_{i=0}^s \alpha_i \ell_\rho(a_i),\quad(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_s)\in\triangle^{s+1}.$$ We know that its maximum is at $(\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_s)$ but let us appeal to some ideas from the theory of faces discussed in [@rocka p.162,163]. We learn there that a linear functional over a convex set $\triangle^{s+1}$, by definition, achieves its maximum over a face ($F=\triangle^{s+1}\cap H$) and given that every face contains $0$-dimensional faces we have that every linear functional achieves its maximum at some $0$-dimensional face. Recall that “a face of a face" is just a face of the convex set $\triangle^{s+1}$ and that the $0$-dimensional faces of $\triangle^{s+1}$ are its vertexes. In conclusion, the linear functional considered above achieves its maximum at a vertex. Then such maximum refers to a product state (same for the minimum). For the second relationship invoked above we need still to show that every separable state is a convex combination of products of pure states, but this is a well established fact (given $\rho$ separable, just express in diagonal forma the components of products which appear on its decomposition).
What is interesting regarding the above proposition is the fact that we can effectively compute the numbers $m_\rho$ and $M_\rho$, as demonstrated in [@max]. Also, we can show that
Over the convex set $\mathcal{C}$ it is easy to prove that the maximum and minimum of the lineal functional $\ell_\rho$ are the biggest and smallest eigenvalues of $\rho$. Given that $S(\mathcal{H})\subseteq\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$ we have that $\min_\mathcal{S}\ell_\rho\geq\lambda_{\min}$ and $\max_\mathcal{S}\ell_\rho\leq\lambda_{\max}$. In particular, for pure states we have $\max_\mathcal{S}\ell_{xx^\dag}\leq1$ and $\min_\mathcal{S}\ell_{xx^\dag}\geq0$.
Let us define
Let $e_i=(0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0)$ be a canonical column vector and let $c_{kl}$ be the matrix with $1$ in place $kl$, i.e. $c_{kl}=e_k e_l^\dag$. Let $x=\sum\lambda_i e_i$ be a vector such that $\|x\|=1$ then $$x^\dag\rho x=\sum_{kl} \overline{\lambda_k}\lambda_l e_k^\dag\rho e_l=
\sum_{kl} \overline{\lambda_k}\lambda_l \text{tr}(\rho c_{kl})=
\text{tr}(\rho \sum_{kl} \overline{\lambda_k}\lambda_l c_{kl})=
\text{tr}(\rho xx^\dag).$$ Note that $xx^\dag$ is a pure state (positive and rank one matrix) and $\text{tr}(xx^\dag)=\|
x\|^2=1$. Let us define the sphere in $\mathcal{H}$ $$S_{1}(\mathcal{H})=\{x\in\mathcal{H}\,|\,\|x\|=1\}.$$
The space of states $\mathcal{C}$ is compact.
Let $n=\dim_\mathcal{R} \mathcal{H}$ and $N=\dim_\mathcal{R}\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})$. We can give here two proofs, $$\triangle^{N+1}\times S_{1}(\mathcal{H})^{N+1}\stackrel{\Gamma_1}{\longrightarrow}\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H}),\quad
\triangle^{N+1}\times\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})^n\times\triangle^n\stackrel{\Gamma_2}{\longrightarrow}\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H}).$$ $$\Gamma_1(a_0,\ldots,a_N,x_0,\ldots,x_N)=\sum_{i=0}^N a_ix_ix_i^\dag.$$ $$\Gamma_2(a_0,\ldots,a_N,U_1,\ldots,U_n,d_1,\ldots,d_n)=\sum_{i=0}^N a_i U_i^\dag\text{diag}(d_1,\ldots,d_n)U_i.$$ Both are continuous surjective maps.
Now we are in condition to characterize $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ in terms of special convex sets
$$\mathcal{C}=\bigcap_{x\in S_{1}(\mathcal{H})}\{\ell_{xx^\dag}\geq 0\},\quad
S(\mathcal{H})=\bigcap_{\rho\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})}\{m_\rho\leq\ell_\rho\leq
M_\rho\}.$$ In particular, if $s\in S(\mathcal{H})$ then $\|s\|^2\leq M_s$.
We only have to prove the second equality. If $x\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})$ and $m_\rho\leq\ell_\rho(x)\leq
M_\rho$ for all $\rho\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})$, then $x\in
S(\mathcal{H})$. Suppose that $x\not\in S(\mathcal{H})$. Then, there exists $\ell$ separating $x$ and $S(\mathcal{H})$. Assume that there exist also $d\in\mathcal{R}$ such that
$$\ell(x)>d,\,\ell(s)\leq d\quad\forall s\in\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}).$$
Let $M$ be the maximum of $\ell$ over $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$. Then $M\leq d$. Note that $\ell$ is one of the $\{\ell_\rho\}$ used in the intersection operation above, so that we would have $\ell(x)\leq M\leq d$, which is a contradiction! Accordingly, $$\ell(x)<d,\,\ell(s)\geq d\quad\forall s\in\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}).$$ Now, let $m$ be the minimum of $\ell$ over $\mathcal{S}$. Then one would have $d\leq m$, which is again a contradiction!
Remark that any set of the form $\{m_\rho\leq\ell_\rho\leq
M_\rho\}\cap\mathcal{C}$ is always convex (and thus an element of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$). Consequently, the equality stated in the above theorem
$$\label{e:Scaracterizado1}
S(\mathcal{H})=\bigcap_{\rho\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})}\{m_\rho\leq\ell_\rho\leq
M_\rho\}$$
may be recast in lattice theoretical terms as
$$\label{e:Scaracterizado2}
S(\mathcal{H})=\bigwedge_{\rho\in\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{H})}\{m_\rho\leq\ell_\rho\leq
M_\rho\}\cap\mathcal{C}$$
The difference between equations (\[e:Scaracterizado1\]) and (\[e:Scaracterizado2\]) is both subtle and important: one of them is expressed in lattice form. In the previous theorem we aimed to characterize the separable states via a consideration of all the linear functionals. In practice we just want to know if a [*given*]{} state is separable. For such query we will use a theorem on projections over convex sets [@brezis V.2].
Let $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$ Then, there exists a linear functional $\ell$ and a real number $M$ such that $$\rho \not\in S(\mathcal{H})\iff \ell(\rho)\ge M.$$
If $\rho\not\in S(\mathcal{H})$ then the distance between $\rho$ and $S(\mathcal{H})$ is positive. Let $s\in S(\mathcal{H})$ be its “projection" in the sense that the overlaps $$\langle \rho-s,c\rangle\leq\langle \rho-s,s\rangle,\quad\forall c\in
S(\mathcal{H}).$$ Let $\ell:=\langle \rho-s,\cdot\rangle$ and $M:=\langle \rho-s,s\rangle=\ell(s)$, $$\ell(\rho)=\ell(\rho)-M+M=\langle \rho-s,\rho-s\rangle+M=\|
\rho-s\|^2+M>M.$$ Then $\ell$ separates $\rho$ and $S(\mathcal{H})$. If $\rho\in S(\mathcal{H})$ then $\ell(\rho)=\ell(s)=M$.
The following definition and subsequent proposition will be useful for our separability criteria
If we identify $x\in S_{1}(\mathcal{H})$ with a matrix $X\in\mathcal{C}^{n\times m}$, $X_{ij}=x_{m(i-1)+j}$, we have $$x^\dag (v\otimes w)=v^\dag X w.$$ Let $\{v_i\}\subseteq\mathcal{H}_1$, $\{w_i\}\subseteq\mathcal{H}_2$ and $\sigma_1\geq\ldots\geq\sigma_r>0$ be the singular value decomposition of $X$. It is known that the maximum of the bilinear form $v^\dag Xw$ over $S_{1}(\mathcal{H}_1)\times
S_{1}(\mathcal{H}_2)$ is $\sigma_1$.
\[p:separablecholevski\] $$S(\mathcal{H})\subseteq
\bigcap_{x\in
S_{1}(\mathcal{H})}\{\rho\in\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})\,|\,\langle
xx^\dag,\rho\rangle\leq\sigma_1(X)^2\}= \bigcap_{x\in
S_{1}(\mathcal{H})}\{0\leq\ell_{xx^\dag}\leq\sigma_1(X)^2\}.$$
A general separable state is a convex combination of product states $vv^\dag\otimes ww^\dag$, $$\langle xx^\dag,vv^\dag\otimes ww^\dag\rangle=|\langle x,v\otimes w\rangle|^2\leq\sigma_1^2,\quad
\langle xx^\dag,v_1v_1^\dag\otimes
w_1w_1^\dag\rangle=\sigma_1^2\Longrightarrow
\max_{S(\mathcal{H})}\ell_{xx^\dag}=\sigma_1^2.$$ Note that $\sigma_1^2=1$ if and only if $xx^\dag=v_1v_1^\dag\otimes
w_1w_1^\dag\in S(\mathcal{H})$. Let $\rho\in\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$ and assume that there exist a state $xx^\dag$ such that $\langle
xx^\dag,\rho\rangle>\sigma_1(x)^2$. Then, $\rho\not\in
S(\mathcal{H})$.
The first inclusion of Proposition \[p:separablecholevski\] can be written in the language of $\mathcal{L}_{C}$. This is so because, for a fixed $x\in S_{1}$, the set
$$C_{x}=\{\rho\in\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})\,|\,\langle
xx^\dag,\rho\rangle\leq\sigma_1(X)^2\},$$
is convex. In order to better appreciate this fact, suppose that $\rho_{1}\in C_{x}$ and $\rho_{2}\in C_{x}$. Then, we have $\langle xx^\dag,\rho_{1}\rangle\leq\sigma_1(x)^2$ and $\langle xx^\dag,\rho_{2}\rangle\leq\sigma_1(x)^2$. Multiplying the first inequality by $\lambda\in(0,1)$ and the second one by $(1-\lambda)$, we easily find that $\langle
xx^\dag,(\lambda\rho_{1}+(1-\lambda)\rho_{2})\rangle\leq\sigma_1(x)^2$. This proves that $C_{x}$ is convex. Thus, for each $x\in S_{1}$, $C_{x}\in \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$. Accordingly, we can state (using a lattice theoretical language) that
\[p:inequality\] $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})\leq \bigwedge_{x\in
S_{1}(\mathcal{H})}C_{x}.$
The above proposition shows that the set of separable states is included in the conjunction of a collection of special elements of $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{C})$. This leads to a new (partial) separability criteria, because from Proposition \[p:inequality\] it rapidly follows that\
The above discussion can be easily rephrased to prove the following theorem
Use the Cholesky and the singular value decompositions to write $\rho\in\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$ as a sum $\rho=\sum_{i=1}^s\lambda_i x_ix_i^\dag$, with $x_i^\dag x_j=0$, $$\rho=LL^\dag=(U\Sigma V^\dag)(U\Sigma V^\dag)^\dag=U\Sigma^2 U^\dag\Longrightarrow$$ $$\langle x_jx_j^\dag,\rho\rangle=\langle x_jx_j^\dag,\sum_{i=1}^s\lambda_ix_ix_i^\dag\rangle=
\sum_{i=1}^s\lambda_i\langle
x_jx_j^\dag,x_ix_i^\dag\rangle=\lambda_j.$$ If for some $j$, $\lambda_j>\sigma_1(x_j)^2$ then, $\rho\not\in S(\mathcal{H})$.
The characterization of entanglement using informational invariants {#s:The Relationship for convex}
===================================================================
In this section we study the relationship between the lattice $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ of a system $S$ composed of subsystems $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$, and the lattices of its subsystems, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}1}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}2}$ respectively. As in [@extendedql], we do this by concocting a physical interpretation of the maps which can be defined between them. Recall that we are working with spaces of arbitrary dimension.
Separable States (Going Up) {#s:going up}
---------------------------
Let us define:
Given $C_{1}\subseteq\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $C_{2}\subseteq\mathcal{C}_{2}$
$$C_1\otimes C_2:=\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\,|\,\rho_{1}\in
C_1,\rho_{2}\in C_2\}$$
Then, we define the map:
$$\Lambda:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}1}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}2}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$$ $$(C_{1},C_{2})\longrightarrow \overline{conv(C_1\otimes C_2)}$$ where the bar denotes closure respect to norm.
In the rest of this work we will implicitly use the following proposition (see for example [@Convexsets]):
Let $S$ be a subset of a linear space $\mathcal{L}$. Then $x\in
conv(S)$ iff $x$ is contained in a finite dimensional simplex $\Delta$ whose vertices belong to $S$.
From equation (\[e:separablestates\]) and definition \[d:convex tensor product\] it should be clear that
$$\Lambda(\mathcal{C}_{1},\mathcal{C}_{2})=\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$$
Definition \[d:convex tensor product\] also implies that for all $C_{1}\subseteq\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $C_{2}\subseteq\mathcal{C}_{2}$:
$$\Lambda(C_{1},C_{2})=\overline{C_{1}\widetilde{\otimes}\,C_{2}}$$
Let $\rho=\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}$, with $\rho_{1}\in\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}\in\mathcal{C}_{2}$. Then $\{\rho\}=\Lambda(\{\rho_{1}\},\{\rho_{2}\})$ with $\{\rho_1\}\in\mathcal{L}_{C1}$, $\{\rho_2\}\in\mathcal{L}_{C2}$ and $\{\rho\}\in\mathcal{C}$.
We already know that atoms are special elements of lattices. Thus,
$$\Lambda(\{\rho_{1}\},\{\rho_{2}\})
=conv(\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\})=\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\}=\{\rho\}$$
Let $\rho\in\mathcal{S(\mathcal{H})}$, the set of separable states. Then, there exists $C\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$, $C_{1}\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}$ and $C_{2}\in\mathcal{L}_{C_{2}}$ such that $\rho\in C=\Lambda(C_{1},C_{2})$.
Let $\{\rho_n\}_{n=1}^\infty\subseteq\mathcal{S(\mathcal{H})}$ be a sequence in the interior of $\mathcal{S(\mathcal{H})}$ such that $\rho_n\rightarrow\rho$, then $\rho_n=\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}\phi^n_{i}\otimes\psi^n_{i}$, with $\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}=1$ and $\lambda_{i}\geq 0$. Consider the convex sets:
$$C_{1}=conv(\{\phi_{i}^{n}\}_{i,n})\in\mathcal{L_C}_{1},\quad
C_{2}=conv(\{\psi_{i}^{n}\}_{i,n})\in\mathcal{L_C}_{2},\quad
C=\Lambda(C_{1},C_{2})\in\mathcal{L_C}.$$
Clearly, $\phi_{i}^{n}\otimes\psi_{i}^{n}\in
C_{1}\otimes C_{2}$, and then $\rho_n\in C$ for all $n\in\mathcal{N}$. Given that $C$ is closed, we have $\rho\in C$.
Projections Onto $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}$ (Going Down) {#s:projectionsc}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now study the projections onto $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}$. In the next proposition we will see that they are well defined. Using the partial trace maps we can construct the induced projections:
$$\tau_{i}:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}\longrightarrow
\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{i}}$$
$$C\mapsto \mbox{tr}_{i}( C )$$
Then we can define the product map
$$\tau:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}$$
$$C\mapsto(\tau_{1}(C),\tau_{2}(C))$$
We use the same notation for $\tau$ and $\tau_{i}$ (though they have different domains) as in [@extendedql] and section \[s:New language\], and this should not introduce any difficulty. We can prove the following about the image of $\tau_{i}$.
\[lastausonsurjective\] The maps $\tau_{i}$ preserve the convex structure, i.e., they map convex sets into convex sets.
Let $C\subseteq \mathcal{C}$ be a convex set. Let $C_{1}$ be the image of $C$ under $\tau_{1}$ (a similar argument holds for $\tau_{2}$). Let us show that $C_{1}$ is convex. Let $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho'_{1}$ be elements of $C_{1}$. Consider $\sigma_{1}=\alpha\rho_{1}+(1-\alpha)\rho'_{1}$, with $0\leq\alpha\leq 1$. Then, there exists $\rho,\rho'\in\mathcal{C}$ such that:
$$\sigma_{1}=\alpha\mbox{tr}_1(\rho)+(1-\alpha)\mbox{tr}_1(\rho')=\mbox{tr}_{1}(\alpha\rho+(1-\alpha)\rho')$$
where we have used the linearity of trace. Because of convexity of $C$, $\sigma:=\alpha\rho+(1-\alpha)\rho'\in C$, and so, $\sigma_{1}=\mbox{tr}_{1}(\sigma)\in C_{1}$.
\[lastausonsurjective1\] The functions $\tau_{i}$ are surjective and preserve the $\vee$-operation. They are not injective.
Take the convex set $C_{1}\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}$. Choose an arbitrary element of $\mathcal{C}_{2}$, say $\rho_{2}$. Now consider the following element of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$
$$C=C_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}$$
$C$ is convex, and so belongs to $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$, because if $\rho\otimes\rho_{2},\sigma\otimes\rho_{2}\in C$, then any convex combination $\alpha\rho\otimes\rho_{2}+(1-\alpha)\sigma\otimes\rho_{2}=(\alpha\rho+(1-\alpha)\sigma)\otimes\rho_{2}\in
C$ (where we have used the convexity of $C_{1}$). It is clear that $\tau_{1}(C)=C_{1}$, because if $\rho_{1}\in C_{1}$, then $\mbox{tr}_1(\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2})=\rho_{1}$. So, $\tau_{1}$ is surjective. On the other hand, the arbitrariness of $\rho_{2}$ implies that it is not injective. An analogous argument follows for $\tau_2$.\
Let us see that $\tau_i$ preserves the $\vee$-operation. Let $C$ and $C'$ be convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$. We must compute $\mbox{tr}_{2}(C\vee C'))=\mbox{tr}_{2}(conv(C,C'))$. We ought to show that this is the same as $conv(\mbox{tr}_{2}(C),\mbox{tr}_{2}(C'))$. Take $x\in
conv(\mbox{tr}_{2}(C),\mbox{tr}_{2}(C'))$. Then $x=\alpha\mbox{tr}_{2}(\rho)+(1-\alpha)\mbox{tr}_{2}(\rho')$, with $\rho\in C$, $\rho'\in C'$ and $0\leq\alpha\leq 1$. Using the linearity of trace, $x=\mbox{tr}_{2}(\alpha\rho+(1-\alpha)\rho')$. $\alpha\rho+(1-\alpha)\rho'\in conv(C,C')$, and so, $x\in\mbox{tr}_{2}(conv(C,C'))$. Hence we have
$$conv(\mbox{tr}_{2}(C),\mbox{tr}_{2}(C'))\subseteq\mbox{tr}_{2}(conv(C,C'))$$
In order to prove the other inclusion, take $x\in\mbox{tr}_{2}(conv(C,C'))$. Then,
$$x=\mbox{tr}_{2}(\alpha\rho+(1-\alpha)\rho')=\alpha\mbox{tr}_{2}(\rho)+(1-\alpha)\mbox{tr}_{2}(\rho')$$
with $\rho\in C_{1}$ and $\rho'\in C'$. Note that $\mbox{tr}_{2}(\rho)\in\mbox{tr}_{2}(C)$ and $\mbox{tr}_{2}(\rho')\in\mbox{tr}_{2}(C')$. This proves that
$$\mbox{tr}_{2}(conv(C,C'))\subseteq conv(\mbox{tr}_{2}(C),\mbox{tr}_{2}(C'))$$
Let us now consider the $\wedge$-operation. If $x\in\tau_i(C\wedge C')=\tau_i(C\cap C')$ then $x=\tau_i(\rho)$ with $\rho\in C\cap C'$. But, if $\rho\in C$, then $x=\tau_i(\rho)\in\mbox{tr}_i(C)$. As $\rho\in C'$ as well, a similar argument shows that $x=\tau_i(\rho)\in\mbox{tr}_i(C')$. Then, $x\in\tau_i(C)\cap \tau_i(C')$ and
$$\tau_i(C\cap C')\subseteq\tau_i(C)\cap \tau_i(C'),$$
which is tantamount to
$$\tau_i(C\wedge C')\leq\tau_i(C)\wedge\tau_i(C').$$
\[f:maps2\]
(5,5)(0,0) (-3,23)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (3,23)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (-2,4)[(0,2)[16]{}]{} (2,20)[(0,-2)[16]{}]{} (8,0)[(3,0)[15]{}]{} (-8,0)[(-3,0)[15]{}]{} (0,25)[(0,0)[$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$]{}]{} (-27,0)[(0,0)[${\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}}$]{}]{} (27,0)[(0,0)[${\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}}$]{}]{} (0,0)[(0,0)[${\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}}$]{}]{} (-1,11)[(-10,0)[$\Lambda$]{}]{} (-1,11)[(13,0)[$\tau$]{}]{} (-15,16)[(0,0)[$\tau_{1}$]{}]{} (15,16)[(0,0)[$\tau_{2}$]{}]{} (-15,2)[(0,0)[$\pi_{1}$]{}]{} (15,2)[(0,0)[$\pi_{2}$]{}]{}
These sets are not, in general, equal. The following example illustrates the assertion. Take $\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\}\in\mathcal{L}$ and $\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho'_{2}\}\in\mathcal{L}$, with $\rho'\neq\rho$. It is clear that $\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\}\wedge\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho'_{2}\}=\mathbf{0}$ and so, $\tau_{1}(\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\}\wedge\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho'_{2}\})=\mathbf{0}$. On the other hand, $\tau_{1}(\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\})=\{\rho_{1}\}=\tau_{1}(\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho'_{2}\})$, and then $\tau_{1}(\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\})\wedge\tau_{1}(\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho'_{2}\})=\{\rho_{1}\}$. A similar reasoning holds for the $\neg$-operation.
Geometrical Characterization of Entanglement {#s:entanglement}
--------------------------------------------
We have shown that it is possible to extend $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}$ in order to deal with statistical mixtures and that $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ are possible extensions. It would be interesting to search for a characterization of entanglement within this framework. Let us see first what happens with the functions $\Lambda\circ\tau$ and $\tau\circ\Lambda$. We have:
\[subir bajar\] $\tau\circ\Lambda(C_1,C_2)=(C_1,C_2)$ for every closed convex sets $C_1\subseteq\mathcal{C}_1$ and $C_2\subseteq\mathcal{C}_2$.
$$\tau_1(\Lambda(C_{1},C_{2}))=\tau_1(\overline{conv(C_{1}\otimes C_{2}}))=
\mbox{tr}_1(\overline{conv(C_{1}\otimes C_{2}}))=\overline{C_{1}}=C_1$$ $$\tau_2(\Lambda(C_{1},C_{2}))=\tau_2(\overline{conv(C_{1}\otimes C_{2}}))=
\mbox{tr}_2(\overline{conv(C_{1}\otimes
C_{2}}))=\overline{C_{2}}=C_2$$ Then, $\tau(\Lambda(C_{1},C_{2}))=(C_{1},C_{2})$.
Again, as in [@extendedql], if we take into account simple physical considerations, $\Lambda\circ\tau$ is not the identity function, because when we take partial traces we face the risk of losing information, that will not be recovered when we multiply states. Thus we reach the same conclusion as before [@extendedql]: *“going down and then going up is not the same as going up and then going down”*. We depict w the pertinent maps in Figure \[f:maps2\]. How is this stuff related to entanglement? If we restrict $\Lambda\circ\tau$ to the set of product states, then it does reduce itself to the identity function. Indeed, if $\rho=\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}$, then:
$$\Lambda\circ\tau(\{\rho\})=\{\rho\}.$$
On the other hand, it should be clear that if $\rho$ is an entangled state
$$\label{entangled equation}
\Lambda\circ\tau(\{\rho\})\neq\{\rho\},$$
because $\Lambda\circ\tau(\{\rho\})=\{\mbox{tr}_{2}(\rho)\otimes\mbox{tr}_{1}(\rho)\}\neq\{\rho\}$ for any entangled state. This property can be regarded as a signpost for entanglement. There are mixed states which are not product states. Thus, entangled states are not the only ones satisfying equation (\[entangled equation\]). What is the condition satisfied for a general mixed state? The following proposition summarizes the preceding considerations.
\[subir bajar1\] If $\rho$ is a separable state, then there exists a convex set, $S_{\rho}\subseteq\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ such that $\rho\in
S_{\rho}$ and $\Lambda\circ\tau(S_{\rho})=S_{\rho}$. More generally, for a convex set $C\subseteq \mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$, there exists a convex set $S_{C}\subseteq\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ such that $\Lambda\circ\tau(S_{C})=S_{C}$. For a product state, we can choose $S_{\rho}=\{\rho\}$. If $\rho$ can be written as a finite convex sum of product states, then the convex set $S_{\rho}$ can be taken as a polytope. On the other hand, for any $C\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ which has at least [*one*]{} non-separable state, there is NO convex set $S$ such that $C\subseteq S$ and $\Lambda\circ\tau(S)=S$.
*Product case.* We have already seen above that if $\rho$ is a product state, then $\Lambda\circ\tau(\{\rho\})=\{\rho\}$, and so $S_{\rho}=\{\rho\}$.
*Finite combination case.* If $\rho$ can be written as a finite convex combination of product states, then there exists $\rho^{A}_{k}\in \mathcal{C}_{1}$, $\rho^{B}_{k}\in\mathcal{C}_{2}$ and $\alpha^{i}_{k}\geq 0,
\sum_{k=1}^{N}\alpha^{i}_{k}=1$ such that
$$\label{e:separablerho}
\rho=\sum_{k=1}^{N}\alpha_{k}\rho^{A}_{k}\otimes\rho^{B}_{k}$$
Define first $$S_\rho=conv(\{\rho^{A}_{k}\otimes\rho^{B}_{l}\})$$
$S_\rho$ is the closed set of all convex combinations of products of the elements appearing in the decomposition of $\rho$. It should be clear that $\rho\in S_\rho$. Let us compute $\Lambda\circ\tau(S_\rho)$. $$\label{e:cuenta}
\mbox{tr}_{1}(\sigma)=\sum_{k=1}^{N}(\sum_{l=1}^{N}\lambda_{kl})
\rho^{A}_{k}=\sum_{k=1}^{N}\mu_{k} \rho^{A}_{k},\quad \mu_{k}:=\sum_{l=1}^{N}\lambda_{kl}.$$
In an analogous way we may show that an element of $\tau_{2}(S_\rho)$ has the form $\sum_{l=1}^{N}\nu_{l}
\rho^{A}_{l}$ with $\nu_{l}=\sum_{k=1}^{N}\lambda_{kl}$. Note that $\sum_{k=1}^{N}\mu_{k}=\sum_{l=1}^{N}\nu_{l}=1$. In order to compute $\Lambda(\tau_{1}(S_\rho),\tau_{2}(S_\rho))$ we must construct the convex hull of the set $$\tau_{1}(S_\rho)\otimes\tau_{2}(S_\rho)=\{\sigma_{1}\otimes\sigma_{2}|\sigma_{1}\in\tau_{1}(S_\rho),\sigma_{2}\in\tau_{2}(S_\rho)\}=
\{\sum_{k,l=1}^{N}\mu_{k}\nu_{l}\rho^{A}_{k}\otimes\rho^{B}_{l}\},$$ and we conclude that $$\label{e:equality}
\Lambda\circ\tau(S_\rho)=conv(\{\sum_{kl=1}^{N}\mu_{k}\nu_{l}\rho^{A}_{k}\otimes\rho^{B}_{l}\})=conv(\{\rho^{A}_{k}\otimes\rho^{B}_{l}\})=S_\rho.$$
It is apparent that $S_\rho$ is a polytope.
*Limit point case.* There is still another possibility. Namely if $\rho$ cannot be written as in (\[e:separablerho\]), but there exists $\rho_{ik}^{A}\in\mathcal{C}_{1}$, $\rho_{ik}^{B}\in\mathcal{C}_{2}$ and $\alpha_{ik}\geq 0,
\sum_{k=1}^{N_{i}}\alpha_{ik}=1$ such that $\rho^{i}=\sum_{k=1}^{N_{i}}\alpha_{ik}\rho^{A}_{ik}\otimes\rho^{B}_{ik}$ converges to $\rho$ as $i$ goes to infinity. Consider the set of all possible products of states which appear in the decomposition of the $\rho^{i}$, namely
$$S_{0}:=\{\rho^{A}_{ik}\otimes\rho^{B}_{i'l}, \mbox{for
all}\,\,i,i',k,l\}$$
and define the closure of its convex hull as
$$\label{d:Minvariantset}
S_\rho:=\overline{conv(S_{0})}$$
Remember that convex hull means only taking finite sums. It is clear that $\rho\in S_\rho$ and that $S_\rho$ is convex by construction (the closure of a convex set is also convex). Let us see what happens when we apply $\Lambda\circ\tau$ to $S_\rho$,
$$\label{e:lambdatauM}
\Lambda(\tau(S_\rho))=\overline{conv(\tau_{1}(S_\rho)\otimes\tau_{2}(S_\rho))}$$
Any of the $\rho^{A}_{ik}$ belong to $\tau_{1}(S_\rho)$ (the same for $\rho^{B}_{i'k}$ and $\tau_{2}(S_\rho)$). Then, it is clear that $S_{0}\subseteq
conv(\tau_{1}(S_\rho)\otimes\tau_{2}(S_\rho))$. As $conv(\tau_{1}(S_\rho)\otimes\tau_{2}(S_\rho))$ is convex and the closure of sets preserves the inclusion, then we have $S_\rho\subseteq\Lambda\circ\tau(S_\rho))$ (look at Equation (\[d:Minvariantset\])). On the other hand, any element $\rho_{1}$ of $\tau_{1}(S_\rho)$ can be written as a finite sum $\rho_{1}=\sum\alpha_{ik}\rho^{A}_{ik}$ ($\sum\alpha_{ik}=1$, $\alpha_{ik}\geq 0$) or as a limit of such finite sums (we are using a property of partial traces $\mbox{tr}_{i}$: they are continuous linear maps). The same happens for an element $\rho_{2}\in\tau_{2}(S_\rho)$ (taking the tensor product of density operators produces a continuous map). Then, any element of $\tau_{1}(S_\rho)\otimes\tau_{2}(S_\rho)$ may be written as a finite sum $\sum\alpha_{ik}\beta_{i'l}\rho^{A}_{ik}\otimes\rho^{B}_{i'l}$ or as a limit of such sums. This means that any element of $\tau_{1}(S_\rho)\otimes\tau_{2}(S_\rho)$ is also an element of $S_\rho$. As $S_\rho$ is convex and closed by construction, we will have $\Lambda\circ\tau(S_\rho)=\overline{conv(\tau_{1}(S_\rho)\otimes\tau_{2}(S_\rho))}\subseteq
S_\rho$, which proves that $\Lambda\circ\tau(S_\rho)=S_\rho$.\
The space of separable states $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is a convex set. Let us see that it is invariant under $\Lambda\circ\tau$. First of all, we know that $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is formed by the closure of all possible convex combinations of products of the form $\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}$, with $\rho_{1}\in\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}\in\mathcal{C}_{2}$. But each one of these tensor products, $\Lambda\circ\tau(\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\})=\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\}$, belongs to $\Lambda\circ\tau(\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}))$. Given that $\Lambda\circ\tau(\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}))$ is a closed convex set, we have $\Lambda\circ\tau(\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}))\supseteq\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$. On the other hand we know that the image of $\Lambda\circ\tau$ is always separable, so we can conclude that
$$\Lambda\circ\tau(\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}))=\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$$
Now, consider $C\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ such that there exists $\rho\in C$, with $\rho$ nonseparable. Given that $\Lambda\circ\tau(S)\subseteq \mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ for all $S\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$, it could never happen that there exists $S\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ such that $C\subseteq S$ and $\Lambda\circ\tau(S)=S$.
From the last proposition, we conclude that there exists an interesting property which the convex subsets of separable states satisfy, while convex subsets which include non-separable states do not. This “existence theorem" motivates the following definition for the proposition $C\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$:
$C\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is a separable proposition if there exists $S_{C}\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ such that $\Lambda\circ\tau(S_{C})=S_{C}$ and $C\subseteq S_{C}$. Otherwise, it is a non-separable or entangled proposition. The definition is equivalent to the statement $C\subseteq\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$.
Another conclusion of proposition \[subir bajar1\] is that a density matrix $\rho$ is separable iff there exists a convex set $S_{\rho}$ such that $\rho\in S_{\rho}$ and $\Lambda\circ\tau(S_{\rho})=S_{\rho}$. Thus, proposition \[subir bajar\] also provides an entanglement criterium [**which includes the infinite dimensional case**]{} (see also [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]):\
An unifying generalization for the entanglement of mixed states
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the last section we have introduced a new separability criterium which is also valid for the infinite dimensional case. Now we proceed to an important issue regarding pure states (see also the discussions in [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]). It is a well known fact that pure states are separable, if and only if they are product states. This means that $|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ will be separable if and only if there exist $|\varphi_{1}\rangle$ and $|\varphi_{2}\rangle$ such that $|\psi\rangle=|\varphi_{1}\rangle\otimes|\varphi_{2}\rangle$. This implies that the state $|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ is invariant under the map
$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega:\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}\nonumber\\
\rho\mapsto\rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B},\end{aligned}$$
and this in turn means that
$$\label{e:purecriteria}
|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\in\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})\Longleftrightarrow\Omega(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|.$$
Such simple separability criterium for the pure case is unfortunately invalid for the mixed case. In what follows we show that our separability criteria allows for an interesting unifying generalization.
First of all, notice that only product states exhibit the property of being invariant under $\Omega$. Is there any generalization of $\Omega$ and of the notion of product states? Let us look in more detail to the invariance under $\Omega$-property. In mathematical terms, suppose that a state $\rho$ satisfies
$$\Omega(\rho)=\rho.$$
This is equivalent to stating that $\rho$ can be fully recovered from its reduced states by using local operations. It is easy to show that the function $\Lambda\circ\tau$ satisfies
$$\Lambda\circ\tau(\Lambda\circ\tau(C))=\Lambda\circ\tau(C),$$
and this is equivalent to
$$\label{e:lambdataucuadrado}
(\Lambda\circ\tau)^{2}=\Lambda\circ\tau,$$
a property that $\Omega$ also satisfies, i.e.
$$\label{e:omegacuadrado}
\Omega^{2}=\Omega,$$
as may be easily checked out. It is trivially shown that, when restricted to “one point" convex subsets of the form $\{\rho\}$ (an arbitrary state), $\Lambda\circ\tau$ coincides with $\Omega$, that is
$$\label{e:coincidence}
\Lambda\circ\tau(\{\rho\})=\{\rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B}\}=\{\Omega(\rho)\}.$$
Equations (\[e:lambdataucuadrado\]), (\[e:omegacuadrado\]) and (\[e:coincidence\]) clearly suggest that $\Lambda\circ\tau$ is a suitable generalization of $\Omega$ to arbitrary convex subsets (a single state being a particular case of one point convex sets). The separability criterium presented in section \[s:The Relationship for convex\] provides the clue for generalizing product states to convex subsets, i.e., the convex set generalization of a product state $C$ will satisfy
$$\label{e:CSSinvariance}
\Lambda\circ\tau(C)=C,$$
and this reduces to the the separability properties defined in section \[s:The Relationship for convex\]. The special subsets of $\mathcal{C}$ that we are concerned with exhibit the following property: they can be fully recovered via all possible tensor products and mixtures of its sets of reduced states. More specifically, given a convex set $C$ satisfying (\[e:CSSinvariance\]), it can be recovered from the sets of its reduced states, namely $\tau_{1}(C)$ and $\tau_{2}(C)$ via all possible tensor products and all possible convex mixtures. In physical terms this means that they can be recovered using classical and local operations (just adding systems via all possible tensor products and then considering all possible mixtures of the resulting states). The content of this discussion is compactly encapsulated into equation (\[e:CSSinvariance\]). Convex subsets with this property where termed *Convex Invariant Subsets* (CSS) in [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]. Now it should be clear that CSS are proper generalizations of product states to arbitrary convex subsets.
We can now generalize equation (\[e:purecriteria\]) to arbitrary states as follows. Separability criterium \[e:ourcriteria\] implies that a state $\rho$ is separable iff it belongs to a CSS $C$ such that $\Lambda\circ\tau(C)=C$. The analogy with the pure-states case is clear if we effect the identification $\rho\longrightarrow\{\rho\}$ (i.e., the state considered as an element to the state considered as a particular case of convex subset).
We have thus shown that the map $\Lambda\circ\tau$ is a suitable generalization of $\Omega$. The sets invariant under $\Omega$ are product states and the sets invariant under $\Lambda\circ\tau$ are CSS, a suitable generalization of product states. We may now generalize equation (\[e:purecriteria\]) to any state as follows:
$$\label{e:puregeneralizedcriteria}
\rho\in\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})\Longleftrightarrow \exists C\text{
(a CSS), }\Lambda\circ\tau(C)=C,$$
a neat extension of (\[e:purecriteria\]). For the finite dimensional case the analogy is stronger still: criterium (\[e:purecriteria\]) can be rephrased using von Neumann’s entropy
$$S(\rho)=-\mbox{tr}(\rho\ln(\rho)),$$
as follows:
$$\label{e:purecriteriaentropy}
\rho\in\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})\Longleftrightarrow
S(\rho^{A})=0=S(\rho^{B}),$$
where $\rho^{A}$ and $\rho^{B}$ are the reduced states of $\rho$. As products of pure states generate (in the convex sense) all separable states, it is possible to show that the CSS-criterium may be, in particular, chosen to be generated by products of pure states. von Neumann’s entropy reaches its minimum value in such an instance. Summing up:\
The fact that the above structure may be found for arbitrary states is a clear conceptual simplification for the characterization of entanglement, providing a unifying framework which generalizes (\[e:purecriteria\]) to arbitrary states. In the following section we outline how this geometrical structure extends to arbitrary COMs, and thus to any statistical theory.
Entanglement and separability in arbitrary convexity models {#s:PositiveMaps}
===========================================================
In Section \[s:probabilities\] we reviewed how to construct a general setting for convex operational models out of which the quantum case was a particular example. In this section we study how to extend our geometrical formulation of entanglement to arbitrary statistical models.
Given two convex operational models $(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{A}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{A}})$ and $(\mathbf{B},\mathbf{B}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{B}})$, a morphism between them will be given by a positive linear map $\phi:\mathbf{A}\rightarrow \mathbf{B}$ such that the linear adjoint map $\phi^{\ast}:\mathbf{B}^{\ast}\rightarrow
\mathbf{A}^{\ast}$ is positive with respect to the cones $\mathbf{A}_{+}^{\sharp}$ and $\mathbf{B}_{+}^{\sharp}$.
A link between (or process from)) $\mathbf{A}$ - $\mathbf{B}$ will be represented by a morphism $\phi:\mathbf{A}\rightarrow \mathbf{B}$ such that, for every state $\alpha\in\Omega_{\mathbf{A}}$, $u_{\mathbf{B}}(\phi(\alpha))\leq
1$ (this is a normalization condition). $u_{\mathbf{B}}(\phi(\alpha))$ will represent the probability that the process represented by $\phi$ take place. For the special case of quantum mechanics, we will show that the above processes preserve the convex structure of the cone of positive self adjoint operators. Also, we demonstrate that when the processes preserve trace (i.e., when they map density operators into density operators and thus represent quantum evolutions), they will also preserve the lattice structure of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$.
In the preceding Section we saw how to characterize entanglement and separability using maps between elements of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{i}}$. The interesting point here is that the most salient feature of our lattices is their convex structure, and this will allow us to extend the notions of entanglement and separability to any COM. This is done as follows. In [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000] extensions of COM’s are studied (we review here their definition of extension slightly modifying the reference’s notation). A COM $(\mathbf{\mathbf{C}},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}})$ will be said to be an extension of $(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{A}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{A}})$ if there exists a morphism $\phi:\mathbf{C}\rightarrow \mathbf{A}$ which is surjective.
In order to look for a generalization of entanglement which captures the results of previous Sections we must look at triads of COM’s $(\mathbf{C},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}})$, $(\mathbf{C}_{1},\mathbf{C}_{1}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}_{1}})$, and $(\mathbf{C}_{2},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp}_{2},u_{\mathbf{C}_{2}})$, such that there exist two morphisms $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ with $(\mathbf{C},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}})$ an extension of $(\mathbf{C_{1}},\mathbf{C_{1}}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C_{1}}})$ and $(\mathbf{C_{2}},\mathbf{C_{2}}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C_{2}}})$. It is clear that $\phi=(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})$ may be considered as the best candidate for a generalization of $\tau$. Now, if we want an analogue of $\Lambda$, we must demand additional requirements. We are looking for a map $\Psi$ with the following property. $\Psi$ maps any pair of non-empty convex subsets $(C_{1},C_{2})$ of $\mathbf{C}_{1}\times \mathbf{C}_{2}$ into a non-empty convex subset $C$ of $\mathbf{C}$ with this particular property: for any $c\in C$, we must have $\phi_{1}(c)\in C_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}(c)\in
C_{2}$. Such property guarantees that for any pair of states $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ there will always exist at least one state $c\in \mathbf{C}$ such that $\phi_{1}(c)=a_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}(c)=b_{1}$. Why? Because if $C_{1}=\{c_{1}\}$ and $C_{2}=\{c_{2}\}$, then we must have $\phi_{1}(c)=a_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}(c)=b_{2}$, which guarantees that for any states $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ there will always exist a state $c$ for which $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$, respectively, are the reduced states relative to the maps $\phi_{i}$. As the maps $\phi_{i}$ are morphisms, using them it is possible to define canonically induced functions on convex subsets, and them to map convex subsets of $\mathbf{C}$ into convex subsets of $\mathbf{C_{i}}$ (there is an analogy with the earlier language involving $\tau_{i}$’s and partial traces). With some abuse of notation we will keep calling them $\phi_{i}'s$, without undue harm.
Summing up:
A triad $(\mathbf{C},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}})$, $(\mathbf{C}_{1},\mathbf{C}_{1}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}_{1}})$, and $(\mathbf{C}_{2},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp}_{2},u_{\mathbf{C}_{2}})$ will be called a *triple compound system* if
1. There exist morphisms $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ such that $(\mathbf{C},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}})$ is an extension of $(\mathbf{C}_{1},\mathbf{C}_{1}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}_{1}})$ and $(\mathbf{C}_{2},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp}_{2},u_{\mathbf{C}_{2}})$.
2. There exists a map $\Psi:\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{C}_{1})\times\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{C}_{2})\rightarrow\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{C})$ which maps pair of non-empty convex subsets $(C_{1},C_{2})\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{C}_{1})\times\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{C}_{2})$ into a nonempty convex subset $C\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{C})$, such that for every $c\in C$, $\phi(c)=(\phi_{1}(c),\phi_{2}(c))\in
C_{1}\times C_{2}$.
If the map $\Psi$ of the triple compound system satisfies that for any $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$, $\Psi(\{c_{1}\},\{c_{2}\})=\{c\}$ for some $c\in \mathbf{C}$, we will say that it is a *strictly two-components triple compound system*.
With this constructions at hand, let us restrict for the sake of simplicity to *strictly two-components triple compound systems* and look for a generalization of entanglement and separability. It is clear now that the analogues of the maps $\Lambda$ and $\tau$ are $\Psi$ and $\phi$, respectively. Thus, it is natural now state
Given a *strictly two-components triple compound system* $(\mathbf{C},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}})$, $(\mathbf{C}_{1},\mathbf{C}_{1}^{\sharp},u_{\mathbf{C}_{1}})$, and $(\mathbf{C}_{2},\mathbf{C}^{\sharp}_{2},u_{\mathbf{C}_{2}})$, with an up-map $\Psi$ and a down-map $\phi$, then
1. A state $c\in\mathbf{C}$ will be called *non-product state* if $\Psi\circ\phi(\{c\})\neq\{c\}$. Otherwise, it will be called a *product state*.
2. For an *invariant convex subset* $C$ one has $C\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{C})$, such that $\Psi\circ\phi(C)=C$
3. If there exist a largest (in the sense of the lattice order) invariant subset, we will denote it by $\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$.
4. A *strictly two-components triple compound system* for which there exists $\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$ and is strictly included in $\mathbf{C}$, will be said to be an *entanglement operational model*.
5. In an *entanglement operational model* a state $c$ which satisfies $c\notin\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$ will be said to be entangled.
It is clear that using these constructions we can export the quantum entanglement structure to a much wider class of COM’s, and for that reason, to many new statistical physical systems. It should be clear also that quantum mechanics is the best example for entanglement, and that all states in classical mechanics are separable. Remark that the properties of a *strictly two-components triple compound systems* will depend, in a strong sense, on the choice of the functions $\Psi$ and $\phi$. These should be selected as the canonical ones, i.e., the ones which are somehow natural for the physics of the problem under study. Notice that nothing prevents us from make more general choices for practical purposes. The physical criterium for the construction of $\psi$ should be that the simple addition of the systems involved should not generate new correlations. We can also “postulate" a generalized separability criterium:
A state $c\in\mathbf{C}$ in an *entanglement operational model* is said to be separable iff there exists $C\subseteq\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$ containing $c$ such that $\Psi\circ\phi(C)=C$.
These constructions may be useful to develop and search for generalizations/corrections of quantum mechanics and for the study of quantum entanglement in theories more general than quantum mechanics. Our constructions are a valid alternative to others that one can find in the literature. An interesting open problem would be that of finding the way in which we can express the violation of Bell’s inequalities using this approach.
In this section we restricted ourselves to *strictly two-components compound triples*. An important example of a *two-components compound triple* which is not strict is to look at a quantal three-components systems out of which we only consider two subsystems. In that case, to any product state of the first two subsystems we can add any other state of the third one, and the map $\Psi$ will yield a convex subset of more than one element.
Conclusions {#s:Conclusions}
===========
In this work we studied different mathematical structures of the convex subsets of the quantum set of states. We showed that these sets are endowed with a canonical lattice structure and extended previous results to the infinite dimensional case. This lattice structure reveals interesting algebraic and geometrical properties of the quantum set of states.
We showed in Section \[s:EntanglementWittness\] that the lattice structure is strongly linked to functionals and entanglement witness. Thus, many of previous results might be translated into our language. At the end of this Section we also provided a new (partial) entanglement criteria easily expressible in lattice theoretical language. We also showed how this algebraic and geometrical convex set-viewpoint can be used to reformulate the Max-Ent principle in a form extensible to any statistical theory, via the COM approach. In particular, it may be useful to include fussy measurements (POVM’s) into the Max-Ent formalism.
We also extended a previous abstract separability criterium, strongly linked to the lattice structure of convex subsets, to the infinite dimensional case. Furthermore, we showed that this geometrical setting can be exported to any arbitrary statistical model via the COM approach, which may be useful to analyze the classicality of theories which generalize quantum mechanics, and also for the study of semiclassical models.
1truecm
[**Acknowledgements**]{} This work was partially supported by the following grants: PIP N$^o$ 6461/05 (CONICET).
Basic mathematical concepts used in the text {#s:ApendixA}
============================================
1. A function is surjective (onto) if every possible image is mapped to by at least one argument. In other words, every element in the codomain has non-empty preimage. Equivalently, a function is surjective if its image is equal to its codomain. A surjective function is a surjection.
2. A linear functional (also called a one-form or covector) is a linear map from a vector space to its field of scalars $K$. In general, if $V$ is a vector space over a field $K$, then a linear functional $f$ is a function from $V$ to $K$, which is linear. Linear functionals are particularly important in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical systems are represented by Hilbert spaces, which are anti-isomorphic to their own dual spaces. A state of a quantum mechanical system can be identified with a linear functional.
3. Suppose that $K$ is a field (for example, the real numbers) and $V$ is a vector space over $K$. If $v_1,\ldots,v_n$ are vectors and $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ are scalars, then the linear combination of those vectors with those scalars as coefficients is, of course, $\sum_{i=1}^n\,a_i\,v_i$. By restricting the coefficients used in linear combinations, one can define the related concepts of affine combination, conical combination, and convex combination, together with the associated notions of sets closed under these operations. If $\sum_{i=1}^n \,a_i=1,$ we have an affine combination, its span being an affine subspace while the model space is an hyperplane. If all $a_i \ge 0,$ we have instead a conical combination, a convex cone and a quadrant, respectively. Finally, if all $a_i \ge 0$ plus $\sum_{i=1}^n\,a_i=1,$ we have now a convex combination, a convex set and a simplex, respectively.
4. By a $\sigma-$algebra one means a collection of sets that satisfy certain properties, used in the definition of measures: it is the collection of sets over which a measure is defined. The concept is important in probability theory, being there interpreted as the collection of events which can be assigned probabilities. Such an algebra, over a set $X$, is a nonempty collection $S$ of subsets of $X$ (including $X$ itself) that is closed under complementation and countable unions of its members. It is an algebra of sets, completed to include countably infinite operations. The pair $(X, S)$ is also a field of sets, called a measurable space.
5. A quotient space (also called an identification space) is, intuitively speaking, the result of identifying certain points of a given space. The points to be identified are specified by an equivalence relation. This is commonly done in order to construct new spaces from given ones. Let $(X, \tau_X)$ be a topological space, and let $R$ be an equivalence relation on $X$. The quotient space $Y=X/R$ is defined to be the set of equivalence classes of elements of $X$: $$Y= \{[x]: x \in X\}=\{\{v\in X: v R x\}: x \in X\},$$ equipped with the topology where the open sets are defined to be those sets of equivalence classes whose unions are open sets in $X$. Equivalently, we can define them to be those sets with an open pre-image under the quotient map which sends a point in $X$ to the equivalence class containing it.
6. Banach spaces are vector spaces $ V$ with a norm $||.|| $ such that every Cauchy sequence (with respect to the metric $d(x, y) = ||x - y||$ in $V$) has a limit in $V$ (with respect to the topology induced by that metric). As for general vector spaces, a Banach space over the real numbers is called a real Banach space, and a Banach space over the complex numbers is called a complex Banach space.
7. Algebras: general vector spaces do not possess a multiplication between vectors. A vector space equipped with an additional bilinear operator defining the multiplication of two vectors is an algebra over a field. Many algebras stem from functions on some geometrical object: since functions with values in a field can be multiplied, these entities form algebras.
8. In functional analysis, a Banach algebra is an associative algebra $A$ over the real or complex numbers which at the same time is also a Banach space The algebra multiplication and the Banach space norm are required to be related by the following inequality: $\forall x, y \in A : \|x \, y\| \ \leq \|x \| \, \| y\|$ (i.e., the norm of the product is less than or equal to the product of the norms). This ensures that the multiplication operation is continuous. This property is found in the real and complex numbers; for instance.
9. A $C^*-$algebra is a Banach algebra with an antiautomorphic involution $*$ which satisfies $(x^*)^* = x$ (1); $x^*y^* = (yx)^*$ (2); $ x^*+y^* =
(x+y)^*$ (3); and $(cx)^* = c^*\,x^*$ (4), where $c^*$ is the complex conjugate of $c$, and whose norm satisfies $||xx^*||=||x||^2$.
10. $C^*$-algebras are an important area of research in functional analysis. An outstanding example is the complex algebra of linear operators on a complex Hilbert space with two additional properties: it is a topologically closed set in the norm topology of operators and is closed under the operation of taking adjoints of operators. It is generally believed that these algebras were first considered primarily for their use in quantum mechanics to model algebras of physical observables, beginning with Werner Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and developed further by Pascual Jordan circa 1933. Afterwards, John von Neumann established a general framework for them which culminated in papers on rings of operators, considered as a special class of C\*-algebras known as von Neumann algebras.
11. It is now generally accepted that the description of quantum mechanics in which all self-adjoint operators represent observables is untenable. For this reason, observables are identified to elements of an abstract C\*-algebra $A$ (that is one without a distinguished representation as an algebra of operators) and states are positive linear functionals on $A$. However, by using the GNS construction, we can recover Hilbert spaces which realize $A$ as a subalgebra of operators. Geometrically, a pure state on a C\*-algebra $A$ is a state which is an extreme point of the set of all states on $A$. By properties of the GNS construction these states correspond to irreducible representations of $A$. The states of the C\*-algebra of compact operators $K(\mathcal{H})$ correspond exactly to the density operators and therefore the pure states of $K(\mathcal{H})$ are exactly the pure states in the sense of quantum mechanics. The C\*-algebraic formulation can be seen to include both classical and quantum systems. When the system is classical, the algebra of observables become an abelian C\*-algebra. In that case the states become probability measures.
12. In functional analysis, given a C\*-algebra $A$, the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction establishes a correspondence between cyclic \*-representations of $A$ and certain linear functionals on $A$ (called states). The correspondence is shown by an explicit construction of the \*-representation from the state.
13. A \*-representation of a C\*-algebra $A$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is a mapping $\pi$ from $A$ into the algebra of bounded operators on $\mathcal{H}$.
14. Point-wise convergence is one of various senses in which a sequence of functions can converge to a particular function. Suppose $\{ f_n \}$ is a sequence of functions sharing the same domain and codomain. The sequence $\{ f_n \}$ converges pointwise to $f$, often written as $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f_n=f$ point wise iff for every $x$ in the domain one has $\lim_{n \rightarrow
\infty} f_n(x)=f(x)$.
15. Every subset $Q$ of a vector space is contained within a smallest convex set (called the convex hull of $Q$), namely the intersection of all convex sets containing $Q$,
16. A set with a binary relation $R$ on its elements that is reflexive (for all $a$ in the set, $aRa$), antisymmetric (if $aRb$ and $bRa$, then $a =
b$) and transitive (if $aRb$ and $bRc$, then $aRc$) is described as a partially ordered set or poset,
17. Let $X$ be a space. Its dual space $X^*$ consists of all linear functions from $X$ into the base field $K$ which are continuous with respect to the prevailing topology.
18. The [*weak*]{} topology on $X$ is the coarsest topology (the topology with the fewest open sets) such that each element of $X^*$ is a continuous function.
19. The predual of a space $D$ is a space $D'$ whose dual space is $D$. For example, the predual of the space of bounded operators $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is the space of trace class operators,
20. The ultraweak topology, also called the weak-\* topology, on the set $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is the weak-topology obtained from the trace class operators on $\mathcal{H}$. In other words it is the weakest topology such that all elements of the predual are continuous (when considered as functions on $\mathcal{H}$),
21. A partially-ordered group is a group $(G,+)$ equipped with a partial order “$\vdash$" that is translation-invariant. That is, “$\vdash$" has the property that, for all $a$, $b$, and $g$ in $G$, if $a
\vdash b$ then $a+g \vdash b+g$ and $g+a \vdash g+b$,
22. An element $x$ of $G$ is called positive element if $0 \vdash x$. The set of elements $0 \vdash x$ is often denoted with $G+$, and it is called the [*positive cone*]{} of $G$. So we have $a \vdash b$ if and only if $-a+b \in G+$.
23. For the general group $G$, the existence of a positive cone specifies an order on $G$. A group $G$ is a partially-ordered group if and only if there exists a subset $J$ (which is $G+$) of $G$ such that: $0 \in J$; if $a \in
J$ and $b \in J$ then $a+b \in J$; if $a \in J$ then $-x+a+x \in
J$ for each $x$ of $G$; if $a \in J$ and $-a \in J$ then $a \vdash
0$.
24. In linear algebra, a matrix decomposition is a factorization of a matrix into some canonical form. There are many different matrix decompositions; each finds use among a particular class of problems. [*The Cholesky decomposition*]{} is applicable to any square, symmetric, positive definite matrix $A$ in the form $A = U^T\,U$, where $U$ is upper triangular with positive diagonal entries. The Cholesky decomposition is a special case of the symmetric LU decomposition, with $L = U^T$. The Cholesky decomposition is unique and also applicable for complex hermitian positive definite matrices. [*The singular value decomposition*]{} is applicable to $m$ times $n$ matrix $A$ in the fashion $A = UDV^{\dagger}$, where $D$ is a nonnegative diagonal matrix while $U$, $V$ are unitary matrices, and $V^{\dagger}$ denotes the conjugate transpose of $V$ (or simply the transpose, if $V$ contains real numbers only). The diagonal elements of $D$ are called the singular values of $A$.
25. The orthogonal complement $W^{\bot}$ of a subspace $W$ of an inner product space $V$ is the set of all vectors in $V$ that are orthogonal to every vector in $W$, i.e.,
$$W^\bot=\left\{x\in V : \langle x, y \rangle = 0 \mbox{ for all } y\in W \right\}.$$
26. A topological space is called [*separable*]{} if it contains a countable dense subset. In other words, there exists a sequence $\{ x_n \}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ of elements of the space such that every nonempty open subset of the space contains at least one element of the sequence.
27. A cover of a set $X$ is a collection of sets whose union contains $X$ as a subset.
28. A topological space $X$ is called compact if each of its open covers has a finite subcover. Otherwise it is called non-compact.
29. A relatively compact subspace (or relatively compact subset) $Y$ of a topological space $X$ is a subset whose closure is compact.
30. $T$ is a compact operator on Hilbert’s space if the image of each bounded set under $T$ is relatively compact. Compact operators on Hilbert spaces are a direct extensions of matrices. In such spaces they are the closure of finite-rank operators. As such, results from matrix theory can sometimes be extended to compact operators using similar arguments. In contrast, the study of general operators on infinite dimensional spaces often requires a genuinely different approach. For example, the spectral theory of compact operators on Banach spaces takes a form that is very similar to the Jordan canonical form of matrices. In the context of Hilbert spaces, a square matrix is unitarily diagonalizable if and only if it is normal. A corresponding result holds for normal compact operators on Hilbert spaces.
31. A simplex is a generalization of the notion of a triangle or tetrahedron to arbitrary dimension. Specifically, an $n-$simplex is an $n-$dimensional polytope which is the convex hull of its $n + 1$ vertices. A 2-simplex is a triangle, a 3-simplex is a tetrahedron, and a 4-simplex is a pentachoron. A single point may be considered a 0-simplex, and a line segment may be considered a 1-simplex. [*A simplex may be defined as the smallest convex set containing the given vertices*]{}.
Lattices {#s:ApendixB}
========
A [lattice]{} $\mathcal{L}$ (also called a poset) is a partially ordered set (also called a poset) in which any two elements $a$ and $b$ have a unique supremum (the elements’ least upper bound “$a\vee b$"; called their join) and an infimum (greatest lower bound “$a\wedge b$"; called their meet). Lattices can also be characterized as algebraic structures satisfying certain axiomatic identities. Since the two definitions are equivalent, lattice theory draws on both order ($>$, $<$) theory and universal algebra. Semilattices include lattices, which in turn include Heyting and Boolean algebras. These “lattice-like" structures all admit order-theoretic as well as algebraic descriptions.
A [*bounded*]{} lattice has a greatest (or maximum) and least (or minimum) element, denoted $1$ and $0$ by convention (also called top and bottom, respectively). Any lattice can be converted into a bounded lattice by adding a greatest and least element, and every non-empty finite lattice is bounded. For any set $A$, the collection of all subsets of $A$ (called the power set of $A$) can be ordered via subset inclusion to obtain a lattice bounded by $A$ itself and the null set. Set intersection and union represent the operations meet and join, respectively.
A poset is called a complete lattice if all its subsets have both a join and a meet. In particular, every complete lattice is a bounded lattice. While bounded lattice homomorphisms in general preserve only finite joins and meets, complete lattice homomorphisms are required to preserve arbitrary joins and meets.
Any quantum system represented by an $N-$dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ has associated a lattice formed by all its convex subspaces ${\mathcal{L}}_{v\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{H}})=
<{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}}),\ \cap,\ \oplus,\ \neg,\ 0,\ 1>$, where $0$ is the empty set $\emptyset$, $1$ is the total space $\mathcal{H}$, $\oplus$ the closure of the sum, and $\neg(S)$ is the orthogonal complement of a subspace $S$ [@mikloredeilibro]. This lattice was called “Quantum Logic" by Birkhoff and von Neumann. One refers to this lattice as the von Neumann-lattice $\mathcal{L}_{v\mathcal{N}}(\mathcal{H})$) [@mikloredeilibro].
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a bounded lattice with greatest element 1 and least element 0. Two elements $x$ and $y$ of the lattice are complements of each other if and only if: $x\bigvee y=1$ and $x\bigwedge y=0$. In the case the complement is unique, we write $\neg x = y$ and equivalently, $\neg y = x$. A bounded lattice for which every element has a complement is called a [*complemented*]{} lattice. The corresponding unitary operation over the lattice, called complementation, introduces an analogue of logical negation into lattice theory. The complement is not necessarily unique, nor does it have a special status among all possible unitary operations over $\mathcal{L}$.
Distributive lattices are lattices for which the operations of join and meet distribute over each other. The prototypical examples of such structures are collections of sets for which the lattice operations can be given by set union and intersection. Indeed, these lattices of sets describe the scenerio completely. A complemented lattice that is also distributive is a Boolean algebra. For a distributive lattice, the complement of $x$, when it exists, is unique.
The concept of lattice’s atom is of great physical importance. If $\mathcal{L}$ has a null element $ 0$, then an element $x$ of $\mathcal{L}$ is an [*atom*]{} if $0 < x$ and there exists no element $y$ of $\mathcal{L}$ such that $0 < y < x$. One says that $\mathcal{L}$ is: i) [*Atomic*]{}, if for every nonzero element $x$ of $\mathcal{L}$, there exists an atom $a$ of $\mathcal{L}$ such that $ a = x$ ii) Atomistic, if every element of $\mathcal{L}$ is a supremum of atoms.
A [*modular*]{} lattice is one that satisfies the following self-dual condition (modular law) $ x \leq
b$ implies $x \vee (a \wedge b) = (x \vee a) \wedge b$, where $\le$ is the partial order, and $\vee$ and $\wedge$ (join and meet, respectively) are the operations of the lattice.
Modular lattices arise naturally in algebra and in many other areas of mathematics. For example, the subspaces of a vector space (and more generally the submodules of a module over a ring) form a modular lattice. Every distributive lattice is modular. In a not necessarily modular lattice, there may still be elements $b$ for which the modular law holds in connection with arbitrary elements $a$ and $x$ ($\le b$). Such an element is called a modular element. Even more generally, the modular law may hold for a fixed pair $(a, b)$. Such a pair is called a modular pair, and there are various generalizations of modularity related to this notion and to semi-modularity.
For $a,\,b \in \mathcal{L}$, to assert that $a$ is orthogonal to $b$ ($ a \bot b$) implies $a
\wedge b=0$. Equivalently, in “order" terms, one says that $a\le
b^{\bot}$. Now, $\mathcal{L}$ is an orthocomplemented lattice if whenever $a \bot b$ then $b\le a^{\bot}$. $\bot$ is a symmetric relation.
For any $a \in \mathcal{L}$, define $M(a):
=\{c\in \mathcal{L} \vert c\bot a, \, {\rm and}\, 1=c\vee a\}$. An element of $M(a)$ is called an orthogonal complement of $a$. We have $a^{\bot} \in
M(a)$, and any orthogonal complement of $a$ is a complement of $a$. If we replace the unity in $M(a)$ by an arbitrary element $b
\ge a$, then we have the set $M(a,b):=\{c\in \mathcal{L}\vert c
\vee a \,{\rm and}\, b=c\vee a\}$. An element of $M(a,b)$ is called an orthogonal complement of $a$ relative to $b$ . Clearly, $M(a)=M(a,1)$. Also, for $a\le cb$ , $c\in M(a,b)$, iff $a\in
M(c,b)$. As a result, we can define still another symmetric binary operator $\oplus$ on $[0,b]$, given by $b=a \oplus c$ iff $c\in
M(a,b)$. Note that $b=b \oplus 0$. A final operation is the “difference" $b-a=b\wedge a$. Some properties: (1) $a-a=0$, $a-0=a$, $0-a=0$, $a-1=0$ , and $1-a=a^{\bot}$; (2) $b-a=a-b$; (3) if $a\le b$, then $a\wedge (b-a)$ and $a \oplus (b-a) \le b$.
[Definition:]{} A lattice $\mathcal{L}$ is called an orthomodular lattice if i) $\mathcal{L}$ is orthocomplemented, and (orthomodular law) ii) if $x\le y$, then $y=x\oplus (y-x)$. The orthomodular law can be recasted as follows: if $x\le y$ , then $y=x\vee (y \wedge x^{\bot})$. Equivalently, $x\le y$ implies $y=(y\wedge x)\vee (y\wedge x^{\bot})$. Such relation is automatically true in an arbitrary distributive lattice, even without the assumption that $x\le y$. For example, the lattice $\mathcal{L}(H)$ of closed subspaces of a Hilbert space $H$ is orthomodular. $\mathcal{L}(H)$ is modular iff $H$ is finite dimensional. In addition, if we give the set $\mathcal{P}_p(H)$ of (bounded) projection operators on $H$ an ordering structure by defining $P\le Q$ iff $\mathcal{P}(H) \le \mathcal{Q}(H)$, then $\mathcal{P}_p(H)$is lattice isomorphic to $\mathcal{L}(H)$, and hence orthomodular [@BvN].
Faces of a convex set {#s:ApendixC}
=====================
We define here a convex set’s [*face*]{} in a real vector space of finite dimension. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let us introduce the auxiliary notions of oriented hyperplanes and supporting hyperplanes. Given ${\bf
n,p}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ let us define the hyperplane $H( {\bf n}, {\bf
p})$ via $$H( {\bf n}, {\bf p}) = \{{\bf x} \in \mathbb{R}^n: {\bf n} \cdot ({\bf x} - {\bf p})=0\}.$$ If ${\bf n}=0$ it is equal to $\mathbb{R}^n$ and we call it degenerate. As long as $H( {\bf n}, {\bf p})$ is nondegenerate, its removal disconnects $\mathbb{R}^n$. The upper halfspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$ determined by $H( {\bf n}, {\bf p})$ is $H( {\bf n},
{\bf p})^+=\{{\bf x} \in \mathbb{R}^n: {\bf n} \cdot ({\bf x} -
{\bf p}) \ge 0\}.$ A hyperplane $H( {\bf n}, {\bf p})$ for $\mathcal{C}$ if its upper halfspace contains $\mathcal{C}$, that is, if $\mathcal{C}
\subset H( {\bf n}, {\bf p})^+$.
Using this terminology, we can define a [**face**]{} of a convex set $\mathcal{C}$ to be the intersection of $\mathcal{C}$ with a supporting hyperplane of $\mathcal{C}$. Notice that we still get both the empty set and $\mathcal{C}$ itself as improper faces of $\mathcal{C}$. For the definition of a face in the infinite dimensional case we extend the definition of a supporting hyperplane to a real Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Given ${\bf
n,p}\in\mathcal{H}$, we say that $H( {\bf n},{\bf p})$, $$H( {\bf n},{\bf p})=\{{\bf x} \in \mathcal{H}: \langle{\bf n} ,{\bf x}-{\bf p}\rangle=0\},$$ is a supporting hyperplane if $\mathcal{C} \subset H( {\bf n}, {\bf
p})^+$. Note that $H( {\bf n},{\bf p})$ is closed and using Riesz representation theorem, for every closed hyperplane $H$ there exists ${\bf n,p}\in\mathcal{H}$ such that $H=H( {\bf n},{\bf p})$.\
In the general case (in a Banach space) we say that if there exist a hyperplane $H$ such that $F=\mathcal{C}\cap H$. A closed hyperplane is given by a continuos lineal functional.\
[**Remarks:**]{} Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a convex set. Then:
- If $F_1=\mathcal{C}\cap H( {\bf n_1}, {\bf p_1})$ and $F_2=\mathcal{C}\cap H( {\bf n_2}, {\bf p_2})$ are faces of $\mathcal{C}$ intersecting at a point $p$ then $H({\bf n}_1+ {\bf
n}_2, {\bf p})$ is a supporting hyperplane of $\mathcal{C}$ and $F1\cap F2=C\cap H({\bf n}_1+ {\bf n}_2, {\bf p})$. This shows that the faces of $\mathcal{C}$ form a meet-semilattice.
- Since each proper face lies on the base of the upper halfspace of some supporting hyperplane, each such face must lie on the relative boundary of $\mathcal{C}$.
An extreme point of a convex set $\mathcal{C}$ in a real vector space is a point in $\mathcal{C}$ which does not lie in any open line segment joining two points of $\mathcal{C}$. Intuitively, an extreme point is a “corner” of $\mathcal{C}$. The Krein-Milman theorem states that if $\mathcal{C}$ is convex and compact in a locally convex space, then $\mathcal{C}$ is the closed convex hull of its extreme points. In particular, such a set has extreme points.\
[10]{}
W. Stulpe and M. Swat, Found. of Phys. Lett. [**14**]{} (2001) 285.
H. Barnum, J. Barret, M. Leifer and A. Wilce, arXiv:quant-ph/0611295v1 \[quant-ph\] (2006)
H. Barnum and A. Wilce, arXiv:0908.2352v1 \[quant-ph\] (2009); Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science Volume **270**, Issue 1, Pages 3-15,(2011).
H. Barnum, R. Duncan and A Wilce, arXiv:1004.2920v1 \[quant-ph\] (2010)
E. Beltrametti, S. Bugajski and V. Varadarajan, J. Math. Phys. **41** (2000)
S. P. Gudder, *Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics* North Holland, New York - Oxford (1979)
G. Cattaneo and S. Gudder, Found. Phys. **29** (1999)
B. Mielnik, Commun. Math. Phys. **9** (1968) 55-80
B. Mielnik, Commun. Math. Phys. **15** (1969) 1-46
B. Mielnik, Commun. Math. Phys. **37** (1974) 221-256
G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, Annals Math.[**37**]{} (1936) 823-843.
H. Putnam, Is Logic Empirical? *Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Scienc*e, vol. **5**, eds. Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1968), pp. 216-241.
G. W. Mackey, Amer. Math. Monthly, Supplement [**64**]{} (1957) 45-57
J. M. Jauch, [*Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, 1968).
C. Piron, [*Foundations of Quantum Physics*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, 1976).
G. Kalmbach, [*Orthomodular Lattices*]{} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1983)
G. Kalmbach, [*Measures and Hilbert Lattices*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1986)
V. Varadarajan, [*Geometry of Quantum Theory I*]{} (van Nostrand, Princeton, 1968)
V. Varadarajan, [*Geometry of Quantum Theory II*]{} (van Nostrand, Princeton, 1970)
J. R. Greechie, in [*Current Issues in Quantum Logic*]{}, E. Beltrameti and B. van Fraassen, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1981) pp. 375-380
S. P. Gudder, in [*Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory*]{}, A. R. Marlow, ed. (Academic, New York, 1978)
R. Giuntini, [*Quantum Logic and Hidden Variables*]{} (BI Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim, 1991)
P. Pták and S. Pulmannova, [*Orthomodular Structures as Quantum Logics*]{} (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991)
E. G. Beltrametti and G. Cassinelli, [*The Logic of Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1981)
M. L. Dalla Chiara, R. Giuntini, and R. Greechie, [*Reasoning in Quantum Theory*]{} (Kluwer Acad. Pub., Dordrecht, 2004)
A Dvurečenskij and S. Pulmannová, [*New Trends in Quantum Structures*]{} (Kluwer Acad. Pub., Dordrecht, 2000
*Handbook Of Quantum Logic And Quantum Structures* (Quantum Logic), Edited by K. Engesser, D. M. Gabbay and D. Lehmann, North-Holland (2009)
D. Aerts and I. Daubechies, Lett. Math. Phys. [**3**]{} (1979) 11-17
D. Aerts and I. Daubechies, Lett. Math. Phys. [**3**]{} (1979) 19-27
C. H. Randall and D. J. Foulis, in [*Interpretation and Foundations of Quantum Theory*]{}, H. Neumann, ed. (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1981) pp. 21-28
G. Domenech, F. Holik and C. Massri, J. Math. Phys. **51**, 052108 (2010)
F. Holik, C. Massri and N. Ciancaglini, arXiv:1008.4168v1 \[quant-ph\] (2010)
E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. Vol. 106, Number 4 (1957)
E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. Vol. 108, Number 2 (1957)
F. Holik and A. Plastino, submitted to Jour. Math. Phys. (2011)
F. Holik and A. Plastino, Phys. Rev. A (2011) in Press.
R. Clifton and H. Halvorson, Phys. Rev. A 61, 012108 (1999)
R. Clifton, H. Halvorson, and A. Kent, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042101 (2000)
K. Życzkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{} (1998) 883.
M. Reed and B. Simon, *Methods of modern mathematical physics* I: Functional analysis, Academic Press, New York-San Francisco-London (1972)
M. Rédei, *Quantum Logic in Algebraic Approach* (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998)
A. Wilce, [*Quantum Logic and Probability Theory*]{}, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/qt-quantlog/. Archive edition: Spring 2009.
A. Gleason, J. Math. Mech. **6**, 885-893 (1957)
D. Buhagiar, E. Chetcuti and A. Dvurečenskij, Found. Phys. **39**, 550-558 (2009)
P. Busch, J. Kiukas and P. Lahti, arXiv:0905.3222v1 \[quant-ph\] (2009)
T. Heinonen, *Imprecise Measurements In Quantum Mechanics*, PhD. Thesis (2005)
Z. Ma, arXiv:0811.2454v1 \[quant-ph\] (2008)
D. Foulis and S. Gudder, Found. Phys. **31** (2001)
R. Werner, Phys. Rev. A **40**, (1989) 4277-4281
I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, *Geometry of Quantum States: An Intrdoduction to Quantum Entanglement* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006)
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, in *Quantum Information*, G. Alber et al., eds. Springer Tracts in Modern Physics Vol. 173 (Springer, Berlin, 2001), p. 151.
G. Aubrun and S. Szarek, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 022109 (2006)
Schlosshauer, M.: Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Springer, New York (2007)
Castagnino, M., Fortin, S.: Int. J. Theor. Phys. **50** (7), 2259-2267 (2011)
Castagnino, M., et al.: Class. Quantum Gravity 25, 154002 (2008)
D. D’Espagnat, [*Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Benjaming, Reading, MA, 1976)
K. A. Kirkpatrik, *arXiv:quant-ph/0109146 v2 21 Oct 2001*
D. D’Espagnat, *arXiv:quant-ph0111081 v1 14 Nov 2001*
O. Bratteli and D. Robinson *Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics I* Springer - Berlag, New York - Heidelberg - Berlin (1979)
A. Holevo, M. Shirokov, R. Werner, *Russian Math. Surveys*, **60**, N.2, 153-154, (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0504204;
Tyrrell Rockafellar, *Convex Analysis*, 1972.
R. Horodeki, P. Horodki, M. Horodeki and K. Horodeki, Rev. Mod. Phys., **81**, (2009) 865-942
César Massri, *Algorithm to find maximum of a multilinear map over a product of spheres*, http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6217.
Haim Brezis, *Analyse Fonctionnelle*, 1987.
F. Valentine, [*Convex Sets*]{} (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York-San Francisco-Toronto-London, 1964)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Yu Saito
- Jingyuan Ge
- Louk Rademaker
- Kenji Watanabe
- Takashi Taniguchi
- 'Dmitry A. Abanin'
- 'Andrea F. Young'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Hofstadter subband ferromagnetism and symmetry broken Chern insulators in twisted bilayer graphene
---
**In bilayer graphene rotationally faulted to $\bm{\theta\approx 1.1^\circ}$, interlayer tunneling and rotational misalignment conspire to create a pair of low energy flat bands[@bistritzer_moire_2011-1] that have been found to host a variety of insulating, superconducting, and magnetic states at partial filling[@cao_correlated_2018; @cao_unconventional_2018; @yankowitz_tuning_2019; @lu_superconductors_2019; @sharpe_emergent_2019; @serlin_intrinsic_2020]. Most work to date has focused on the zero magnetic field phase diagram, with magnetic field used as a probe of the $\bm{B = 0}$ band structure. Here, we show that twisted bilayer graphene (tBLG) in a magnetic fields of several Tesla hosts a cascade of ferromagnetic Chern insulators with Chern number $\bm{|C| = 1, 2}$ and $\bm{3}$. We argue that the emergence of the Chern insulators is driven by the interplay of the moiré superlattice with the magnetic field, which endow the flat bands with a substructure of topologically nontrivial subbands characteristic of the Hofstadter butterfly[@hofstadter_energy_1976; @thouless_quantized_1982]. The new phases can be accounted for in a Stoner picture[@nomura_quantum_2006] in which exchange interactions favor polarization into one or more spin- and valley-isospin flavors; in contrast to conventional quantum Hall ferromagnets, however, electrons polarize into between one and four copies of a single Hofstadter sub-band with Chern number $\bm{C = -1}$[@bistritzer_moire_2011-1; @moon_energy_2012; @zhang_landau_2019]. In the case of the $\bm{C = \pm 3}$ insulators in particular, magnetic field catalyzes a first order phase transition from the spin- and valley-unpolarized $\bm{B=0}$ state into the ferromagnetic state. Distinct from other moiré heterostructures[@dean_hofstadters_2013; @ponomarenko_cloning_2013; @hunt_massive_2013], tBLG realizes the strong-lattice limit of the Hofstadter problem and hosts Coulomb interactions that are comparable to the full bandwidth $\bm{W}$ and are consequently much stronger than the width of the individual Hofstadter subbands. In our experimental data, the dominance of Coulomb interactions manifests through the appearance of Chern insulating states with spontaneously broken superlattice symmetry at half filling of a $\bm{C=-2}$ subband[@wang_evidence_2015; @spanton_observation_2018]. Our experiments show that that tBLG may be an ideal venue to explore the strong interaction limit within partially filled Hofstadter bands.**
The energy spectrum of a two dimensional electron subjected simultaneously to a magnetic field and periodic potential is described by a fractal structure known as the Hofstadter butterfly[@hofstadter_energy_1976]. For a system with $n$ electronic bands at zero magnetic field, the Hofstadter spectrum at a magnetic flux per unit cell of $\Phi/\Phi_0=p/q$ hosts $n\times q$ ‘subbands’ (here $\Phi_0=h/e$ is the magnetic flux quantum and $p$ and $q$ are integers with greatest common divisor 1). Remarkably, these subbands are each characterized by a nonzero, integer-valued topological index, known as a Chern number $C$, which describes their contribution to the quantized Hall conductivity when an integer number of subbands are filled[@thouless_quantized_1982]. Owing to their high sample quality and the large area of the superlattice, moiré van der Waals heterostructures have provided a versatile materials system for exploring the physics of the Hofstadter subbands[@dean_hofstadters_2013; @ponomarenko_cloning_2013; @hunt_massive_2013], including the observation of correlation driven Chern insulators at fractional filling of a Hofstadter subband that either spontaneously break the superlattice symmetry[@wang_evidence_2015] or fractionalize electrons into anyons[@spanton_observation_2018]. In typical moiré heterostructures of graphene and hexagonal boron nitride (hBN), however, accessing the Hofstadter regime experimentally requires strong magnetic fields. This is tied to the fact that the superlattice potential induced by the moiré pattern is weak, and provides only a small perturbation to the conventional Landau levels. In this limit, Hofstadter subbands form within a single Landau level, and are restricted to an energy bandwidth per Landau level proportional to $W\propto \exp\left(-\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\Phi_0}{\Phi}\right)$[@dean_fractional_2020]. Achieving separations between subbands that exceed the energy scales related to disorder or temperature thus requires a significant fraction of the magnetic flux quantum to be threaded through each superlattice unit cell.
Electrons in the tBLG flat bands are strongly localized and should consequently realize a strong-lattice limit of the Hofstadter butterfly in finite magnetic field. In this limit, topologically nontrivial subbands may be separated by a significant fraction of the total bandwidth even for $\Phi \ll \Phi_0$[@bistritzer_moire_2011; @moon_energy_2012; @zhang_landau_2019]. However, discussions in the literature of the magnetotransport properties of tBLG have focused on relating the observed magnetoresistance features to the enigmatic $B=0$ phase diagram, without regard for the interplay of the magnetic flux with the periodic potential. Here, we show that magnetic fields can indeed drive new symmetry breaking transitions, producing magnetoresistance features at low magnetic fields that are not correlated with the realized $B=0$ ground states. Fig. \[fig:1\]a shows longitudinal resistivity ($\rho_\mathrm{xx}$) data from a $\theta=1.12^\circ$ tBLG device (see Fig. \[fig:device\_contact\]) as a function of magnetic field ($B$). We present data at 4 K to suppress all but the most energetically robust features; Hall resistance ($\rho_\mathrm{xy}$) data and lower temperature $\rho_\mathrm{xx}$ data are available in Figs. \[fig:Full LL supple\] and \[fig:Hall\_landaufan\]. At $B = 0$, our device shows familiar features of flat band tBLG: correlated insulators or resistivity peaks at $\nu=\pm2$, $\pm3$, and $0$ and a robust superconducting state for $\nu\lesssim-2$ (see Figs. \[fig:1\]c and \[fig:SC\]). Here $\nu$ indicates the number of electrons per superlattice unit cell. However, at $B\gtrsim 5$ T (for $\nu<0$) and $B\gtrsim2$ T (for $\nu>0$), this behavior abruptly changes, giving way to a series of Chern insulators, indicated in blue in Fig. \[fig:1\]b. They are characterized by $\rho_\mathrm{xx}$ minima and integer quantized Hall conductivity that increases in magnitude as the band is filled.
Within the Hofstadter picture, gapped states follow linear trajectories according to a Diophantine equation, $\nu = tn_\mathrm{\Phi} + s$ ($s, t \in \mathbb{Z}$) in the space of $\nu$ and $n_\mathrm{\Phi} \equiv \Phi/\Phi_0$[@wannier_result_1978], the magnetic flux per moire unit cell. Here $s$ is the Bloch band filling index, which encodes the number of electrons bound to each lattice unit cell, while $t$ is the total Chern number associated with a given gap, and consequently the quantized Hall conductivity[@streda_quantised_1982; @thouless_quantized_1982]. Starting from $\nu=-4$ and moving into the flat band, at $n_\mathrm{\Phi} = 0.3$ the observed sequence follows $(t,s)=(-1,-3), (-2,-2), (-3,-1)$ and $(-4,0)$. This pattern is consistent with sequentially filling four bands with Chern number $C=-1$, each of which binds a single electron per moiré unit cell.
The observed transition between low and high magnetic field regimes can be understood from the evolution of the tBLG flat bands in a magnetic field. At $B=0$, tBLG hosts two low-energy bands (for a given spin and valley flavor) connected by two Dirac point that remain gapless absent symmetry breaking by substrate potentials[@po_origin_2018; @kang_symmetry_2018; @koshino_maximally_2018]. A key feature of the $B=0$ band structure is the triangular form of the density of states, shown in Fig. \[fig:1\]e. It was recently argued[@zondiner_cascade_2020] that exchange interactions within such a band lead to a peculiar form of Stoner ferromagnetism in which exchange interactions favor collective states that are symmetric between two, three, or four isospin flavors. In our device, the low $B$ quantum oscillations (see Fig. \[fig:low field fan\]) are qualitatively consistent with this mechanism, showing signatures of Dirac fermions with fully broken flavor symmetry for $\nu<-3$, twofold symmetry for $-3<\nu<-2$, and fourfold symmetry between $-2<\nu<0$ (see insets to Fig. \[fig:1\]c and \[fig:low field fan\]) Notably, in our device, and indeed in the majority of published transport data in tBLG devices, symmetry breaking is absent at $\nu=\pm1$, as evidenced by the absence of low-$B$ quantum oscillations near those fillings. This effect is not explained within the model of Reference , but may arise due to the reconstruction of the low energy bands that is expected to occur at partial fillings due to the Coulomb interactions[@guinea_electrostatic_2018].
An out of plane magnetic field significantly reconstructs the low energy bands. Figure \[fig:1\]f shows the evolution of electronic structure as a function of magnetic field, while Fig. \[fig:1\]g shows the calculated density of states (DOS) at $n_\mathrm{\Phi}=2/5$, corresponding to $B=12$ T for our device. At low magnetic fields, the magnetic field reconstructs the two flat bands into three groups of subbands (for each spin and valley) having net Chern numbers $-1$, $+2$, and $-1$ respectively. This structure is generic to all tBLGs, with the $C=2$ band originating in the zero energy Landau level in the two constituent graphene monolayers and the $C=-1$ bands ensuring that the combined bands maintain net Chern number of zero. Even in moderate fields the DOS is characterized by three effective subbands that contrast to the two bands at $B=0$. The cascade of Chern insulators is well explained by the sequential filling of four spin and valley-projected copies of the lower $C = -1$ subbands, as illustrated in Fig \[fig:1\]d and as emerges from a simplified analysis of a Stoner model that accounts for the magnetic-field induced change in bandwidth (see Supplementary information and Fig. \[Fig:SupplTheory2\]). This picture is mirrored for electron doping, and is also consistent with the Landau fan originating from the CNP, which shows the strongest features at $(t,s)=(\pm4,0),(\pm2,0)$, and $(0,0)$, consistent with successive fillings of the central $C=2$.
The most striking features of the Chern insulator cascade are the states at $(t,s)=(\pm 3, \pm 1)$(Fig. \[fig:2\] and \[fig:p\_landaufan\], which are not correlated with a set of low-magnetic field quantum oscillations (Fig. \[fig:low field fan\]). Indeed, low temperature measurements show that these states emerge without warning in the midst of well formed four-component quantum oscillations originating from the charge neutrality point, consistent with previous reports of orbital magnetic states at finite $B$ [@lu_superconductors_2019; @stepanov_interplay_2019]. The sudden phase transition (Fig. \[fig:2\]a and b) and sudden appearance of an activation gap (Fig. \[fig:gap\_temp\]) can be understood within the context of Stoner ferromagnetism that accounts for the Chern character of the $C=-1$ Hofstadter subband. Within this picture, symmetry breaking occurs when the density of states $\mathrm{DOS}>1/U$, where $U$ is the exchange interaction strength. As the magnetic field increases, both the bandwidth of and total number of states within the $C = -1$ subband decrease; numerically, however, this leads to an increase in average DOS (see Fig. \[Fig:SupplTheoryDOS\] and supplementary information), favoring symmetry breaking above some critical $B$. The nature of this first order transition is illustrated in Fig. 2c, which shows a line cut connecting the $(-3,-1)$ and $(-8,0)$ states. At $(-3,-1)$, three $C=-1$ subbands are completely filled and one empty; while at $(-8,0)$ all four flavors are equally occupied, filling four copies of a $C = -2$ band that includes the entire $C=-1$ band except for the highest energy state associated with a single, strain split Landau level in each flavor[@zhang_landau_2019].
In one view, the Chern insulator states can be seen as competing ground states in twisted bilayer graphene at integer band filling and $B=0$[@xie_nature_2020]. It is known that small perturbations such as an aligned hBN substrate can favor Chern insulators at $B=0$, for instance at $\nu=3$[@serlin_intrinsic_2020]. Even absent this splitting, however, a retrospective review shows that nearly all published data containing magnetotransport data show a feature likely associated with the transition we report here to one or more of the Chern insulator states we observe here[@cao_unconventional_2018; @yankowitz_tuning_2019; @lu_superconductors_2019; @stepanov_interplay_2019; @uri_mapping_2019]. These transitions can be generically understood as reflecting the finite orbital moment of the Chern insulator states, which lowers their energy relative to competing $C=0$ insulators or semimetallic ground states in a finite magnetic field. However, we prefer to analyze the observed ferromagnetic Chern insulator states as generalizations of quantum Hall ferromagnets in which the Landau levels are replaced by $C=-1$ subbands of the tBLG Hofstadter spectrum. We note that just as in graphene Landau levels[@dean_fractional_2020], each Chern ferromagnet corresponds to polarization within the combined space of spins and valleys with the precise isospin ordering set by the interplay of higher order effects including the Zeeman effect and the anisotropy of the Coulomb interactions themselves. Interestingly, these anisotropies may differ within the Chern bands as compared to both Landau levels and the $B=0$ flat bands, possibly favoring different broken symmetries at integer fillings.
This approach moreover has the advantage of providing a quantitative description of the electronic substructure of the C=-1 band at high magnetic fields. Figure \[fig:3\]a and b display measured $\rho_\mathrm{xx}$ and $1/\rho_\mathrm{xy}$, respectively, from 6 T to 12 T in a density region corresponding to occupying the third and fourth copies of the lower $C=-1$ bands. The low disorder in our graphite gated sample[@zibrov_tunable_2017] allows us to resolve a number of smaller energy gaps characterized within the $C=-1$ band. First, we resolve the next level of subband structure within the $C=-1$ subband, which is composed of well separated clusters of subbands with net $C=+1$ and $C=-2$ (see Fig. \[fig:3\]c-d). These features are repeated in experimental data, consistent with the scenario of sequential filling of the overall $C=-1$ band described above. In addition, we also observe robust states showing $(t, s) = (-3, -1/2)$ and $(-2, -3/2)$ at half filling of the $C=-2$ band (highlighted in red in Fig. \[fig:3\]c). These states show quantized $1/\rho_\mathrm{xy}=t e^2/h$ as expected from the measured slope $t$, and an activation gap of around 1 K (Fig. \[fig:3\]e, \[fig:sbci\] and \[fig:sbci\_gap\]). Similar states are observed at positive fillings as well (Fig. \[fig:sbci\]).
The quantum number $s$ encodes the total number of electrons bound to a given lattice site at fixed magnetic flux, and is an integer for all states that can be described within a noninteracting Hofstadter butterfly. The simplest mechanism that allows this number to be fractional is for the superlattice symmetry to break, and we associated the observation of states with half integer $s$ to the formation of symmetry broken Chern insulators, in which electronic interactions within a $C=-2$ Hofstadter subband drive spontaneous doubling of the unit cell. While such states were previously observed in hBN-aligned graphene[@wang_evidence_2015; @spanton_observation_2018], they typically appear only at magnetic fields in excess of 16 T, more than twice as high as in tBLG. The relative strength of the SBCI states can be related to the strong lattice limit of the Hofstadter band structure realized in tBLG. Specifically, within the Hofstadter subbands of a weak-superlattice system the Coulomb interaction scale is never stronger than $e^2/\ell_B$ (here $\ell_B=\sqrt{\hbar/eB}$ is the magnetic length), which vanishes at low $B$. In contrast, in tBLG and other moire flat band systems the magnetic-field independent moire wavelength sets the scale for interactions. Interactions can drive the formation of correlated states at partial filling of Hofsatdter subbands in the low field limit, just as they drive correlated states at $B=0$. Our experiment suggests that other exotic ground states at fractional fillings of Chern bands may be accessible in moire flat band systems, potentially even at $B=0$ in the presence of appropriate time-reversal symmetry breaking order. *Note:* During the preparation of this work we became aware of two additional reports reporting some of the same observations[@nuckolls_strongly_2020; @wu_chern_2020].
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
**Device fabrication**\
The tBLG used in this study were fabricated using a “cut-and-stack” technique[@saito_independent_2020]. Prior to stacking, we first cut graphene into two pieces using AFM to prevent the unintentional strain in tearing graphene. We used a poly(bisphenol A carbonate) (PC)/polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) stamp mounted on a glass slide to pick up a 40-nm-thick hBN flake (typically 30$-$50 nm) at 90$-$110$^\circ$C, and carefully pick up the 1st half of a pre-cut graphene piece, rotate and pick up again the 2nd half of graphene piece in series at 25 $^\circ$C using the hBN flake. Here we rotated graphene pieces manually by a twist angle of about 1.2$^\circ-$1.3$^\circ$. Finally, the 3-layer stack (hBN-tBLG) is transferred onto another stack for the bottom gate part (hBN-graphite or graphene gate), which is prepared in advance by the same dry transfer process and cleaned by the typical solvent wash using chloroform, acetone, methanol and IPA followed by vacuum annealing (400$^\circ$C for 8 hours) to remove the residue of PC film on the hBN surface. We did neither squeeze the bubbles nor perform any heat annealing after the stack is completed to prevent the relaxation of tBLG. Electrical connections to the tBLG were made by CHF$_3$/O$_3$ etching and deposition of the Cr/Pd/Au (2/15/180 nm) metal edge-contacts[@wang_one-dimensional_2013]. The device used in this study is identical to the Device 5 in the previous study[@saito_independent_2020].
**Transport measurements**\
All transport measurements in this study were carried out in a dilution refrigerator (Bluefors LD400) with a nominal base temperature of 10 mK, which is equipped with a 14 T superconducting magnet and heavy RF and audio frequency filtering with a cutoff frequency of $\sim$ 10 kHz. The temperature dependent measurements were done by controlling the temperature using a heater mounted on a mixing chamber plate. Standard low frequency lock-in techniques with Stanford Research SR860 amplifiers were used to measure the resistivity $\rho_\mathrm{xx}$ and $\rho_\mathrm{xy}$ with an excitation current of 1$-$3 nA at a frequency of 17.777 Hz.
**Twist angle determination**\
The twist angle $\theta$ is determined from the values of charge carrier density at which the insulating states at $n_{\nu = \pm 4}$ are observed, following $n_{\nu = + 4} = 8 \theta^2/\sqrt{3}a^2$ , where $a$= 0.246 nm is the lattice constant of graphene. The values of $n_{\nu = \pm 4}$ are determined from the sequence of quantum oscillations in a magnetic field that project to $n_{\nu = \pm 4}$ or $n_{\nu = \pm 2}$ for devices.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors acknowledge discussions with E. Berg, I. Protopopov, T. Senthil, and M. Zaletel. The experimental work was primarily supported by the ARO under W911NF-17-1-0323. Y.S. acknowledges the support of the Elings Prize Fellowship from the California NanoSystems Institute at University of California, Santa Barbara. K.W. and T.T. acknowledge support from the Elemental Strategy Initiative conducted by the MEXT, Japan and the CREST (JPMJCR15F3), JST. A.F.Y. acknowledges the support of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan foundation. L.R. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation via an Ambizione grant. D.A. acknowledges the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
Y.S. and J.G. fabricated tBLG devices. Y.S. performed the measurements and analyzed the data. L.R. and D.A. performed the theoretical calculations. Y.S. and A.F.Y wrote the paper with input from L.R. and D.A. T.T. and K.W. grew the hBN crystals.
Competing interests {#competing-interests .unnumbered}
===================
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
**Supplementary Information for\
Hofstadter subband ferromagnetism and symmetry broken Chern insulators in twisted bilayer graphene**\
Yu Saito, Jingyuan Ge, Louk Rademaker, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Dmitry A. Abanin and Andrea F. Young\
Correspondence to: [email protected]\
{width="\columnwidth"}
Low field quantum oscillation analysis
--------------------------------------
The low charge- and twist angle disorder of our device allows us to resolve quantum oscillations down to very low magnetic fields. Figure \[fig:low field fan\] shows quantum oscillation data for $-4<\nu<0$. At a magnetic of 0.6 T, quantum oscillations are not visible except originating from the charge neutrality point. Notably, the strongest features are at Landau level filling $\nu_{LL}=\pm4, \pm12, \pm20$ (Fig. \[fig:low field fan\]c), precisely as expected from the noninteracting band structure of twisted bilayer graphene[@bistritzer_moire_2011]. This sequence can be understood as twice that of monolayer graphene, and indeed arises from the two gapless Dirac cones of the constituent graphene monolayers.
This is in marked contrast to published quantum oscillations in other twisted bilayers which uniformly show a sequence of $\pm4$, $\pm8$, $\pm12$, etc. However, we see the emergence of the more typical sequence at higher magnetic fields, for example in the data taken at $B = 2$ T shown in Fig. \[fig:low field fan\]c. By this magnetic field, we also see quantum oscillations near $\nu=-2$ and $\nu=-3$, with sequences of $-2, -4, ,6,...$ and $-1,-2,-3,-4....$, respectively. The transition in behavior may arise from a single particle effect such as strain[@zhang_landau_2019], which may well be ubiquitous in graphene devices at some level. However, conventional quantum Hall ferromagnetism may also be at play, as evidenced by the emergence of additional quantum oscillation minima at $\nu_\mathrm{LL}=1,2,3$ and $6$.
The data can be elegantly explained under an ansatz consistent with that taken in Ref. [@zondiner_cascade_2020], with the modification that no three-fold symmetry state exists. In this picture, $-4<\nu<-3$ hosts a one component Fermi surface, $-3<\nu<-2$ has a two component Fermi surface, and $-2<\nu<0$ has a four component Fermi surface. A key conclusion from our data is that the failure to observe the expected sequences near $\nu=-2$ (where two copies of gapless Dirac, $\nu_\mathrm{LL}=-2,-6,-10$ would be expected) or $\nu=-3$ (where a single Dirac point is expected, $\nu_\mathrm{LL}=-1,3,-5$) are consistent with the breakdown of symmetry observed at neutrality at the magnetic fields where oscillations are observed in the other fans. Cleaner samples, allowing measurements of the $\nu-2$ and $\nu=-3$ Landau fans, can be expected to similarly reveal the underlying Dirac physics.
Continuum model
---------------
We calculated the zero-field dispersion and density of states using the continuum model of twisted bilayer graphene[@bistritzer_moire_2011-1; @koshino_maximally_2018]. Given the large amount of literature written on this model, we give only a succinct summary here.
For a twist angle $\theta$ and the graphene lattice constant $a = 0.246$ nm, the distance between the ${\bf K}_\ell$ points of the two layers $\ell = 1,2$ in momentum space is $k_\theta = \frac{4 \pi}{3a} 2 \sin \theta/2$. The corresponding Moiré reciprocal lattice vectors are $${\bf G}^M_1 = k_\theta ( - \sqrt{3}, -3) /2, \; \; {\bf G}^M_2 = k_\theta (\sqrt{3},0).$$ Consequently, the Moiré lattice constant is $a_M = \frac{a}{2 \sin \theta/2}$. For the intralayer Hamiltonian in the ${\bf K}$-valley we take $$H_\ell ({\bf k}) = -v \left[ R(\pm \theta/2) ({\bf k} - {\bf K}_\ell) \right] \cdot {\bf \sigma}
\label{Eq:IntraLayer}$$ where $R(\pm \theta/2)$ is a rotation matrix by angle $\theta/2$ for layers $\ell =1,2$, respectively, and $\sigma=(\sigma_x,\sigma_y)$ are the Pauli matrices acting in the subspace of two graphene sublattices. We set the Dirac velocity to be $v = 2.51 a$ eV, where $a$ is the graphene lattice constant. We have taken $\hbar=1$.
The interlayer Moiré coupling $H_M$ allows for scattering between neighboring Moiré Brillouin zones. It is common to write this Hamiltonian in real space. For the ${\bf K}$-valley, it is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
H_M ({\bf r}) &=& w \begin{pmatrix}
\alpha & 1 \\ 1 & \alpha
\end{pmatrix} + w \begin{pmatrix}
\alpha & e^{-i \phi} \\ e^{i \phi} & \alpha
\end{pmatrix}e^{i {\bf G}^M_1 \cdot {\bf r}}
+ w \begin{pmatrix}
\alpha & e^{i \phi}\\ e^{-i \phi} & \alpha
\end{pmatrix} e^{i ({\bf G}^M_1 + {\bf G}^M_2) \cdot {\bf r}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi = 2\pi/3$. Note that in momentum-space, a term of the form $e^{i {\bf G}^M_1 \cdot {\bf r}} $ allows scattering from ${\bf k}$ to ${\bf k} + {\bf G}^M_1$. We set $w=110$ meV, and $\alpha = 0.8$ to model the lattice relaxation. We include Moiré mini-Brillouin zones around the ${\bf K}$-point of the monolayer graphene up to a cut-off distance of $\sim 5 |{\bf G}^M|$.
Calculation of Hofstadter butterfly
-----------------------------------
To calculate the effect of a finite magnetic field, we performed the Peierls substitution ${\bf k} \rightarrow {\bf k} - e {\bf A}$. The intralayer Hamiltonian Eq. is diagonalized in a standard Landau level basis $| L \alpha n y \rangle$, where $L$ is the layer, $\alpha$ the sublattice, $n$ the Landau level index and $y$ the guiding center coordinate. We then write the interlayer coupling $H_M$ in this basis following Refs. [@bistritzer_moire_2011; @zhang_landau_2019; @hejazi_landau_2019; @lian_landau_2020]. The spectrum is calculated for flux per Moiré unit cell $\Phi = \Phi_0 \frac{p}{q}$ with $p,q$ coprime and $q\leq 30$. Note that the spectrum is the same for both spin and valley species, so we only compute it here for one valley, neglecting the Zeeman spin splitting.
The resulting spectrum, known as the Hofstadter butterfly[@hofstadter_energy_1976], turned out to match the experiments best for twist angle $\theta = 1.8^\circ$, see Fig. \[Fig:SupplTheory\]. In the literature (see Refs. ), there is a large variety of shapes of butterflies for the same twist angle. Further experimental study of the exact spectrum might elucidate which model parameters are best suited to describe tBLG. In order to fit the data, we have rescaled the energy in units of the bandwidth. The full Hofstadter butterfly is shown in Fig. \[Fig:SupplTheory\].
![ **The Hofstadter butterfly calculated for $\theta = 1.8^\circ$ and further parameters outlined in the text.** Each state pictured is fourfold (spin and valley) degenerate.[]{data-label="Fig:SupplTheory"}](FigS_FullButterfly.pdf){height="6cm"}
The dominant features of the Hofstadter butterfly are the band that evolves from the zeroth Landau level at small magnetic field, with Chern number +2 per spin/valley, flanked by two $C=-1$ bands to give a net zero Chern number for the fully filled band. The bandwidth of the $C=-1$ band at small fluxes can be approximated by the simple formula $W_{-1}(\Phi) = W_0 - a v_F^* \sqrt{\Phi} - b \Phi / m^*$, where $a,b$ are scaling constants, $v_F^*$ is the effective Dirac velocity at charge neutrality and $m^*$ is the effective mass at the flat band edges. Because of this scaling, the net density of states in the $C=-1$ band is increasing with flux, as can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:SupplTheoryDOS\]. Consequently, for a fixed interaction strength one expects a first order Stoner transition into a spin/valley polarized state as a function of $B$, if one does not already exist at $B=0$.
![ The average density of states of the $C=-1$ band is given by the number of states $n(\Phi) = 1 - \Phi$ divided by its bandwidth $W(\Phi)$. Since the bandwidth decreases faster than the number of states, the net density of states is an increasing function of flux. The continuum approximation here is given by taking the bandwidth $W_{-1}(\Phi) = W_0 - a v_F^* \sqrt{\Phi} - b \Phi / m^*$. \[Fig:SupplTheoryDOS\]](FigS12_DOS.pdf){height="4cm"}
### Disorder
In the absence of disorder, Landau levels are perfectly degenerate and are therefore always susceptible to quantum Hall ferromagnetism. Disorder, however, will broaden the Landau levels. Any realistic assessment of possible symmetry breaking in Landau levels requires a study of the role of disorder.
In tBLG, the dominant form of disorder is twist angle inhomogeneity [@wilson_disorder_2020]. This mostly affects the band edges, as the bandwidth of the flat bands is highly sensitive to twist angle. Here, we model the disorder phenomenologically by add a self-energy that is increasing with energy away from charge neutrality, $\mathrm{Im} \Sigma (\epsilon) = - \gamma_B | \epsilon|$, where $\gamma_B$ is a dimensionless parameter proportional to the strength of disorder. In the final calculations we set $\gamma = 0.001$. Note that this shape of disorder self-energy also applies to single-layer graphene in the presence of short-range potential impurity scattering.
Using this disorder potential, we can convert the Hofstadter spectrum into a density of states $\rho (\Phi, \epsilon)$, which is used in Fig. 1 of the main text.
### Hartree-Fock description of interaction effects {#Sec:HF}
To account for the state with spontaneous polarization, we performed a simplified Hartree-Fock calculation for each flux.As free parameters we introduce separate chemical potentials $\mu_{\sigma \xi}$ for each spin $\sigma = \uparrow, \downarrow$ and valley $\xi = \pm1$. The filling per spin/valley is $$\nu_{\sigma \xi} = \int_0^{\mu_{\sigma \xi}} d\epsilon \; \rho(\epsilon),$$ where $\rho(\epsilon)$ is the density of states obtained from the Hofstadter butterfly described above. The total kinetic energy is given by $$K = \sum_{\sigma \xi} \int_0^{\mu_{\sigma \xi}} d\epsilon \; \epsilon \; \rho(\epsilon).
\label{HFKinetic}$$ The total interaction energy is a Hartree-Fock approximation of a generic repulsion between the spin and valleys[@zondiner_cascade_2020], $$V = U \sum_{(\sigma \xi) \neq (\sigma' \xi') } \nu_{\sigma \xi} \nu _{\sigma' \xi'}
\label{HFInteraction}$$ where $U$ denotes the strength of the interactions. We minimized the total energy $K+V$ by varying the chemical potentials $\mu_{\sigma \xi}$, with the constraint that the total filling $\sum_{\sigma \xi} \nu_{\sigma \xi} = \nu$ is constant. We repeated this calculation for a range of densities $\nu \in [-4,4]$ and fluxes $\Phi \in [0,1/2]$.
In Fig. \[Fig:SupplTheory2\] we show the resulting filling per spin/valley as a function of total filling, for three values of the flux: $\Phi = 2/5$, $\Phi = 1/5$ and $\Phi = 1/30$, and $U=0.41W$. In the absence of spontaneous polarization, each spin/valley would be equally occupied. This always occurs when the total filling is $\nu = \pm 4 \Phi$, when all spin/valley degrees of freedom have fully occupied or unoccupied the $C=-1$ Hofstadter miniband.
For small fluxes (Fig. \[Fig:SupplTheory2\]b and c), the spin/valley polarization follows the same pattern as proposed by Ref. [@zondiner_cascade_2020]. Starting at $\nu=-4$, all four spin/valley flavors increase their filling in parallel, when a first order transition occurs that fixes one of the spin/valley flavors to a filling $\nu = -\Phi$, and at the same time ’resets’ the other three fillings to $\nu = -1$. This process of parallel filling followed by a reset continues until the $C=-1$ band is completely filled.
In contrast, at the higher flux $\Phi=2/5$ the filling of the $C=-1$ band occurs sequentially: first one spin/valley flavor completely fills the $C=-1$ band, followed by the second flavor, and so forth. This is a familiar pattern of ferromagnetic states, which occurs, e.g. in the interaction-split zeroth Landau level in graphene.
Note that this sequential filling at higher fluxes is consistent with the experimental results. For example, in between the (-3,-1) and (-4,0) state, one finds a (-2,-1) state. This state can be understood by having three spin/valley degrees of freedom completely filling the $C=-1$ band, whereas one spin-valley flaver partially fills the $C=-1$ band up to the $C=+1$ gap (see Fig. \[fig:3\])
![ \[Fig:SupplTheory2\] Filling per spin/valley as a function of total filling, obtained using Hartree-Fock calculations with $U=0.41W$ for three typical values of the magnetic flux $\Phi = 2/5$, $1/5$ and $1/30$. At low fluxes, the ](FigS11_Phi2_5.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![ \[Fig:SupplTheory2\] Filling per spin/valley as a function of total filling, obtained using Hartree-Fock calculations with $U=0.41W$ for three typical values of the magnetic flux $\Phi = 2/5$, $1/5$ and $1/30$. At low fluxes, the ](FigS11_Phi1_5.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![ \[Fig:SupplTheory2\] Filling per spin/valley as a function of total filling, obtained using Hartree-Fock calculations with $U=0.41W$ for three typical values of the magnetic flux $\Phi = 2/5$, $1/5$ and $1/30$. At low fluxes, the ](FigS11_Phi1_30.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Under the incentive-compatible Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism, coalitions of participants can influence the auction outcome to obtain higher collective profit. These manipulations were proven to be eliminated if and only if the market objective is supermodular. Nevertheless, several auctions do not satisfy the stringent conditions for supermodularity. These auctions include electricity markets, which are the main motivation of our study. To characterize nonsupermodular functions, we introduce the supermodularity ratio and the weak supermodularity. We show that these concepts provide us with tight bounds on the profitability of collusion and shill bidding. We then derive an analytical lower bound on the supermodularity ratio. Our results are verified with case studies based on the IEEE test systems.'
author:
- 'Orcun Karaca[^1]'
- Maryam Kamgarpour
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'library.bib'
title: |
Exploiting Weak Supermodularity\
for Coalition-Proof Mechanisms\
---
Introduction
============
Over the last couple of decades, electricity markets have been undergoing a rapid transformation from tightly regulated monopolies to deregulated competitive market structures [@wilson2002architecture]. This restructuring has been essential to improve economic efficiency and attract new investments [@cramton2017electricity]. Designing electricity markets is not a simple task since supply and demand of electricity need to be balanced in every instance of time. Specifically, high penetration of intermittent renewable energy sources presents challenges in maintaining this stability [@bosesome]. Hence, there has been a surge of interest from the control community in studying various electricity markets [@roozbehani2010stability; @tang2016model; @orcun2018game; @karaca2017game].
This work studies a subset of the existing market mechanisms, conducted as reverse auctions. In these markets, generators submit their bids, and then an independent system operator determines the power allocation and the payment for each generator. The allocation rule is the economic dispatch which secures a reliable operation. Then, the central element of the market design is the payment rule, since the generators have incentives to strategize around it. In particular, the operator designs the payment rule to ensure that the generators reveal their true costs in order to achieve a stable grid with maximum social welfare [@cramton2017electricity].
Previous work on electricity markets considered the pay-as-bid [@orcun2018game] and the locational marginal pricing mechanisms [@wu1996folk]. In both mechanisms, generators can bid strategically to influence their profits since these mechanisms do not incentivize truthful bidding. Studies have shown that strategic manipulations have increased electricity prices substantially in these markets [@wolfram1997strategic; @joskow2001quantitative]. As an alternative, under the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) mechanism, truthful bidding is the dominant-strategy Nash equilibrium [@vickrey1961counterspeculation; @clarke1971multipart; @groves1973incentives]. As a result, every generator finds it more profitable to reveal their true costs, regardless of the bids of other generators. Due to this property, several recent works proposed the use of the VCG mechanism in electricity markets [@pgs; @xu2017efficient].
Despite the desirable theoretical properties of the VCG mechanism, coalitions of generators can strategically bid to increase their collective utility. Hence, this mechanism is susceptible to collusion and shill bidding [@ausubel2006lovely]. Because the same market participants are involved in similar transactions day after day, electricity markets can be exposed to such manipulations [@anderson2011implicit]. This is crucial since in a larger context the VCG mechanism is not truthful.
As is outlined in auction literature [@ausubel2006lovely], collusion and shill bidding occur when the VCG outcome is not in the *core*. The core is a concept from coalitional game theory where the participants have no incentive to leave the coalition of all participants. As is proven in [@karaca2017game], the VCG outcomes lie in the core if and only if the market objective is supermodular. Supermodularity can only be achieved in restricted settings, such as polymatroid constraints and convex bids. Consequently, electricity markets are generally not supermodular since technical rigidities result in complex constraint sets.
Our goal is to understand the properties of the VCG mechanism if the stringent conditions for supermodularity do not hold. To identify the bottlenecks caused by strategic manipulations, we aim to provide bounds on the profitability of collusion and shill bidding by defining the concept of weak supermodularity. For this concept, we are inspired by the growing literature on the submodularity ratio [@bian2017guarantees; @das2011submodular; @elenberg2016restricted].
Our contributions in this paper are as follows. First, we introduce a new way to characterize nonsupermodular set functions, that is, the supermodularity ratio. This ratio quantifies how close a function is to being supermodular. Second, we show that the supermodularity ratio provides us with tight bounds on the profitability of collusion and shill bidding under the VCG mechanism. Third, we derive an analytical lower bound on the supermodularity ratio of the electricity markets under consideration. Finally, we verify our results with case studies based on the IEEE test systems. The results derived on collusion and shill bidding apply to general auctions run by the VCG mechanism. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work providing such bounds for VCG outcomes not lying in the core.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:mech\], we introduce the electricity market and discuss the VCG mechanism. Section \[sec:ws\] defines the supermodularity ratio. First, we obtain bounds on collusion and shill bidding, see Theorem \[thm:approx\_collusions\]. We then provide a lower bound on the supermodularity ratio of the markets, see Theorem \[thm:lowbnd\]. In Section \[sec:num\], we present the numerical results.
Mechanism framework {#sec:mech}
===================
We start with a generic electricity market reverse auction. The set of participants consists of the central operator $l=0$ and the bidders $L=\{1,\ldots,\lvert L\rvert\}$. Let there be $t$ types of power supplies. These types can include control reserves (positive, negative, secondary, tertiary) and power injections differentiated by their locations, durations, and scheduled times. The same type of supplies from different bidders are perfect substitutes for the central operator. We assume that each bidder $l$ has a private true cost function $c_l: {\mathbb{X}}_l \rightarrow \mathbb R_+$, where $0\in {\mathbb{X}}_l\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}_+^t$ and $c_l(0)=0$. This last assumption, $c_l(0)=0$, holds for many electricity markets, for instance, control reserve markets, and day-ahead markets that include generators’ start-up costs[@abbaspourtorbati2016swiss; @xu2017efficient]. Each bidder $l$ then submits a bid function to the central operator, denoted by $b_l:\hat {\mathbb{X}}_l \rightarrow \mathbb R_+$, where $0\in \hat {\mathbb{X}}_l\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}_+^t$ and $b_l(0)=0$. As is discussed in [@karaca2017game §3.1], these bid functions also capture the traditional multiple-item auction setup.
Given the bid profile $\mathcal{B}=\{b_l\}_{l\in L}$, *a mechanism* defines an allocation rule $x_l^*(\mathcal{B})\in\hat {\mathbb{X}}_l$ and a payment rule $p_l(\mathcal{B})\in{\mathbb{R}}$ for each bidder $l$. In many electricity markets, the allocation is determined by the economic dispatch, that is, minimizing the aggregate cost subject to some constraints $$\label{eq:main_model}
\begin{split}
J(\mathcal{B})=&\min_{x\in\hat {\mathbb{X}},y}\, \sum\limits_{l\in L} b_l(x_l) + d(x,y)\\
&\ \ \mathrm{s.t.}\ \ g(x,y)\leq 0.\\
\end{split}$$ Here $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^p$ are variables entering in addition to the allocation $x\in\hat {\mathbb{X}}=\prod_{l\in L} \hat {\mathbb{X}}_l$. The function $d:{\mathbb{R}}^{t\rvert L\rvert}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}^p\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is an additional cost term. For example, in the case of a two-stage electricity market, $y$ corresponds to the second stage variables and $d$ is the second stage cost. The function $g:{\mathbb{R}}^{t\rvert L\rvert}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}^{p}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{q}$ defines the constraints.[^2] Finally, if the problem is infeasible, the objective is $J(\mathcal{B})=\infty$.
Let the optimal solution be denoted by $x^*(\mathcal{B})\in\hat {\mathbb{X}}$ and $y^*(\mathcal{B})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{p}_+$.[^3] The *utility* of bidder $l$ is $$u_l(\mathcal{B})=p_l(\mathcal{B})-c_l(x^*_l(\mathcal{B})).$$ A bidder whose bid is not accepted is not paid and $u_l(\mathcal{B})=0$. Then, the total payment of the central operator is given by $$u_0(\mathcal{B})=-\sum_{l\in L} p_l(\mathcal{B}) - d(x^*(\mathcal{B}),y^*(\mathcal{B})),$$ which defines the utility of the central operator. Note that this payment can be an expected value when the function $d$ is an expected second stage cost.
Three fundamental properties we desire in mechanism design are individual rationality, efficiency and dominant-strategy incentive-compatibility. A mechanism is *individually rational* if bidders do not face negative utilities, $u_l(\mathcal{B})\geq 0$, $\forall l\in L$.[^4] A mechanism is *efficient* if the sum of all utilities $\sum_{l=0}^{\lvert L\rvert} u_l(\mathcal{B})$ is maximized. This property is attained if we are solving for the optimal allocation of the market in under the condition that the bidders submitted their true costs.
To define dominant-strategy incentive-compatibility, we first bring in tools from game theory. Let $\mathcal{B}_{-l}$ denote the bid profile of all the bidders, except bidder $l$. The bid profile $\mathcal{B}$ is a *Nash equilibrium* if for every bidder $l$, $u_l(\mathcal{B}_l,\mathcal{B}_{-l})\geq u_l(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_l,\mathcal{B}_{-l})$, $\forall\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_l$. The bid profile $\mathcal{B}$ is a *dominant-strategy Nash equilibrium* if for every bidder $l$, $u_l(\mathcal{B}_l,\hat{\mathcal{B}}_{-l})\geq u_l(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_l,\hat{\mathcal{B}}_{-l})$, $\forall\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_l$, $\forall \hat{\mathcal{B}}_{-l}$. Finally, a mechanism is *dominant-strategy incentive-compatible* (DSIC) if the truthful bid profile $\mathcal C=\{c_l\}_{l\in L}$ is the dominant-strategy Nash equilibrium. In other words, every bidder finds it more profitable to bid truthfully, regardless of what others bid.
Payment rules
-------------
The design of the payment rule plays a crucial role in attaining the desirable properties above. We first consider two prominent payment rules widely used for the electricity markets, that is, the pay-as-bid mechanism and the locational marginal pricing (LMP) mechanism.
Under the pay-as-bid mechanism, a rational bidder would overbid to ensure positive utility. There exist many Nash equilibria, none of which are incentive-compatible [@orcun2018game]. Under the LMP mechanism, strategic manipulations become more complex than the case of the pay-as-bid mechanism. A bidder can maximize its utility by both inflating the bids and withholding its maximum supply [@ausubel2014demand]. Furthermore, an equilibrium may not even exist [@tang2013nash]. In summary, none of these payment rules satisfy the properties of efficiency and incentive-compatibility.
The *Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) mechanism* is characterized by the payment rule, $
p_l(\mathcal{B})=b_l(x^*_l(\mathcal{B}))+(h(\mathcal{B}_{-l})-J(\mathcal{B}))$. The function $h(\mathcal{B}_{-l})\in{\mathbb{R}}$ must be carefully chosen to ensure individual rationality. We use the *Clarke pivot rule* $
h(\mathcal{B}_{-l})=J(\mathcal{B}_{-l}), $ where $J(\mathcal{B}_{-l})$ denotes the minimum total cost without bidder $l$, that is, the optimal value of the optimization problem in (\[eq:main\_model\]) with $x_l=0$.[^5] Note that this mechanism is well-defined if a feasible solution exists when a bidder is removed. This is not restrictive in the presence of many bidders and a second-stage market.
Our previous work in [@karaca2017game] shows that the VCG mechanism satisfies all three fundamental properties for the model introduced in . This result is a generalization of [@vickrey1961counterspeculation; @clarke1971multipart; @groves1973incentives] which do not consider continuous goods, second stage cost and general constraints. Dominant-strategy incentive-compatibility makes it easier for bidders to enter the auction, without spending resources in computing optimal bidding strategies.
Despite these remarkable theoretical virtues, the VCG mechanism can suffer from collusion and shill bidding [@ausubel2006lovely]. Bidders $K\subseteq L$ are *colluders* if they obtain higher collective utility by changing their bids from $\mathcal C_K=\{c_l\}_{l\in K}$ to $\mathcal{B}_K=\{b_l\}_{l\in K}$. A bidder $l$ is a *shill bidder* if there exists a set $S$ and bids $\mathcal{B}_S=\{b_k\}_{k\in S}$ such that the bidder $l$ finds participating with multiple bids $\mathcal{B}_S$ more profitable than participating with a single truthful bid $\mathcal{C}_l$. These shortcomings are illustrated by electricity market examples in [@pgs; @karaca2017game].
This observation motivates us to define *coalition-proofness*. By coalition-proof, we mean that a group of bidders, who lose when bidding their true cost, cannot profit from collusion, and no bidder can profit from bidding with multiple identities. We remark that it is not possible to achieve immunity to collusion from all sets of bidders, see also the examples in [@beck2009revenue]. For instance, no mechanism can eliminate the case where all bidders inflate their bid prices simultaneously.
Core as a coalition-proof outcome
---------------------------------
In coalitional game theory, the *core* defines the set of utilities that cannot be improved upon by forming coalitions.[^6] We discuss how this concept coincides with coalition-proofness.
For every $S\subseteq L$, let $J(\mathcal{B}_S)$ be the optimal value of (\[eq:main\_model\]) with $x_{-S}=0$, where the stacked vector $x_{-S}\in{\mathbb{R}}_+^{t(\lvert L\rvert -\lvert S\rvert)}$ is defined by omitting the subvectors from $S$. In particular, it is defined by the following expression: $$\begin{split}
J(\mathcal{B}_S) = &\min_{x,y}\sum\limits_{l\in S} b_l(x_l) + d(x,y)\\
&\ \mathrm{ s.t. } \ \,g(x,y)\leq 0,\, x_{-S}=0.
\end{split}$$Note that, this function is nonincreasing, $J(\mathcal{B}_R) \leq J(\mathcal{B}_S)$, for $S\subseteq R$. We refer to $J$ as the market objective. Then, the core $Core(\mathcal{C})\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{\rvert L\rvert}_+$ is defined as $$\label{eq:mcoredef}
\begin{split}
\Big\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{\rvert L\rvert}_+ \,\rvert\, &u_0+\sum\limits_{l\in L} u_l=-J(\mathcal{C}),\\
&u_0+\sum\limits_{l\in S}u_l\geq-J(\mathcal{C}_S),\, \forall S \subset L \Big\}.
\end{split}$$ The core is always nonempty in auctions because the outcome $u_0=-J(\mathcal{C})$, $u_l=0$ for all $l\in L$ always lies in the core. Core outcomes are individually rational since they are restricted to the nonnegative orthant for the bidders. The equality constraint in implies that the outcomes are efficient since the term on the right is maximized. We say that an outcome is unblocked if no set of bidders can make a deal with the operator from which everyone can benefit. This condition is ensured by the inequality constraints in the definition of the core.
As is outlined in auction literature [@ausubel2006lovely] and extended to the market setup in [@karaca2017game Theorem 3], the VCG mechanism is coalition-proof if and only if the VCG outcomes lie in the core. Hence, past work considers characterizing bid curves and constraints such that the VCG outcome is guaranteed to lie in the core. To state these results and extend beyond them, we bring in the definition of supermodularity. For the following definitions, we use $J(S)$ instead of $J(\mathcal{B}_S)$ since the properties are required to hold under any bid profile $\mathcal{B}$. We denote the set-theoretic difference $S\setminus \{l\}$ by $S_{-l}$.
\[def:sup\] A function $J:2^{L}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is *supermodular* if $J(S)-J(S_{-l})\leq J(R)-J(R_{-l})$ for all coalitions $S\subseteq R\subseteq L$ and for each bidder $l\in S$. A function $\hat J:2^{L}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is *submodular* if and only if $-\hat J$ is supermodular.
For any set of bids, the VCG outcome is in the core if and only if the market objective $J$ is supermodular [@karaca2017game Theorem 2]. Supermodularity of problem is a strong condition which can only be achieved in restricted settings, such as polymatroid-type constraints and convex bids [@karaca2017game Theorem 5]. Though the convex bid assumption may be reasonable in certain markets, the polymatroid constraint requirement is stringent. In particular, DC-OPF problems involve polytopic constraints and a polytope is in general not a polymatroid. In such instances, the market objective is generally not supermodular. As a result, the VCG mechanism suffers from collusion and shill bidding. To the best of our knowledge, there does not exist any result bounding the profitability of such manipulations, in case the objective function is not supermodular. Therefore, we aim to quantify the coalition-proofness property of the VCG mechanism under more general bid functions and constraints. As a remark, all the following results hold for any general auction over continuous (or discrete) goods with complex constraints.
Approximating Coalition-Proofness {#sec:ws}
=================================
For the results in this section, we are inspired by the growing literature on the submodularity ratio [@bian2017guarantees; @das2011submodular]. We first define the supermodularity ratio to quantify how close a set function is to being supermodular. Using the supermodularity ratio, we then introduce the weak supermodularity condition for the market objective in problem . Finally, we show that this condition indeed provides us with an approximate coalition-proofness certificate for the VCG mechanism.
\[def:suprat\] The *supermodularity ratio* of a nonnegative set function $J:2^{L}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+$ is the largest $\gamma_{\text{sup}}$ such that $$\gamma_{\text{sup}}\Big[\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)\Big]\leq J(S_{-K}) - J(S),\, \forall K,S\subseteq L.$$
In literature, submodularity ratio is defined to quantify how close a nonnegative set function is to being submodular [@das2011submodular; @bian2017guarantees]. Since the function $J$ is supermodular if and only if $-J$ is submodular, it may seem natural to use the submodularity ratio to describe how close $-J$ is to being submodular. However, submodularity ratio is only defined over nonnegative set functions. Even if we allow for nonpositive functions, it does not provide any useful information for our purposes. In addition, this ratio can be zero in the cases where the supermodularity ratio is positive. As an alternative to the submodularity ratio, previous studies also discuss curvature to quantify how close a nondecreasing set function is to being supermodular. However, the objective in is nonincreasing and curvature is unbounded for nonincreasing set functions [@bian2017guarantees].
Motivated by the discussion above, we derive some important observations for the supermodularity ratio of nonincreasing set functions.
\[rem\] The following statements hold for a nonincreasing set function:
- $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\in[0,\,1]$,
- this function is supermodular if and only if $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$.
The proof of the proposition is relegated to the appendix. We define a set function to be *weakly supermodular* if $\gamma_{\text{sup}}>0$.
Next, we show that the weak supermodularity provides us with bounds on both shill bidding and collusion, hence, we achieve approximate coalition-proofness.
\[thm:approx\_collusions\] For the bidders $L$, consider a VCG mechanism modeled by . If the market objective $J$ is weakly supermodular, then,
- [A subset of bidders $K\subseteq L$ who lose when bidding their true values cannot profit more than $$[\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{C}_{-K},\mathcal{B}_{K})],$$ by a joint deviation $\mathcal{B}_{K}$. For any joint deviation $\mathcal{B}_{K}$, this total profit is upper bounded by $$[\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{C}_{-K},\mathcal{B}_{K}^0)],$$ where the bid profile $\mathcal{B}_{K}^0$ is the set of bids $b_l(x_l)=0,\,\forall x_l\in{\mathbb{X}}_l,\, \forall l\in K$.]{}
- For any bidder $l$, the profit from bidding with the set of bids $\mathcal{B}_S$ is at most $$[\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C}_{-l})-J(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{B}_{S})],$$ more than the profit from a single truthful bid $\mathcal{C}_l$. For any set of bids $\mathcal{B}_S$, this value is upper bounded by $$[\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C}_{-l})-J(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{B}_{l}^{0})],$$ where the bid $\mathcal{B}_{l}^0$ is given by $b_l(x_l)=0,\,\forall x_l\in{\mathbb{X}}_l$.
\(i) Let $K$ be a set of colluders who would lose the auction when bidding their true values $\mathcal{C}_K=\{c_l\}_{l\in K}$, while bidding $\mathcal{B}_K=\{b_l\}_{l\in K}$ they become winners, that is, they are all allocated a positive quantity. We then define $\mathcal{C}=(\mathcal{C}_{-K},\mathcal{C}_{K})$ and ${\mathcal{B}}=(\mathcal{C}_{-K},{\mathcal{B}}_{ K})$ where $\mathcal{C}_{-K}=\{c_l\}_{l\in L\setminus K}$ denotes the bidding profile of the remaining bidders. The profile $\mathcal{C}_{-K}$ is not necessarily a truthful profile. The total VCG utility that colluders receive under ${\mathcal{B}}$, $\sum_{l\in K}{u}_l^{\text{VCG}}({\mathcal{B}})$, is $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.05cm}= \sum_{l\in K}J({\mathcal{B}_{-l}})-J({\mathcal{B}})+b_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}}))-{c}_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}}))\\
&\hspace{-0.05cm}\leq \gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}[J({\mathcal{B}}_{-K} ) - J({\mathcal{B}})]+\sum_{l\in K} b_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}}))-{c}_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}}))\\
&\hspace{-0.05cm} = [\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{B})]+J({\mathcal{C}})- \Big[\sum_{l\in L\setminus K} c_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}})) +\sum_{l\in K} b_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}})) +d(x^*({\mathcal{B}}),y^*({\mathcal{B}}))\Big]\\&\hspace{10.5cm}+\Big[\sum_{l\in K} b_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}}))-{c}_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}}))\Big] \\
&\hspace{-0.05cm} = [\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{B})]+J({\mathcal{C}}) - \Big[\sum_{l\in L} {c}_l(x_l^*({\mathcal{B}}))+d(x^*({\mathcal{B}}),y^*({\mathcal{B}}))\Big] \\ &\hspace{-0.05cm}\leq [\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{B})]\\
&\hspace{-0.05cm}\leq [\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{C}_{-K},\mathcal{B}_{K}^0)].\end{aligned}$$ The first equality follows from the VCG payments. [The first inequality follows from the weak supermodularity.]{} The second equality comes from the fact that $K$ was a group of losers, [so $J(\mathcal{B}_{-K})=J(\mathcal{C}_{-K})=J({\mathcal{C}})$]{}. We also add and subtract the term $[J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{B})]$. After substituting these, we see that the term in brackets is the cost of ${\mathcal{C}}$ but evaluated at a feasible suboptimal allocation $(x^*(\mathcal{B}),y^*(\mathcal{B}))$. Then, the second inequality follows from the fact that the term in the brackets is lower bounded by $J(\mathcal{C})$. This yields the first statement. Finally, the third inequality is obtained from $J(\mathcal{C}_{-K},\mathcal{B}_{K}^0)\leq J(\mathcal{B})$. This holds since $x^*(\mathcal{B})$ is a feasible suboptimal solution to $J(\mathcal{C}_{-K},\mathcal{B}_{K}^0)$. This concludes the proof of part (i).
\(ii) Similar to part (i), define $\mathcal{C}=(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{C}_{l})$. The profile $\mathcal{C}_{-l}$ is not necessarily a truthful profile. Shill bids of bidder $l$ are given by $\mathcal{B}_{S}=\{b_k\}_{k\in S}$. We define a merged bid $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_l$ as $$\tilde{b}_l(x_l)=\min_{x_k\in\hat{\mathbb{X}}_k,\,\forall k}\, \sum_{k\in S}b_k(x_k)\ \mathrm{s.t. }\sum_{k\in S}x_k=x_l.$$ We then define ${\tilde{\mathcal{B}}}=(\mathcal{C}_{-l},{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}}_{l})$. The VCG utility obtained from shill bidding under ${\mathcal{B}}=(\mathcal{C}_{-l},{\mathcal{B}}_{S})$, $\sum_{k\in S}{u}_k^{\text{VCG}}({\mathcal{B}})$, is $$\begin{aligned}
&= \sum_{k\in S}[J({\mathcal{B}_{-k}})-J({\mathcal{B}})+b_k(x_k^*({\mathcal{B}}))]-{c}_l(\sum_{k\in S}x_k^*({\mathcal{B}}))\\
&\leq \gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}[J({\mathcal{B}}_{-S} ) - J({\mathcal{B}})]+\sum_{k\in S} b_k(x_k^*({\mathcal{B}}))-{c}_l(\sum_{k\in S}x_k^*({\mathcal{B}}))\\
&= \gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}[J({\mathcal{C}}_{-l} ) - J({\tilde{\mathcal{B}}})]+\tilde{b}_l(\sum_{k\in S}x_k^*({\mathcal{B}}))-{c}_l(\sum_{k\in S}x_k^*({\mathcal{B}}))\\
&= [\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J({\mathcal{C}}_{-l}) - J({\tilde{\mathcal{B}}})]+ {u}_l^{\text{VCG}}({\tilde{\mathcal{B}}}) \\
&\leq [\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J({\mathcal{C}}_{-l}) - J(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{B}_{S})]+ {u}_l^{\text{VCG}}({\mathcal{C}})\\
&\leq [\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J({\mathcal{C}}_{-l} ) - J(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{B}_{l}^{0})]+ {u}_l^{\text{VCG}}({\mathcal{C}}).
\end{aligned}$$ The first inequality follows from the weak supermodularity of $J$. The second equality holds since we have $J({\tilde{\mathcal{B}}})=J({{\mathcal{B}}})$. This follows from the definition of the merged bid and the following implication. Since the same type of supplies are perfect substitutes for the central operator, the functions $g$ and $d$ in fact depend on $\sum_{l\in L} x_l$. The third equality follows from adding and subtracting the term $[J({\mathcal{C}}_{-l} ) - J({\tilde{\mathcal{B}}})]$. The second inequality is the DSIC property of the VCG mechanism. This yields the first statement. Finally, the third inequality is obtained from $J(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{B}_{l}^{0})\leq J({\tilde{\mathcal{B}}})=J(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{B}_{S})$. This holds since $x^*({\tilde{\mathcal{B}}})$ is a feasible suboptimal solution to the problem defined by $J(\mathcal{C}_{-l},\mathcal{B}_{l}^{0})$. This concludes the proof of part (ii). [$\blacksquare$]{}
Theorem \[thm:approx\_collusions\] provides the first bounds on the profitability of collusion and shill bidding for the cases when the outcome of the VCG mechanism is not in the core. In summary, as the supermodularity ratio gets larger, the function $J$ gets closer to being supermodular, and we obtain tighter bounds on the profitability of collusion and shill bidding. Furthermore, if $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$, we obtain exact coalition-proofness. As is proven in Proposition \[rem\]-(ii), this result coincides with the one on supermodularity in [@karaca2017game Theorem 3]. In practice, achieving the profit in Theorem \[thm:approx\_collusions\] may still be difficult since in general, the bidders need full information on the market constraints and other bidders to collude optimally.
Following from these discussions, a natural question is whether the function $J$ in satisfies weak supermodularity.
\[thm:lowbnd\] The market objective $J$ in is weakly supermodular. Its supermodularity ratio satisfies $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\geq 1/k_{\text{feas}} >0$, where $k_{\text{feas}}$ is the maximum number of bidders that can be removed while ensuring the feasibility of .
For supermodularity ratio, we aim to derive the tightest lower bound on $$\dfrac{J(S_{-K}) - J(S)}{\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)},$$ for all $K,S\subseteq L$. There are four possible cases to consider.\
(1) If $J(S_{-K}) - J(S)=0$ and $\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)=0$, then, for this instance, the supermodularity ratio is $1$.\
(2) The case where we have ${J(S_{-K}) - J(S)>0}$ and ${\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)=0}$ can be ignored, since we are looking for a lower bound.\
(3) Consider the case of ${\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)>0}$ but ${J(S_{-K}) - J(S)=0}$. We show that this can never be the case for the model in . Since the market objective is nonincreasing we have $J(R) \leq J(S)$ for $S\subseteq R$. Then, $$J(S_{-K})\geq J(S_{-l})\geq J(S),$$ for all $l \in K$ and $K,S\subseteq L$. As a result, we obtain $J(S_{-K})\geq J(S_{-l})\geq J(S_{-K})$, or equivalently $J(S_{-K})=J(S_{-l})$. This observation yields $$\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)=\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-K}) - J(S)=0,$$ which contradicts the initial assumption.\
(4) Finally, we consider the case of ${J(S_{-K}) - J(S)>0}$ and ${\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)>0}$. This yields a positive lower bound on the supermodularity ratio. Note that if $J(S_{-l})$ is infeasible, so is $J(S_{-K})$. Hence, we can ignore such infeasible sets for computing a lower bound. Restricting our attention to the case of ${J(S_{-K}) - J(S)>0}$ and ${\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)>0}$, a lower bound on $\gamma_{\text{sup}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\text{sup}}
&= \min_{\substack{S,K\subseteq L\\ |K|\leq k_{\text{feas}}}} \dfrac{J(S_{-K}) - J(S)}{\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)}\\
&\geq \min_{\substack{S,K\subseteq L\\ w\in K,\, |K|\leq k_{\text{feas}}}} \dfrac{J(S_{-K}) - J(S)}{|K|[J(S_{-w}) - J(S)]}\\
&\geq \min_{\substack{S,K\subseteq L\\ w\in K,\, |K|\leq k_{\text{feas}}}} \dfrac{J(S_{-w}) - J(S)}{|K|[J(S_{-w}) - J(S)]}\\&= \dfrac{1}{k_{\text{feas}}}>0. \end{aligned}$$ The equality follows from ignoring infeasible sets. The first inequality follows from $w$ yielding the maximum value for $J(S_{-l}) - J(S)$, over $l\in K$. The second inequality comes from $J(S_{-K})\geq J(S_{-w})$. Since ${\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S)>0}$ and $w$ yields the maximum, we have $J(S_{-w}) - J(S)> 0$. We obtain the final equality. This concludes the proof. [$\blacksquare$]{}
Theorem \[thm:lowbnd\] shows that any electricity market auction modeled by is weakly supermodular, and its supermodularity ratio is lower bounded by $1/k_{\text{feas}} \geq 1/|L|>0$. Furthermore, we obtain $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$ if the problem is infeasible whenever any two bidders are removed. This can be regarded as an alternative proof to [@karaca2017game Proposition 1]. However, the lower bound we derived is often conservative. In Section \[sec:num\], we obtain larger supermodularity ratios from studies based on realistic electricity market instances. In the numerics, we also discuss a computationally efficient method for computing the supermodularity ratio.
It is worth mentioning the previous research on lower bounding the submodularity ratio. The work in [@elenberg2016restricted] lower bounds the submodularity ratio of an unconstrained optimization problem using restricted strong convexity and restricted smoothness of the objective function. These bounds on submodularity ratio can potentially carry over to the supermodularity ratio of an unconstrained problem. By contrast, we consider a constrained problem, and hence their results do not extend to the supermodularity ratio of problem .
In summary, the VCG mechanism satisfies the approximate coalition-proofness property for the electricity markets modeled by . Subsequently, we can provide bounds on the profitability of collusion and shill bidding. In addition, better approximate coalition-proofness properties are achieved if the market objective $J$ is close to being supermodular.
Numerical Results {#sec:num}
=================
Our goal is to show the effectiveness of the supermodularity ratio to predict collusion potential in electricity markets. We start by providing a simple example to show that the upper bound in Theorem \[thm:approx\_collusions\] and the lower bound in Theorem \[thm:lowbnd\] are attained. Then, we consider IEEE test systems with DC power flow models. These markets do not satisfy the stringent conditions for supermodularity when line limits are present. We calculate the supermodularity ratios of these systems and show that they are close to $1$. Consequently, we obtain tight bounds on collusion and shill bidding.
Before discussing the numerical results, we explain the computation method for the supermodularity ratio in Definition \[def:suprat\]. To calculate $\gamma_{\text{sup}}$, we need to solve up to $2^{|L|}$ instances of the market problem and then we could form the following linear program with up to $2^{2|L|}$ linear constraints, $$\label{eq:supratprob}
\begin{split}
\gamma_{\text{sup}}=&\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\gamma}\, \gamma\\
&\ \ \,\mathrm{s.t.}\ \ \gamma\Big[\sum_{l \in K } J(\mathcal{B}_{S\setminus{l}}) - J(\mathcal{B}_{S})\Big]\leq J(\mathcal{B}_{S\setminus{K}}) - J(\mathcal{B}_{S}),\\
\end{split}$$ for all $K,S\subseteq L$. To deal with the exponential size, we use the constraint generation approach proposed in [@day2007fair]. The method proceeds as follows. We initialize the algorithm by setting $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$. For this candidate solution, we can formulate another problem that finds the constraint in with the largest violation, that is, the largest $\gamma_{\text{sup}}[\sum_{l \in K } J(\mathcal{B}_{S\setminus{l}}) - J(\mathcal{B}_{S})]- [J(\mathcal{B}_{S\setminus{K}}) - J(\mathcal{B}_{S})].$ For this formulation, we refer to [@karaca2017game]. We then obtain another candidate solution by finding the largest ratio that satisfies this violated constraint. The algorithm iterates between two problems and converges to the supermodularity ratio [@day2007fair Theorem 4.2]. This algorithm may still require the generation of all constraints, but in practice, it converges fast. Note that, this problem also needs to be solved under all bid profiles. We tackle this by solving for many randomly generated bid profiles and setting the supermodularity ratio as the minimum of these ratios.
A simple example for Theorems \[thm:approx\_collusions\] and \[thm:lowbnd\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\epsilon$ be a small positive number. Suppose the central operator has to procure $800$ MW of power supply from bidders $1$, $2$ and $3$ who have the true costs $\$600$ for $800$ MW, $\$300+\epsilon$ for $400$ MW and $\$300+\epsilon$ for $400$ MW, respectively. Under the VCG mechanism, the dominant-strategy Nash equilibrium is truthful bidding. Hence, assume all the bidders are truthful. As a result, bidder $1$ wins and receives $p_1^{\text{VCG}} = 600 + (600+2\epsilon-600)= \$600+2\epsilon$. Invoking Theorem \[thm:lowbnd\], we obtain the lower bound $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\geq 1/2$ since $k_{\text{feas}}=2$. In fact, this lower bound is tight. We can verify that the supermodularity ratio of this market is given by $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1/2$ by evaluating the constraints in Definition \[def:suprat\] under any set of bid prices.
Now, suppose bidders $2$ and $3$ collude and change their bids to $\$0$ for $400$ MW. Then, bidders $2$ and $3$ win and receive a payment of $\$600$ each. The total VCG utility they receive is $\$600-2\epsilon$. In this case, the upper bound in Theorem \[thm:approx\_collusions\] is tight since $[\gamma_{\text{sup}}^{-1}-1][J(\mathcal{C})-J(\mathcal{C}_{-K},\mathcal{B}_{K}^0)]=[1/(1/2)-1][600-0]=\$600$. For this example, we highlight that, for bidders $2$ and $3$, lowering bid prices to zero results in the largest profit these bidders can achieve by collusion. However, in general, it is not straightforward how to optimally collude since the bidders do not have full information on the market constraints and other bidders.
IEEE test systems with DC power flow models
-------------------------------------------
In wholesale electricity markets, the central operator’s problem involves a power grid model with network balance constraints. In this section, we adopt the DC power flow model [@wu1996folk]. This model assumes lossless lines, constant bus voltages, and small phase angle differences. Under the LMP mechanism, the generators may act strategically to manipulate the payments in these markets [@wolfram1997strategic; @joskow2001quantitative]. The works in [@xu2017efficient; @karaca2017game] proposed the VCG mechanism as a way to handle this issue. However, these markets have quadratic bids and polytopic constraints. Even though the bid curves are convex, the polytopic constraint set of a DC power flow is not a polymatroid whenever the line limits are present. For this reason, the VCG mechanism can suffer from collusion and shill bidding [@karaca2017game].
Here, we consider the IEEE $14$-bus, $30$-bus, and $118$-bus test systems in [@christie2000power]. In [@karaca2017game §5.2], we analyzed the VCG payments and how they compare with the payments for the LMP and the pay-as-bid mechanisms. In this work, we focus on the supermodularity ratio to quantify coalition-proofness of each system. To identify the collusion potential under any market instance, the supermodularity ratio computations are further verified by choosing the coefficients of the quadratic bids from a uniform distribution.
For the $14$-bus example, we have $10$ MW limits on lines exiting node $1$ and connecting it to nodes $2$ and $5$. Even though the bids are convex, the polytopic constraint set is not a polymatroid and conditions for supermodularity do not hold. Invoking Theorem \[thm:lowbnd\] we obtain a lower bound $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\geq1/2$ since $k_{\text{feas}}=2$. In contrast, the estimated supermodularity ratio, calculated using the constraint generation approach discussed above, is $0.76$. Next, we consider the bid curves in [@christie2000power]. Since all bidders are allocated a positive quantity, we add two losing bidders at nodes $1$ and $5$. The supermodularity ratio indicates that losing bidder’s collective profit from collusion would be upper bounded by $\$1296$, which is $11\%$ of the total VCG payment. Similar bounds are obtained for other possible colluders. We conclude that Theorem \[thm:approx\_collusions\] provides us with bounds on strategic manipulations.
Similarly, the $30$-bus system also has polytopic constraints and the conditions for supermodularity do not hold. By contrast, we calculated the supermodularity ratio to be $1$. This verifies the exact coalition-proofness of the $30$-bus system under the VCG mechanism. This result can be explained in two ways. First, none of the line limits are tight at the optimal solution. Second, removing two bidders yields an infeasible problem in most cases.
In the case of the $118$-bus system, the constraint set is a polymatroid because there are no line limits in the model [@christie2000power]. It follows that the market objective is supermodular [@karaca2017game Theorem 5]. Additionally, supermodularity ratio is calculated to be $1$, as is proven in Proposition \[rem\]-(ii). For the bid curves in [@christie2000power], there are two losing generators located at nodes $1$ and $4$. Suppose these two losing generators form a coalition and lower their bids to zero. Then, their collective profit decreases from $\$0$ to $-\$439.8$. Invoking Theorem \[thm:approx\_collusions\], collusion is not profitable for any set of colluders who lose when bidding their true costs. As a final remark, we fix $50$ MW limits on two lines, one connecting nodes $5$ and $6$, another connecting nodes $9$ and $10$. Then, the supermodularity ratio is calculated to be $0.92$. This shows that we can obtain weak supermodularity by introducing line limits, similar to the $14$-bus system.
Conclusion
==========
For the electricity markets, the incentive-compatible VCG mechanism was susceptible to collusion and shill bidding since the market objective was in general not supermodular. Motivated by this, we defined the supermodularity ratio to quantify how close a set function is to being supermodular. The supermodularity ratio of the market objective provided us with bounds on the profitability of collusion and shill bidding. These bounds get tighter as the ratio increases. We then derived an analytical lower bound on the supermodularity ratio of the electricity markets. The results derived apply to general auctions run by the VCG mechanism. By quantifying coalition-proofness, we can evaluate the applicability of the VCG mechanism in terms of collusion and shill bidding. Finally, we illustrated the tightness of the bounds on supermodularity ratio, and verified our results with case studies based on the IEEE test systems.
Our future work will address deriving bounds on collusion and shill bidding for double-sided auctions using the idea introduced here.
Proof of Proposition \[rem\]
============================
For a nonincreasing set function, we prove the statements in Proposition \[rem\].
- Since the function is nonincreasing, we observe that both sides of the equation are always nonnegative in Definition \[def:suprat\]. Since $\gamma_{\text{sup}}$ is the largest scalar, we have $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\geq 0$. Furthermore, the inequality must hold when $K$ is a singleton. Then, we obtain $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\leq 1$.
- The set function is supermodular if and only if the supermodularity ratio is given by $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$.
($\Longrightarrow$) We first prove that supermodularity implies $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$. Let $K=\{ l_1, \dots, l_k\}$. Notice that, by supermodularity, $$J({S_{-{l_i}}})
- J(S)
\leq
J({S_{-\{ l_i ,..., l_k \}} })
-
J({S_{-\{ l_{i+1} ,..., l_k \}}}).$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{split}
\sum_{l \in K } J(S_{-l}) - J(S) &=\sum_{i=1}^{k}J(S_{-{l_i}}) - J(S)\\
&\leq\sum_{i=1}^{k}J(S_{-{\{l_i,\ldots,l_k\}}}) - J(S_{-{\{l_{i+1},\ldots,l_k\}}})\\
&= J(S_{-K}) - J(S).\\
\end{split}$$ The first equality follows from the definition of the set $K$. Supermodularity implies the inequality. The last equality holds by a telescoping sum. Finally, the same arguments can be made for all $K,S\subseteq L$. Since the supermodularity ratio is the largest scalar such that this inequality holds, we obtain $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\geq1$. Combining it with $\gamma_{\text{sup}}\leq 1$ from part (i), we obtain $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$.
($\Longleftarrow$) To prove that the supermodularity is also necessary for $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$, we proceed by contradiction. Suppose supermodularity does not hold. Then, there exist sets ${S}\subseteq{R}$, and $l\in S$ such that $J({R_{-l}})\! -\! J(R)\!>\! J({S_{-l}})\! -\! J(S)$. First, we show that without loss of generality, we can restrict $R$ to differ from $S$ by one bidder, that is, $R= S\cup \{i\}$ for some $i$. We take $S^0=S$ and $S^j=S^{j-1}\cup \{ l_j\}$ with $S^k=R$, then, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j =1}^k J({S^j_{-l}})-J({S^{j-1}_{-l}}) &= J({R_{-l}})-J({S_{-l}})\\
&> J(R)-J(S)\\ &= \sum_{j=1}^k J({S^j})-J({S^{j-1}}).
\end{aligned}$$ The strict inequality above must hold for one of the summands, that is, $\exists j,\,J({S^j_{-l}})-J({S^{j-1}_{-l}}) > J({S^j})-J({S^{j-1}})$. Equivalently, $\exists j,\,J({S^j_{-l}})-J({S^j})>J({S^{j-1}_{-l}})-J({S^{j-1}})$. Hence, we can consider sets ${S} \subseteq {R}$ that differ only by bidder $i$. By this observation, we have $$\label{eq:side}
\begin{split} J({{R}_{-l}}) - J({R}) &> J({{S}_{-l}}) - J({S})\\ &= J({{R}_{-{\{i,l\}}}}) - J({{R}_{-i}})\\& \geq 0,\end{split}$$ for $i \in {R}\setminus {S}$. Considering the set ${R}$, and ${K}=\{i, {l}\}$, we have: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l' \in {K}}\!\! J({{R}_{-l'}}) - J({R})
=&
J({{R}_{-{l}}}) - J({{R}}) + J({{R}_{-i}}) - J({R}) \\
>&
J({{R}_{-{\{i,l\}}}}) - J({{R}_{-i}}) + J({{R}_{-i}}) - J({R})
\\
=& J({{R}_{-K}}) - J({R}).
\end{aligned}$$ The strict inequality follows from . If the supermodularity ratio was $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$, then the inequality in Definition \[def:suprat\] would be violated for this particular choice of $R,K\subseteq L$. Hence, the supermodularity ratio is $\gamma_{\text{sup}}<1$. Thus, we conclude that the supermodularity condition is also necessary for $\gamma_{\text{sup}}=1$. ]{}
This concludes the proof of Proposition \[rem\]. [$\blacksquare$]{}
[^1]: The authors are with the Automatic Control Laboratory, Department of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, ETH Zürich, Switzerland. e-mails: [{okaraca, mkamgar}@control.ee.ethz.ch]{}
[^2]: Problem (\[eq:main\_model\]) defines a general class of markets, for example, energy and reserve markets[@xu2017efficient; @carlson2012miso] and stochastic markets [@abbaspourtorbati2016swiss; @conejo2010decision].
[^3]: We assume that in case of multiple optima, there is some tie-breaking rule according to a predetermined fixed ordering of the bidders.
[^4]: It is also often referred to as voluntary participation or cost recovery.
[^5]: This rule generates the minimum total payment by the central operator while ensuring individual rationality of the bidders[@krishna1998 Theorem 1].
[^6]: The utility allocation and the auction outcome are used interchangeably.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Search Based Software Testing (SBST) is a popular automated testing technique which uses a feedback mechanism to search for faults in software. Despite its popularity, it has fundamental challenges related to the design, construction and interpretation of the feedback. Neural Networks (NN) have been hugely popular in recent years for a wide range of tasks. We believe that they can address many of the issues inherent to common SBST approaches. Unfortunately, NNs require large and representative training datasets.
In this work we present an SBST framework based on a deconvolutional generative neural network. Not only does it retain the beneficial qualities that make NNs appropriate for SBST tasks, it also produces its own training data which circumvents the problem of acquiring a training dataset that limits the use of NNs.
We demonstrate through a series of experiments that this architecture is possible and practical. It generates diverse, sensible program inputs, while exploring the space of program behaviours. It also creates a meaningful ordering over program behaviours and is able to find crashing executions. This is all done without any prior knowledge of the program.
We believe this proof of concept opens new directions for future work at the intersection of SBST and neural networks.
author:
- Leonid Joffe
- 'David J. Clark'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: A Generative Neural Network Framework for Automated Software Testing
---
=1
Introduction
============
In this paper we explore an automated testing framework based on Neural Networks (NN). The proposed approach aims to address some of the most pertinent problems of both automated testing and generative NN models. This proof of concept introduces multiple new ideas at the intersection of automated software testing and generative neural networks, and we hope it will stimulate further research in this area.
Automated testing techniques have become increasingly popular thanks to the availability of resources and their ever improving effectiveness. We view automated testing from the perspective of Search Based Software Testing (SBST) [@harman2001search; @mcminn2004search]. In SBST, a program is repeatedly executed, its execution monitored and further executions are generated with the aim of more effective fault discovery. Commonly the goal is to optimise coverage. A fundamental feature of SBST is the reliance on a feedback mechanism to evaluate and direct the search.
The practical instantiation of SBST that we consider is fuzzing. Fuzzing is a technique where a program is bombarded with random inputs in hopes it will eventually crash [@sutton2007fuzzing]. Modern fuzzers however use feedback mechanisms to improve their effectiveness. Using a feedback loop for improving search brings fuzzing into the realm of SBST. A popular modern fuzzer is the American Fuzzy Lop (AFL) [@zalewski2007american]. Although it does use a feedback mechanism and hence falls into the realm of SBST, its search strategies and notions of similarity are non-principled heuristics – they “just work”. That said, these heuristics all ultimately drive the fuzzer towards exploring a program’s behaviours maximally *diversely*. Indeed, diversification is generally a very common target for testing [@ammann2016introduction; @heimdahl2004specification; @gay2015risks]; after all, if the target of search is unknown, the best you can do is explore.
Although popular both in academia and industry, SBST is not without its limitations [@mcminn2011search; @aleti2017analysing]. The problems of SBST we aim to address are the following. *First*, fitness landscapes of SBST may have plateaus or be discontinuous. Then either multiple adjacent candidate solutions appear equivalent in terms of fitness and the search mechanism cannot prioritise them or it cannot move to a better solution. *Second*, the fitness landscape may contain local optima which leads the search to a sub-optimal solution. *Third*, choosing the representation requires domain knowledge and expert involvement [@shepperd1995fundamentals]. *Fourth*, it is not apparent how to assign an ordering onto the search landscape, likewise requiring an involvement of an expert [@shepperd1995fundamentals; @harman2004metrics]. Granted, it can be defined in terms of the search operators, i.e. candidate solutions one search step away from each other are adjacent. But is this the best ordering for the search? *Finally*, the generation of new candidate solutions is a big can of worms with various approaches and solutions [@mcminn2004search; @anand2013orchestrated; @ali2010systematic; @alshraideh2006search; @fraser2013whole; @fraser2011evosuite; @fraser2012mutation; @pacheco2005eclat; @korel1992dynamic]. What search operators to use? How much prior knowledge is required and available? How to produce the next candidate solution?
We propose that NNs’ properties make them ideal for tackling these issues. *First*, NNs are trained by a process of backpropagation [@rumelhart1986learning] which means they must be differentiable and thus continuous by construction [@glasmachers2017limits]. That is, if a neural network trains, its intermediate states must be differentiable. This continuity and differentiability make NNs a natural candidate to tackle the issue of plateaus in SBST search spaces. *Second*, it has been shown that given sufficient size, NNs avoid local optima [@kawaguchi2016deep; @swirszcz2016local; @nguyen2017loss; @nguyen2018optimization]. *Third*, the above property also implies that if a representation contains a useful signal, an NN will discover it. This means that they can use representations that are difficult to interpret manually. NNs may suffer from noise given redundant data, but these problems can be addressed with feature selection [@verikas2002feature; @leray1999feature; @wang2014attentional] and modern, deep architectures suffer less from this problem [@li2018feature]. This alternative is nonetheless preferable to a major manual effort. *Fourth*, due to their differentiable nature, NNs impose an order relation onto data (e.g. [@kingma2013auto]). They may thus help us reason about similarity and diversity of program behaviour in a principled, continuous way. *Lastly*, NNs can be used for generating new data without analytical human effort [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016; @kawthekarevaluating; @chollet2017git; @graves2013generating; @openai_gnn; @radford2015unsupervised; @van2016wavenet].
NNs, as tools for SBST, come with limitations of their own however. The main problem is that they are data hungry; they need large representative training datasets [@beleites2013sample]. This appears like a disqualifying issue in the context of SBST. If one wishes to train an NN to be used as a fuzzer, and has sufficient data to train the NN, this data could simply be used to test the program itself. This really defeats the purpose of building and training an NN-based fuzzer.
The architecture proposed in this work can address all these problems – SBST and NN related alike. It is a generative model that produces its own training data. In a way, this architecture is similar to that of reinforcement learning (RL) where an agent explores an environment, discovers rewards and learns to navigate the space more effectively. In our approach, the agent is the generative model while the program under test is the environment. This might seem like a bizarre proposition as there is no apparent way to evaluate the quality of the generated data. You can produce all the random data you like, but how do you know if it is any good? What is your reward signal? We suggest that the principle of diversification can be adapted from SBST to evaluate the generated data; the model is rewarded for *diversity*.
This framework we call GNAST (Generative Network for Automated Software Testing) begins by throwing random inputs at a program. Most of these will be rejected by the program. Some, however, will trigger an unusual execution trace. Those are prioritised and kept in the training dataset. As the process continues, GNAST generates program inputs that trigger new behaviours and uses them in its training dataset. The fact that GNAST is NN based allows it to address the issues outlined above, as we will show in the sequel.
In this work we implement a prototype of GNAST and present a number of initial findings. First and foremost, we show how such a system can be trained and how it produces diverse program inputs. Furthermore, the inputs are clearly sensible with respect to the syntax of the program under test. In addition, we can control the syntactic similarity of generated strings. Finally, rudimentary as the current state of GNAST is, it does actually discover crashes. Currently it is a prototypical proof of concept accompanied by several outstanding questions. As such, it cannot be readily compared with fully fledged fuzzers like AFL.
Even though it is a prototype, GNAST presents a number of novel ideas. It is a generative NN-based automated software testing tool that does not require a training dataset – it produces its own. It is a new example of a deconvolutional generative model for string generation. It uses a novel quantified notion of similarity for program executions. It presents a prioritisation method for program executions based on a greedy algorithm called Farthest-First Traversal (FFT). Finally, it uses “unusualness” and diversity as an explicit training target and although this idea is common in testing, it is novel in this formulation.
Overview of Approach {#sec:overview}
====================
We propose a framework for automated software testing. Its purpose is to explore the behaviours of a Software Under Test (SUT) diversely. Our system does this by generating inputs for the SUT, observing the executions under those inputs and adjusting further generation of inputs towards the most unusual behaviours. It is essentially an evolutionary fuzzer, albeit with convoluted[^1] generative and feedback mechanisms.
The tool is based on two neural networks (NN), an execution trace profiler and a prioritisation mechanism of executions. The structure is shown in and its algorithm is presented in . A single epoch of the algorithm corresponds to two passes through the framework in : the first is a generative pass where the networks’ weights are not updated, and a training pass – where they are. The algorithm and framework are described next, with the numbers in brackets corresponding to the lines in and .
The process is initialised by feeding Gaussian noise to an untrained Generative Neural Network (GNN) (*2-6*). It produces a batch of program inputs $X$. Most of these will be nonsensical; strings of random characters. The inputs are then executed by the SUT and the execution traces $T$ are collected (*12*). As most inputs are just noise, most execution traces will yield the “invalid input” execution trace. Some inputs however may contain features that are valid, which will be reflected in their execution traces.
The execution traces are then encoded by a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) (*14*). It casts the discrete, unorderable execution trace into an n-dimensional “latent” space encoding $E$. The latent space encoding is a quantifiable representation of features of execution traces, and we can reason about their similarity in terms of Euclidean distance. The encoded executions are then ranked by the “unusualness” of their encoded traces using the Farthest-First Traversal (FFT) algorithm (*18*). Redundant datapoints are discarded and the most interesting ones are kept in a persistent training dataset (*20*). The dataset is composed of the execution traces $T$, their encodings $E$ and the program inputs that triggered them $X$.
The dataset is then used to train both the VAE and the GNN (*24, 26*). As the VAE learns to encode the execution traces of the training dataset, new, unusual ones stand out from the bunch. The GNN, in turn, learns to produce program inputs that trigger a variety of traces, i.e. program behaviours. We also add noise to perturb the dataset towards exploration so that more novel behaviours are found (*29*). We suggest that the proposed framework represents a fundamentally novel approach to using neural networks for diversity driven testing of programs.
![The GNAST Framework. A detailed explanation of the training and generative processes is given in . The algorithm corresponding to this image is shown in , with numbers in brackets corresponding to line numbers.[]{data-label="fig:framework"}](framework){width="\linewidth"}
$e \leftarrow 0$ $\{Z_0\} \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\,\sigma^{2})$
$\{Res_0\} \leftarrow \{<X=\emptyset, T=\emptyset, Z=Z_0\}$
Research Questions
==================
While many of the individual mechanisms of GNAST are inspired by other work, the overall structure is fundamentally novel. It is an RL-inspired loop that generates training data for itself by sampling the output distribution and evaluates samples with an external diversity-driven oracle. The novelty brings about a huge number of design and configuration decisions, all of which have an effect on the research questions outlined below.\
**First**, there was no guarantee that the training of such a system would converge at all. It is also not clear what optimisers, layer sizes, numbers of hidden layers etc. to use. Non-convergence is essentially underfitting – the mechanism does not learn to approximate the data. Whether GNAST’s training converges is the the focus of the first research question.\
**RQ1**: *“Does GNAST framework’s training converge?”*\
**Second**, it is insufficient for GNAST’s training to simply converge. It also needs to *not* converge too far, so as to continue generating new datapoints. New datapoints are essential both for exercising varied behaviours of the SUT as well as building up a diverse dataset for training. Much like non-convergence in RQ1 means underfitting, converging too far corresponds to overfitting – the system learns to produce only a few datapoints and since those are kept in the training dataset, their effect becomes ever stronger. The second research question looks at diversity during training.\
**RQ2**: *“Does GNAST maintain diversity throughout training?”*\
**Third**, if the mechanism does train in an acceptable way, we then need to evaluate whether the produced program inputs are sensible. Granted, a program may crash under a completely unexpected random input, but a fundamental principle of fuzzing (and indeed any other testing) is that inputs ought to be consumable by the SUT, beyond an “invalid input” check. This means they ought to be somewhat well-formed, or at least have some relevant syntactic features. AFL generates strings that can hardly be called well-formed, as the representation yielded by its instrumentation is only a crude representation of a program’s behaviour. Since the instrumentation is lifted out of AFL, the strings generated by GNAST were expected to contain some syntactic feature similar to those made by AFL, but there was *no* expectation of the them being properly well-formed. The aim of the third research question is to see whether the generated strings are completely random or comparable in structure to those made by AFL.\
**RQ3**: *“Do the generated program inputs have syntactic features similar to those generated by an AFL baseline?”*\
**Fourth**, one of the intended features of GNAST is the ability to control the similarity of syntactic features of the produced inputs by adjusting the input. Once GNAST is trained, the latent space that was used as input to the GNN can be replaced with n-dimensional normal noise. The GNN thus becomes a stand-alone generator which takes a vector of reals as input and generates a string on the output. Input values close to each other are ought to produce similar strings while distant inputs should produce dissimilar ones. Whether this is the case is investigated in the fourth research question.\
**RQ4**: *“Do strings generated from nearby points in the latent space share syntactic features vs. those far apart?”*\
**Fifth**, by the same design as syntactic similarity of generated program inputs, GNAST ought to be able to generate strings that would trigger a specific desired behaviour. After all, one of the components of the loss function is the reconstruction of input. Our fifth research question looks at this aspect.\
**RQ5**: *“Can GNAST generate input strings that trigger specific behaviours of a SUT?”*\
**Finally**, although GNAST is only a proof of concept with a lot of additional work to be done, we would like to know if the framework “has legs” as a design for a fuzzer. The ultimate aim of a fuzzer is to find crashes, and our last research question is simple but poignant.\
**RQ6**: *"Does GNAST discover crashes in **sparse**[^2]?*
Related Work and Background
===========================
The proposed framework applies machine learning techniques, specifically GNNs, to automated software testing. This section links the mechanisms of GNAST to concepts, ideas and inspirations in those fields.
Fuzzing and the American Fuzzy Lop
----------------------------------
Fuzzing is an automated testing technique which attempts to discover faults by bombarding a program random inputs [@sutton2007fuzzing]. Modern fuzzers use feedback to improve the input generation process; they evaluate their progress in order to search for faults more effectively.
American Fuzzy Lop (AFL) is a popular fuzzer widely used in academia [@zalewski2007american]. A number of recent papers have taken AFL as a basis, and improved on it. These include work on improving AFL’s instrumentation [@gan2018collafl; @chen2018angora], alternative search strategies [@bohme2017coverage; @bohme2017directed; @petsios2017slowfuzz], producing better initial seeds [@lv2018smartseed], locating interesting input string mutation locations [@rajpal2017not; @she2018neuzz] and introducing program context information [@rawat2017vuzzer]. Although we use some parts of AFL, our work does not attempt to improve AFL. Instead, we are proposing a fundamentally different architecture.
Representation and Fitness Function
-----------------------------------
Feedback-driven automatic testing tools like modern fuzzers, fall under the field of Search Based Software Testing (SBST) [@harman2012search; @mcminn2004search]. As any other SBST approach, the design of a fuzzer depends on a representation and a fitness function [@harman2001search].
Representation is the choice of what to observe about a candidate solution, in this case an execution. It may be a coverage profile, a sequence of executed basic blocks or something simple like execution time. In this work, the representation is based on the execution trace profiling mechanism from AFL. AFL’s representation of an execution is an approximate count of decision point transitions. It does not capture context nor sequence information about the execution.
The fitness function is what transforms a representation into a quantified assessment of quality of a candidate solution. But what constitutes quality in fuzzing and how can it be quantified?
Fuzzing, and software testing in general, aims to exercise program behaviours diversely: diversity is quality. The original AFL uses a handful of heuristics to identify executions that are distinct or “interesting”, i.e. of high quality. For instance, if an execution exercises a transition that has not been previously seen, it is considered interesting. Whilst the heuristics of AFL are empirically effective, they are not principled and do not order nor quantify the similarity of executions or behaviours.
Quantifying Program Behaviour
-----------------------------
GNAST is intended to give an ordering, and quantify the similarity of executions. The approach relies on an autoencoder neural network which is used to process execution traces. An autoencoder is an NN which attempts to reconstruct its inputs at the outputs, while arranging the datapoints into an n-dimensional encoding (“latent”) space by similarity of their features [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016]. Specifically, we use a flavour of an autoencoder called the Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [@kingma2013auto]. The essential detail of a VAE is in the structure of its encoding layer. Rather than encoding datapoints as single real number values, they are instead encoded as tuples of mean and variance $(\mu, \sigma^2)$. The result of this construction is that datapoints tend to be more evenly spread across the latent space and interpolation between them is smoother than in a regular autoencoder.
In GNAST, the inputs and outputs to the VAE are the execution traces and the latent space encoding is a representation of their most salient (i.e. most distinguishing) features. The benefit of encoding traces in this way is that it imposes an order relation on discrete, seemingly unorderable datapoints. Furthermore, the space is continuous and smooth. These are characteristics of a good search landscape [@harman2004metrics]. Since execution traces are the representation of program behaviour, the latent space in fact constitutes the space of behaviours. We suggest that since we want to explore diverse behaviours, this latent space is what we ought to be exploring diversely.
Ranking Algorithm
-----------------
Once we have constructed an n-dimensional Euclidean space to represent program behaviours, we need a method for evaluating which datapoint is unusual and which is redundant. We propose doing this using an algorithm known as the Farthest-First Traversal (FFT) or the greedy permutation. FFT arranges a set of points into a sequence such that the minimal distance of each following point is maximised. In other words, the prefix of the sequence is always maximally representative of the whole dataset. We are not aware of work which would use FFT in ranking candidate solutions in SBST.
The algorithm is shown in and described below, with line numbers shown in brackets. Prior to the actual algorithm, the pairwise distance of each datapoint is calculated (**2**). Then the result is initialised with two maximally distant elements (**3**). The next element to append is chosen such that it is furthest from ones already in the result sequence, i.e. the minimal distance is maximised (**5**). Each following element in the sequence is thus maximally different from ones already in the prefix.
Once the dataset is sequenced, its tail (the most redundant portion) is discarded. We propose that pruning the dataset according to this notion of similarity keeps it diverse and maximally representative.
Generative Neural Networks {#sec:gnn}
--------------------------
The heart of GNAST is a Generative Neural Network (GNN) that is trained to produce program inputs using the culled, representative dataset. As the dataset expands, the generator gets new datapoints to drive its training towards previously unseen behaviours and program inputs.
Perhaps the best known example of a GNN design for strings is the Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016; @rumelhart1986learning; @hochreiter1997long]. A very early version of GNAST was implemented with an RNN (modelling on work by Bowman *et al.* [@bowman2015generating]), but it was much too slow to train and to generate new inputs, so that design was abandoned.
Our generator is therefore based on an alternative design, inspired by the Deconvolutional Generative Adversarial Network (DCGAN) [@radford2015unsupervised]. In DCGAN, two neural networks – a generator and a discriminator – are pitched against each other. The generator takes Gaussian noise as input, passes it through a stack of transposed convolutions [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016] and produces an image on the output. The discriminator takes an image as input and outputs an answer of whether the image was real or fake (generated). While the discriminator learns to be ever more effective in telling fake images from real ones, the generator attempts to produce images that fool the discriminator into believing they are real. This tandem of networks ends up creating realistic images.
There are two significant problems of readily applying DCGAN to generation of discrete data. The first problem is that unlike pixel values in images, discrete variables such as characters in strings are not readily orderable. For instance, “bat” is *not* semantically almost the same as “cat” although the two words only differ by a single (alphabetically adjacent) character: $"cat" \neq ("bat"+1.0)$ [@goodfellow_reddit_2016]. On the other hand, in continuous variables such as pixel hue values, a slight offset does not dramatically change the meaning: a cat can be still identified even if the image is slightly blurry.
The other problem, inherent to neural networks, is the need for a lot of training data [@beleites2013sample]. DCGAN requires a corpus of real datapoints for training the discriminator. This in itself is a disqualifying requirement for a fuzzer, as it would require a large, representative dataset of valid program inputs. This defeats the purpose of a fuzzer: if you have a truly representative dataset of inputs, it could just be used to test the program. Furthermore, using only valid inputs would train the generator to produce only valid inputs. This is not ideal for fuzzing, as the program ought to be tested on both valid and invalid inputs.
In GNAST, in place of a discriminator network, we have the combination of a SUT, a VAE and FFT ranking. This mechanism serves the same purpose as the discriminator in DCGAN: to, as it were, quantify the quality of candidate solutions. Furthermore, thanks to the VAE, we have a continuous input space ordered by features of execution traces. This ordering of the input space imposes an order on the generated strings. In addition, we have unlimited training data thanks to GNAST producing its own. These design features thus address major problems of the use of generative models for string generation.
In the machine learning arena, the networks employed in this prototype are not novel. Recent advances in GNNs have brought about numerous novel architectures, many of them for image generation, e.g. [@he2016identity; @karras2019style; @zhang2017stackgan], and even for text generation [@bowman2015generating; @wang2018text]. Indeed the concept of training an NN given some response from an external source is reminiscent of RL. From this point of view, the GNN represents the actor, the SUT is the environment, and the VAE with FFT is the critic[@konda2000actor].
As for the direct use of GNNs for test input generation – the closest use case to ours – we are only aware of work by Godefroid et al. where an RNN was used to test a PDF reader [@godefroid2017learn] with mixed results.
Experimental Setup {#sec:experiments}
==================
This section presents the implementation details of each component of GNAST, as well as the experiments we ran. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed framework is novel in many aspects. A large part of our experiments was therefore exploratory; various designs and configurations were considered and tested, albeit not exhaustively due to resource limitations. The NN mechanisms were implemented with the Tensorflow framework [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper]. Citations to standard deep learning concepts are omitted for clarity, and the reader is referred to the Deep Learning Book [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016] for reference.
Trace Profiling
---------------
Two mechanisms are lifted out of AFL: the program instrumentation (and hence representation) and the execution harness. To be clear, *none* of AFL’s generative or prioritisation mechanisms were used. We did not modify or parametrise these mechanisms, so there are no options to be considered, save for, of course, replacing the instrumentation with an alternative tool altogether.
AFL’s execution trace representation is a count of decision point transitions. First, the source code is instrumented with a drop-in replacement for GCC (or G++ or Clang) prior to testing. For efficiency, only a rough number of transitions is kept (8 buckets), and the trace is of a fixed size of 64K. An execution trace is thus a 64K long, typically very sparse vector with 8 distinct values. Although GNAST does not take advantage of the efficiency of this representation but it is nonetheless appropriate for three reasons. First, it is simple to implement by adapting AFL’s code. Second, the empirical evidence of AFL’s performance is in and of itself an indication of the representation’s effectiveness. Finally, there are many new aspects to our framework, and using an alternative, potentially ineffective trace representation would add to the uncertainty of the framework overall.
AFL’s execution harness is referred to as a “fork server”. The basic idea of the fork server is to spin up the SUT up to the initial `main()` call and keep a snapshot of the program in that state. Whenever the SUT is executed under a new input, this initial state is copied and execution proceeds from there. Thanks to this simple mechanism, the time required for initialisation is avoided and fuzzing becomes much faster, so the inputs produced by the fuzzer can be executed quickly.
Variational Autoencoder
-----------------------
The VAE is composed of an encoder and a decoder, modelled on the architecture of Kingma’s work [@kingma2013auto]. The encoder is as follows. The first layer is the input of size 64K, matching the size of the trace. This is followed by one or more densely connected hidden layers. Next is the encoding layer which is composed of a densely connected $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ layers. In addition, the encoding layer includes a source of Gaussian noise. The construction of the encoding layer $z$ is shown in . Once the VAE has been trained, the VAE is queried for an encoding of a trace, it is $\mu$ layer’s output that is fetched. That is, $\sigma^2$ and $z$ layers are only used during training to give the latent space the desired characteristics, but the actual encoding is the value $\mu$.
$$z = \mu + e^{0.5\sigma^2} * \mathcal{N}(0,I)
\label{eq:encoding_layer}$$
The output of the $z$ layer is fed to hidden layer(s) of the decoder. The output of the decoder a categorical softmax layer of size $(64K, 8)$. This is specific to this trace representation where counts of state transitions are bucketed into 8 values. This allows the VAE to be trained using categorical cross-entropy.
The loss function of the VAE is composed of two terms, as shown in . The first term is the reconstruction loss and the second is the latent encoding regularisation loss. The purpose of the former is to get the VAE to actually encode the data. The latter term forces the latent space to approximate a normal distribution; to give it a convenient shape. More technically, the loss components are the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the approximate ($q$) and the true posterior ($p$) distributions, given datapoints ($x$) and model parameters ($\theta$), and the lower bound ($\mathcal{L}$)w on the marginal likelihood of datapoint *i* respectively [@kingma2013auto].
$$loss_{VAE} = D_{KL}(q_{\phi}(z | x^{(i)}) \|p_{\theta}(z | x^{(i)})) + \mathcal{L}(\theta,\phi;x^{(i)})
\label{eq:vae_loss}$$
The configurable parameters of the VAE are the number, size and activation functions of hidden layers, the size and noise rate of the encoding layer as well as the losses and optimisers. These parameters affect the nature of the VAE.
We are not aware of work formally defining a “good” VAE but from first principles of NNs, we can assume that the latent space must not be underfitted nor overfitted. Avoiding underfitting means that the VAE needs to encode the features of the data. The purpose of this is obvious: if the network does not encode the data, its latent space has no meaning whatsoever. Under visual inspection, an underfitted latent space appears like a spherical cloud of points around zero. Practically, underfitting can be easily identified by whether the model’s loss value descends – i.e. the network trains. An overfitted latent space, in turn, looks like a manifold, e.g. a line. In this case the network learned to simply memorise the datapoints and mapped them to distinct points, rather than an area. In the case of overfitting, the latent space encoding is likewise meaningless.
Generative Neural Network
-------------------------
The input to the GNN is the encoding of a trace produced by the VAE, with addition of small Gaussian noise $\sigma=0.1$. Gaussian noise as input was also considered but discarded as a less interpretable; there would be no mapping from behaviours to program inputs. The purpose of this noise is to perturb the data so that the framework explores novel behaviours. Much like in DCGAN, the input is then upscaled with a densely connected layer(s), and reshaped to match the size of the output of the GNN (using deconvolutions with stride $>1$). The main portion of the GNN is a stack of transposed convolutions (commonly called “deconvolutions” – hence DCGAN) with strides one or two. This stack of deconvolutions may also include shortcuts, i.e. residual blocks [@he2016deep]. These are intended to strengthen the signal through the network thereby alleviating the vanishing gradient problem [@hochreiter1998vanishing].
The output layer is of size $(str\_len_{max}, dict\_size)$. In our experiments the maximum string length $str\_len_{max}$ was fixed at $512$ and the number of possible characters $dict\_size$ was 129: 128 ASCII characters and 0 for padding. During training, the output layer is trained using softmax cross-entropy of one-hot encoded strings and the reproduction error of the encoded trace (). The first term $-\sum_{c=1}^{M}y_{o,c} \log(p_{o,c})$ trains the the GNN to approximate the mapping of trace encodings to strings. It is a standard loss for training categorical classifiers [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016]. The second term $|\hat{z} - z|$ aims to approximate the SUTs semantics within the GNN. This term is minimised when the value of the encoded trace on the input $z$ to the GNN matches the *true* trace $\hat{z}$ encoding that the SUT produces when executed under the generated input. The overall loss function maps traces to strings *and* tries to make those strings produce a specific behaviour.
$$loss_{GNN} = -\sum_{c=1}^{M}y_{o,c} \log(p_{o,c}) + |\hat{z} - z|
\label{eq:gnn_loss}$$
During generation, rather than simply choosing the most likely character for each index of the output string (“argmax”), the generator samples from the output probability distribution, $x = \langle x_i \sim p_i; i < str\_len_{max} \rangle$. This sampling technique selects *plausible* (rather than *most likely*) characters given a learned probability distribution.
There are numerous possible parameter configurations for the GNN. Common options include the size and the number of upsampling and deconvolutional layers, activation functions and optimisers. In addition, fundamental architectural options had to be considered. Namely, whether to use string reconstruction cross-entropy, trace reconstruction MSE or their combination as a loss; whether to use trace encodings or Gaussian noise as the input; and whether to sample or use argmax on the output.
Experiments Conducted
---------------------
We conducted experiments on three SUTs that take strings with complicated grammar as input. The first one is an XML linter called *xmllint* from libxml [@libxml]. The second is *sparse* [@sparse], a lightweight parser for C [@sparse]. The last program is *cJSON*, a parser for the JSON format [@cjson]. Generating inputs for these programs out of thin air is a non-trivial task. Also, since these programs validate their inputs by design, the validation process ought to be reflected in execution traces. Execution traces that depend on syntax validation would give GNAST and AFL a good representation to work with.
For the comparative analysis against a baseline, we first ran AFL on each program for 48 hours. This produced 3240, 11286 and 2071 queue inputs for *xmllint*, *sparse* and *cJSON* respectively. Of the three SUTs, AFL only found crashes in *sparse*.
In GNAST’s implementation, we evaluated its the performance under dozens (if not hundreds) of parameter configurations. There was not a fixed time budget, nor a strict performance measure for each configuration. Instead it was a trial and error exploration of the effects of various configurations with respect to the research questions. Once the most promising structure and configuration was found, we trained GNAST on each program for 48 hours. These trained instances of GNAST were then be used for RQs three through six.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The research questions explore the nature of the proposed architecture. The findings of our investigation show that GNAST does indeed train while maintaining diversity, that it produces sensible program inputs, and that proximity in the latent space corresponds to similarity of generated strings. However, the result to RQ5 was negative: we cannot generate program inputs that would trigger specific program behaviours. Finally, GNAST does find crashes in *sparse* – the SUT in our corpus where AFL also found crashes.
RQ1 – Training Convergence
--------------------------
GNAST trained successfully under some configurations, however it failed under others. Unlike standard NNs, a successful training is not meant to converge arbitrarily close to zero because GNAST is ought to continually produce new data. Instead, the convergence ought to be simply *noticeable*. Our primary definition of failure is the failure to converge, i.e. underfitting. A secondary notion of failure is instability – a case when the training failed with the loss reaching `inf`. In fact, these two effects correspond to a vanishing and exploding gradient problems respectively [@hochreiter1998vanishing; @pascanu2012understanding].
The VAE’s loss failed to converge when the noise in the encoding layer was too high and when the hidden layers were very small, e.g. 8 units. Lowering the amount of noise to $\sigma = 0.1$, using 512 or more neurons in the hidden layers along with a Leaky ReLU activation allowed the VAE to converge.
GNN’s training did not converge when the structure was too weak; there were too many layers or too few filters. When it came to depth, more than a dozen layers did not appear to converge in a reasonable time. Residual blocks resolved this issue however and structures of up to 64 layers converged. With fewer than 32 filters the network also failed to converge.
Initial configurations often resulted in instability, indeed much more often than we had previously encountered in working with NNs. We believe there are three reasons for the instability. The first is aggressive optimisers, particularly Adam [@kingma2014adam]. Adam is susceptible to instability when close to convergence [@wilson2017marginal], which is a potential explanation. The second reason is Gaussian noise in the latent layer of the VAE and on the input to the GNN. Lowering the noise $\sigma$ to $0.1$ resolved this instance of instability. The last cause, we suggest, is the constantly shifting dataset. This is the most unusual reason, specific to GNAST, but not to NNs in general. Modern optimisers like RMSProp [@tieleman2012lecture] and Adam both keep track of past gradients to calculate the next optimisation steps. Adam also uses momentum. Injecting new data throws these optimisers off: taking a step towards what previously seemed an optimal point, and finding a completely unexpected datapoint there causes the loss to diverge. We are not aware of work where the training dataset would be updated like in GNAST so this suggestion is speculative, and warrants further research.
The final, most promising set of hyperparameters was the following. An RMSProp optimiser with a learning rate to $0.0001$, $42$ convolutional layers with residual connections, a kernel size of $3$, Leaky ReLu activation, batch normalisation after activation, VAE’s latent encoding as input, and a categorical cross-entropy loss.
The training loss followed an unusual trajectory: first down quickly, then up, then down slowly again. This is not a major finding per se, but an observation of expected behaviour, given a framework that produces its own training data. While there are few datapoints at the start of training, the model quickly learns how to reproduce them and the loss goes down. As new datapoints are found, the loss increases, and then slowly descends again when features of the new datapoints are learnt.
The central finding of this RQ is that GNAST trains. The positive outcome to this RQ validates the principle of GNAST and makes subsequent questions worthwhile.
RQ2 – Diversity During Training {#res:rq2}
-------------------------------
The second property of a successful training process is that it maintains diversity. Since GNAST produces its own training data, it is critical for the framework not to collapse into generating the same outputs over and over. Overfitting was seen both in the VAE and the GNN. We consider a model failing to maintain diversity if no new traces are produced over 20 epochs of generation and training.
When the VAE was too powerful, the loss tended close to zero and under visual inspection, the latent space looked like the datapoints are placed on a manifold. This occurred when there was no noise or the hidden layers were too powerful (too many cells or layers). In this scenario, the locality in the latent space is meaningless which rids the VAE of its purpose. That is to say, an overfitting VAE is a useless structure with respect to ordering the execution traces – not necessarily an immediate problem for diversity.
Making the GNN too strong would in turn result in a reduction in diversity of generated strings. Too many filters in the deconvolutional layers, too little noise on the input or when the dropout rate was set too low – all contributed to a diminished diversity. We do not have a principled explanation for this, but it may be due to the GNN effectively learning to ignore the input layer and just encoding the dataset into its structure, before it manages to become sufficiently diverse and representative – an artefact of the recursive nature of GNAST.
The fundamental architectural choice of sampling on the output, rather than taking the maximum, had a very strong effect on diversity. In an untrained model, changes in the input propagated to the output very weakly. That is, when feeding inputs drawn from a normal distribution to the GNN, and then taking argmax at the output, the generated strings altered very slightly, if at all. Sampling on the output however readily produces numerous varied outputs. This provides ample training data for GNAST while also following the learnt output distribution.
The best loss function with respect to diversity was the combination of cross-entropy on the outputs and MSE between the input to the GNN and the resulting true encoding (when the generated string was passed through the SUT and the VAE). Using only cross-entropy, the model did produce diverse outputs initially, but then lost diversity and stabilised into preferred outputs. Using only the encoding reproduction, the framework did not appear to converge, and new inputs were found very slowly, perhaps even coincidentally. In combination however, the model kept producing new outputs seemingly indefinitely[^3]. In addition, this combination of components for the loss function had a clear effect on crash discovery, as described below in . We cannot explain why it is the *combination* of these loss components that has this property and this is a central direction for future work.
RQ3 – Syntactic Features
------------------------
One of the characteristics we desire of GNAST is that it ends up generating sensible program inputs. We evaluate the “sensibleness” of the generated corpora by inspecting the most common n-grams. This analysis is comparative because the current implementation of GNAST uses AFL’s instrumentation, so it could not produce better formed strings than those made by AFL.
N-grams are sequences of characters of lengths $[3...10]$ that occur most frequently in the corpora. Typical features found in corpora produced by AFL and GNAST are discussed below and sample snippets are presented in Listings \[lst:AFL\_examples\] and \[lst:GNAST\_examples\].
There were similarities in n-grams across corpora generated by both AFL and GNAST. For *xmllint*, the most prevailing features are the triangular braces `<` and `>`. Usually these are not properly matched however. That is, neither tool finds that opening and closing braces ought to come in pairs. Colon `:` also appeared often. In XML, this special character is used to denote a name prefix to resolve name conflicts. Though `:` comes up often, it is not in the correct location, i.e. within a tag name. Another control sequence that kept appearing is the processing instruction `<?` which sends the command within a tag to third party software [@xmlSyntaxRules]. *Sparse* is a very simple parser for C code and it only identifies basic syntactic errors. It is therefore unsurprising that the generated strings did not appear very much like actual C code. Two features stood out however: braces `(` and `)` and the presence of semicolons `;`. Common character sequences for *cJSON* included curly and square braces `{`, `}` and `[`, `]`, colons `:` and line breaks `\n`. These are all special characters associated with the correct syntax of JSON. Again though, neither AFL nor GNAST generated anything resembling well-formed JSON. These observations were in line with the expectation of some syntactic features, but not well-formedness.
There were also differences in the corpora generated by AFL and GNAST. The first difference is the length of generated strings. Whilst AFL’s heuristics keep the maximum length unrestricted, under the current implementation, the maximum string length of GNAST is capped at 512 characters. Furthermore, AFL occasionally prunes the corpus by deleting slices of the strings and observing whether this changes the execution traces. GNAST on the other hand has no preference for shorter strings, so most of the strings in its corpus are ca. 500-510 characters in length[^4]. Second, strings of AFL’s corpus contain very long sequences of repeated characters and character sequences. For instance, there are input strings where the letter `K` is repeated thousands of times. Although GNAST sometimes repeats sequences as well, not nearly to such degree. Third, strings produced by GNAST appear to be more exploratory: where AFL finds an interesting n-gram and keeps reusing it, GNAST does not. As a result, GNAST generated strings appear less structured. Finally, while neither tool is restricted to only printable characters, AFL uses them more frequently than GNAST does. To our knowledge, AFL does not have heuristics that prioritise printable characters, so we do not have an immediate explanation for this effect.
It is obvious that the generated strings are a far cry from well-formed, whether generated by AFL or GNAST. Nonetheless, they are not random sequences of characters either; some syntactic features are clearly identifiable.
We conclude that GNAST generates strings that appear to be comparable in nature to those made by AFL. This means that the feedback mechanism works and that GNAST leverages it effectively to learn significant features of the SUTs’ input syntax.
// xmllint
<YY>vYY&&&aZaaaa
<b:><b:\\><
<Y:YvYYb></Y:YvY
<?xml.ver:V?VFxx
<YvHP>><?PM>
<IQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQY><YvY<YvQQQQQY=pnQ
<\xd3\xbe>\xde[]:f\xde
((((((((()
// Sparse
[KKQKKKKKKKKmKKKKKKKK*KKKKKKKKKKKKKmK
K?;K(C){K
**/****\x00\x00\x00
//////////
// cJSON
"\n{":3 \x1c\x01}
\n{":3 \x1c\x01}\x13
+\u9'999\u+\u9A99
// xmllint
<:p><n:/>\n
HQ%\x1f>\n#jS,u\x03\x1f<\x05UV\x05\n1
+\n&<?\n7>"<?
n=#+\n_<G:7>
[WH\x13}\x19Bc<]
<(eCQ\x05\x1bkL{GX\x01=O%Fck\x05Q)
// Sparse
i;();;gT;/*[n
if()[[*(P**nc*H.F^//)
//\x044U\x15COrm
/*Q9\x15C1\x01q
cU\x01UUv {s\x1c\x15r8\x05)!0C;\r
#if({;+;?;*;U;1>Om;
// cJSON
{*,\x04}
{\x80\x1aK:5\x0843"\x08y\x0b^\x04\x19"#\x02}
{"\x1d\x7f\x10
<@?\x086\x1f\x1d\x08\x1d\x02\x1b{=\x08=\x08}
RQ4 – Similarity of Elements in Latent space {#sec:res_rq4}
--------------------------------------------
By design, GNAST is intended to map encodings of program executions to program inputs that triggered those executions. The latent space encodings define a notion of similarity and this ought to be reflected in the strings generated by the GNN: strings generated from points close to each other in the latent space should be similar, and strings from distant points dissimilar.
This property was evaluated in the following way. Ten thousand vectors from a normal distribution are drawn, and ordered by two algorithms: the greedy FFT algorithm from most to least representative, as well as an opposite “closest first traversal” (CFT). CFT orders the datapoints such that the pairwise distance of each following element is minimised with respect to the existing sequence. We then feed the first hundred elements of the FFT and CFT sequences to a trained GNN and compare the generated strings.
The expectation is that the strings from the FFT sequence ought to be less syntactically similar than those generated from CFT. Syntactic similarity is assessed by the Jaccard index of the overlap of n-grams of lengths $[1...10]$ of each string vs. the n-grams of the whole dataset of 100 elements. That is $\frac{|A \cap B|}{|A \cup B|}$, where $A$ is the set of n-grams in each individual string and $B$ is the set of n-grams in all 100 strings.
The mean Jaccard indices are shown in . Since the inputs are randomly generated, the process was repeated ten times and results averaged. The values are not to be compared across programs, but rather between the two sequences. They show that strings generated from adjacent input values are consistently more similar in terms of n-grams versus those generated from distant points. This means that GNAST can generate new program inputs with a notion of relative similarity. Such an ability is a step towards ultimately defining search strategies in a continuous Euclidean space – one of the future prospects this work aims to enable.
**SUT** **FFT** **CFT**
----------- ------------ ------------
*xmllint* 0.199767 0.453304
*sparse* 0.01205251 0.05063868
*cJSON* 0.090320 0.337037
: Mean Jaccard similarity of the n-grams of the first 100 elements in FFT and CFT sequences. Strings generated from nearby points in the input space have a higher overlap of n-grams, as shown by the higher values of the CFT column. This means that we can control the syntactic similarity of elements generated by GNAST.[]{data-label="tbl:rq3"}
RQ5 – Targeting Specific Behaviours
-----------------------------------
A further intended property of GNAST is the ability to generate program inputs that trigger a specific behaviour. In other words, given an input $z$ to the GNN, it generates a program input $x$, which when executed by the SUT produces a trace $t$, and when $t$ is encoded, the encoding $z'$ ought to be close to $z$.
The evaluation here was straight forward. We sampled 100 GNN inputs $Z$, passed them through the framework and looked at the cosine distances $D_{cos}(Z,Z')$. A cosine distance of $0.0$ is perfect correlation, $2.0$ inverse correlation and $1.0$ a lack of correlation. Results to this RQ were negative: consistently within $0.1$ of $1.0$, the actual encoding values of traces $z'$ were random with respect to the inputs $z$. So we cannot generate a string which will trigger an exact, specific behaviour. We do not have an immediate explanation for why this is, and we intend to look into this in future work.
RQ6 – Finding Crashes {#res:rq6}
---------------------
This RQ is very important for a fuzzer in the long run. At this stage however, GNAST is a proof of concept with some limitations and numerous ideas for future work (discussed below in ). The question of whether GNAST finds crashes is therefore merely an indication of its potential – not an evaluation of its current ability. The only SUT where AFL discovered crashes is *sparse* and GNAST found crashes in it as well. This is not evidence of GNAST being a better fuzzer than AFL, but that the framework has the potential of being made into one, down the line.
Crash discovery was affected by the loss function of the GNN surprisingly strongly. We observed above in that the MSE component of GNN’s loss is useful for maintaining diversity. Furthermore however, without this component, GNAST did not discover crashes in *sparse*. We retrained GNAST against *sparse* ten times to confirm this effect: 5 with the MSE loss, and 5 without. In each case, it did not discover crashes without the MSE loss. This is a somewhat baffling finding with two consequences. First, the MSE loss is indeed important for exploration as discussed in . Second, exploration is, in this case, important for crash discovery. At this point it is unclear why the MSE component helps exploration and thus crash discovery, and we intend to investigate this effect thoroughly in future work.
Future Work {#sec:future_work}
===========
The current implementation of GNAST is a proof of concept prototype. As such, it has a number of limitations that can be investigated in future work.
First, there are just very many possible configuration options and given the novelty, there are hardly any reference systems on which to model the parameters. A larger, more systematic ablation study should be conducted in the future. Second, we use a generator based on transposed convolutions where the maximum string length is fixed. Methods for allowing variable and indeed unlimited strings lengths should be investigated. Third, the alphabet used for generating strings is the whole ASCII character set. Introducing some prior knowledge of the target syntax, e.g. using sequences of characters or a restricted subset may improve the performance of GNAST. Fourth, we investigated the trade-off between training convergence and diversity using fixed learning rates, learning schedules and noise levels, which might not have been optimal. That is, a better trade-off of learning and exploration could be achieved by dynamically adjusting the learning schedules and noises. Fifth, the expressiveness of the trace representation we lifted out of AFL is limited; it is a somewhat crude abstraction of program behaviour. Alternative execution traces profilers ought to be studied. Finally, there is the negative result to RQ 5. As said, we cannot explain this outcome at this stage.
Despite these limitations, we believe and hope that this work will be of interest to the community and inspire future research and collaboration.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we present the Generative Network for Automated Software Testing (GNAST) framework. It is intended to address multiple problems of SBST. These include problems with the selection, design, interpretation and implementation of representations, fitness functions and input generation methods. Furthermore, it bypasses a fundamental issue of scarcity of representative and useful training data for neural networks.
GNAST generates program inputs with a generative NN, collects the resulting execution traces, and maps them onto an n-dimensional space with an autoencoder. The encoding imposes an ordering on executions so we may reason about similarity of executions quantitatively. GNAST uses this encoded representation to prune redundant datapoints in order to keep the dataset maximally representative of the range of observed program behaviours. The process is continued ad infinitum with the framework continually exploring the SUT’s behaviours while learning to produce ever more useful inputs. We believe GNAST to be the first of its kind generative neural network for automated software testing; one based on the idea of striving towards a novel notion of diversity by leveraging a SUT as an external oracle – much like the environment in an RL scenario.
We explored the behaviour of the proposed framework in a series of research questions. We showed that such an architecture can be trained, and that it keeps producing new, diverse and sensible program inputs. We also showed that GNAST’s notion of execution trace similarity translates to syntactic similarity of the generated strings. This means that we can produce new program inputs with a continuous control of their syntactic similarity. Although we intended to, we cannot currently generate program inputs such that they would trigger an exact target behaviour.
We believe our work to be conceptually novel for SBST, NNs and their combination. Our analysis was not a complete, systematic exploration and ablation of all the possible configurations and options. Currently GNAST is a proof of concept which requires further work. On the other hand, it also opens numerous directions for future research and will be hopefully met with interest in the community.
[^1]: Pun intended.
[^2]: The program in which AFL found crashes."
[^3]: We ran the model for over 96 hours and it kept generating new inputs for each SUT.
[^4]: Strings of length shorter than 512 are due to removed padding bytes in generated strings.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe a general Godunov-type splitting for numerical simulations of the Fisher–Kolmogorov–Petrovski–Piskunov growth and diffusion equation in two spatial dimensions. In particular, the method is appropriate for modeling population growth and dispersal on a terrestrial map. The procedure is semi-implicit, hence quite stable, and approximately $O(\Delta x^{2}) + O(\Delta t^{2})$ accurate, excluding boundary condition complications. It also has low memory requirements and shows good performance. We illustrate an application of this solver: global human dispersal in the late Pleistocene, modeled via growth and diffusion over geographical maps of paleovegetation and paleoclimate.'
author:
- |
W. P. Petersen, S. Callegari, N. Tkachenko,\
J. D. Weissmann, Ch. P. E. Zollikofer\
Anthropological Institute and Museum, University of Zürich
bibliography:
- 'splitting.bib'
title: 'A stable finite-difference scheme for growth and diffusion on a map'
---
[**Keywords**]{}: reaction-diffusion equations , finite-difference solvers, population dynamics
Introduction
============
There is an increasing interest in modeling population dynamics at large spatial and temporal scales, for example the modern human out-of-Africa dispersal [@eriksson2012; @henn2012; @nikitas2005; @young1995] or Neanderthal dispersal and extinction [@callegari2013]. These models are required to interpret local and global patterns of genetic, phenetic and cultural variation [@bouckaert2012; @eriksson2012; @manica2007; @pinhasi2005; @relethford2004].
Fisher [@fisher1937] studied the description – via a reaction-diffusion equation – of an analogous but one-dimensional problem: the propagation of an advantageous genetic mutation within an already-present population, situated along a coast line. Kolmogorov, Petrovskii and Piskunov [@kolmogorov1937] were more general; in particular, their analysis treated the two-dimensional case. Such a model (called Fisher/KPP in the following) was first applied to the dispersal and growth of a population by Skellam [@skellam1951], and serves as an important control for designing and validating other more complex spatiotemporal population models [@callegari2013]. Coupling population dynamics with models of large-scale changes in continental topography, climate, and ecosystem productivity is essential to understand the role of environmental constraints on patterns of genetic, phenetic, and cultural variation among human populations [@callegari2013].
Here we present a stable and efficient finite-difference solver for the Fisher/ KPP equation on 2-D domains of arbitrary shape (e.g. geographical maps), and show how it can be extended to include environmental fluctuations. In a brief outline of our paper, we will: review the derivation of the Fisher/KPP equation (Section \[sec:fisherkppeq\]); develop finite-difference schemes in 1 and 2 dimensions for constant environmental carrying capacity, $\mathcal{K}$ (Section \[sec:methodsandsplittings\]); extend the scheme to allow for space- and time-dependent $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x},t)$ (Section \[sec:fisherkpp\]) and irregular domains such as geographical maps; show an application of this technique to the out-of-Africa dispersal of *Homo sapiens* by using net primal productivity (NPP) as a proxy for $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x},t)$ (Section \[sec:dispersal\]).
The Fisher/KPP equation {#sec:fisherkppeq}
=======================
An intuitive way to get the Fisher/KPP equation [@fisher1937; @kolmogorov1937; @skellam1951] is as follows. A current $\mathbf{j}$ of particles (e.g., individuals) moving across an interface located at $\mathbf{x}$ is proportional to the gradient of the population density $p$ (“Fickian diffusion”) $$\mathbf{j} = -c\,\nabla p.$$ The rate of change of $p$ is then given by the mass balance equation [@reichl2004], which for Fickian diffusion reads $$\frac{\partial p}{\partial t} - c\,\nabla^2 p = \rho.$$ If $\rho=0$, this is the heat equation when $c = \mathcal D/2$ and $\mathcal D$ is the diffusion coefficient. For lack of a better model, we assume $c$ is a constant (Young & Bettinger [@young1995]). The source term $\rho$ is usually modeled by a logistic growth function, $\rho = \lambda p (1-p/\mathcal
K)$, yielding the Fisher/KPP equation $$\frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = \lambda
\left(1-\frac{p}{\mathcal{K}}\right) p + c\,\nabla^2 p,
\label{eq:fisherKPP0}$$ where $\mathcal{K}$ is called *carrying capacity* and $\lambda$ is the growth rate. In (\[eq:fisherKPP0\]) we assumed $\mathcal K$ is constant, but it suffices that there is an *upper limit* $\bar{\mathcal K}$, in which case $0 \leq p / \bar{\mathcal K} \leq
1$. This scaled version will be used in (\[eq:fisherKPP\]) below. Fisher and KPP were particularly interested in the traveling wave case, $p(t,\mathbf{x}) = f(\mathbf{x}_{0} + \mathbf{v} t)$. Notice what happens here if $f$ exists: $$\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla f = \lambda
\left(1-\frac{f}{\mathcal{K}}\right) f + c\,\nabla^2 f,$$ which in 1-D becomes a second order ordinary differential equation $$v \frac{{\rm d} f}{{\rm d} x} = \lambda
\left(1-\frac{f}{\mathcal{K}}\right) f + c \frac{{\rm d}^2
f}{{\rm d} x^2}.$$ If $v$ were known, this ODE could be solved using `pvp4c` from `MatLab`, for example. By the rescalings show in Table \[tab:scalings\], for constant $\mathcal{K}$ the Fisher/KPP equation (\[eq:fisherKPP0\]) will be used in the form $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = (1-u)u + \frac{1}{2}\,\nabla^2 u,
\label{eq:fisherKPP}$$ where the only sensible solutions have $0 \leq u \leq 1$. The initial distribution $u(0,\mathbf{x}) = u_{0}(\mathbf{x})$ must be defined for all $\mathbf{x}$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In (\[eq:fisherKPP\]) In (\[eq:fisherKPP0\])
----------------------- --------------------------------------------
$ $\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2 c}} \, \mathbf{x}$
\mathbf{x}$
$t$ $\lambda t$
$u$ $p/\mathcal{K}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
: Variables in left column are scaled versions of those in right column.\[tab:scalings\]
In Murray ([@murray2002], eq. (11.17)) our growth coefficient $\lambda$ is called $r$ and $c$ is denoted by $D$, whereas in Young and Bettinger [@young1995] the growth coefficient is $R$ and the diffusion coefficient is $K$. These inputs to our code are given in units of yr$^{-1}$ and km$^2$/yr respectively.
Numerical methods and splitting {#sec:methodsandsplittings}
===============================
In one dimension, (\[eq:fisherKPP\]) can be solved using the `MatLab` function `pdepe`. In fact, if the system is two-dimensional but rotationally symmetric, `pdepe` can again be used with the radial part of the Laplace operator in cylindrical coordinates, $$\nabla^2 = \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+ \mbox{non-contributing terms},$$ requiring only that one sets a `pdepe` parameter `m`=1. Although the `MatLab` function `pdepe` is robust, it cannot be generalized to arbitrary 2-D domains. However, it is a valuable control for testing more general solvers, and a more general solver is what we wish to explore here.
The finite-difference scheme
----------------------------
Since the map on which we will be working is a pixelized plane, an obvious method uses finite differences. First, however, let us examine the 1-D case for (\[eq:fisherKPP\]). In this situation, the second order derivative becomes a differencing operator in matrix form acting on the vector $\{ u_{j}, j=1,n \}$, where $u_{j} =
u(x_{0}+(j-1) \Delta x)$, $$\frac{d^{2} u}{dx^{2}} \rightarrow \frac{1}{(\Delta x)^{2}} A u,$$ where the matrix $A$ is $$A = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
-2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
1 & -2 & 1 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
0 & 1 & -2 & 1 & \ldots & \\
0 & 0 & 1 & \ldots & & \\
0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 1 & -2 \end{array} \right). \label{eq:Amatrix}$$ If $h$ is the time step, the Courant–-Friedrichs–-Lewy (CFL) parameter [@strang1986] is $$k = \frac{h}{2 (\Delta x)^{2}}.$$ An explicit integrator for (\[eq:fisherKPP\]) would require $k <
1/4$ [@leveque2007; @strang1986]. In our case, because the boundary conditions are so irregular on a map, we are less interested in a method of higher order than $2nd$ because stability is more important [@godunov1987].
Using this notation, the lowest order approximation is Euler’s method which estimates the next step $u(t+h)$ by $$u_{E} = u(t) + k \, A u(t) + h \, (1-u(t)) u(t),
\label{eq:Eulerestimate}$$ which should be considered a vector equation in $u(t) = \{ u_{j}(t),
j=1,n \}$. The logistic terms, which are diagonal, should be taken to mean $((1-u)u)_{j} = (1-u_{j})u_{j}$ for $j=1,2, \ldots, n$. Euler’s method is both low-accuracy and usually unstable if it is used alone over many steps. But, it is $O(h)$ accurate and thus useful as an explicit estimate in $O(h)$ terms. An application of the trapezoidal rule yields $$\begin{aligned}
u(t+h) & = & u(t) + \frac{k}{2} \left( A u(t+h) + A u(t)
\right) \label{eq:trapezoidalrule} \\ & & \qquad + \frac{h}{2}
\left((1-u(t+h))u(t+h) + (1-u(t))u(t) \right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and is an $O(h^{2}) + O((\Delta x)^{2})$ accurate procedure but solving the quadratic vector equation (\[eq:trapezoidalrule\]) for $u(t+h)$ is awkward. To the same $O(h^{2})$, we propose a semi-implicit procedure which uses the Euler estimate (\[eq:Eulerestimate\]) to replace one of the terms in (\[eq:trapezoidalrule\]): $$\begin{aligned}
u(t+h) & = & u(t) + \frac{k}{2} \left( A u(t+h) + A u(t) \right) \label{eq:semiimplicit}\\
& & \qquad + \frac{h}{2} \left( (1-u_{E})u(t+h) + (1-u(t))u(t) \right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:semiimplicit\]) can now be solved as a linear system, $$\left( 1 - \frac{k}{2} A - \frac{h}{2} (1-u_{E}) \right) u(t+h) =
u(t) + \frac{k}{2} A u(t) + \frac{h}{2} (1-u(t))u(t),
\label{eq:semidifference}$$ because the matrix, $1 - \frac{k}{2} A - \frac{h}{2} (1-u_{E})$, on the left hand side is explicit, as is the right hand side. That is, this matrix and the right hand side contain only old data, namely only information from the previous step, $u(t)$. Euler estimate $u_{E}$ is an explicit one step computation using $u(t)$. Significant advantages are: the matrix on the left hand side is tridiagonal with constants on the sub/super-diagonals, and the diagonal terms are $O(1)$ strong. The procedure (\[eq:semidifference\]) is only linearly stable but we will show empirically that it gives good results when compared to `pdepe` when this `MatLab` function is appropriate, that is, in both the one-dimensional and rotationally symmetric 2-D case. Not only is the method (\[eq:semidifference\]) step-wise stable but also stable for initial data which may not be smooth.
Figure \[fig:1dplots\] shows the results for $h=1/5$, $k=2.5$ compared to `pdepe`. Notice that at $t=20$ the agreement is remarkable; and that at $t=h$, where the wave front profile is very steep, our Godunov splitting described in Section \[sec:Godunov2Dsplitting\], specifically eq.(\[eq:yoshida\]), is very stable. The CFL number, $k=2.5$, used to get Figure \[fig:1dplots\] is much larger than would be possible with an explicit method [@leveque2007].
2-D case: Godunov–Strang–Yoshida splittings {#sec:Godunov2Dsplitting}
-------------------------------------------
It turns out that a generalization to the 2-D problem is a straightforward variant of Strang–Yoshida splittings [@strang1968; @yoshida1990], which are themselves variants of Godunov’s method [@godunov1987]. The following is a fully implicit variant of our two-dimensional scheme, with two intermediate arrays, $u^{\star}$ and $u^{\star \star}$,
\[eq:yoshida\] $$\begin{aligned}
u^{\star} & = u(t) + \frac{k}{4} \left( A_{x} u^{\star} + A_{x} u(t) \right)
\label{eq:yoshidaA} \\
u^{\star \star} & = u^{\star} + \frac{k}{2} \left( A_{y} u^{\star \star} + A_{y} u^{\star} \right)
\label{eq:yoshidaB} \\
& \qquad \; + \frac{h}{2} \left( (1-u^{\star \star}) u^{\star \star} + (1-u^{\star}) u^{\star} \right)
\nonumber \\
u(t+h) & = u^{\star \star} + \frac{k}{4} \left( A_{x} u(t+h) + A_{x} u^{\star \star} \right).
\label{eq:yoshidaC} \end{aligned}$$
In (\[eq:yoshida\]), the operators $A_{x}$ and $A_{y}$ are the same as (\[eq:Amatrix\]) for directions $x$ and $y$, respectively. For simulations on a lattice, $u_{ij}(t) = u(t,x_{0}+(i-1)\Delta
x,y_{0}+(j-1)\Delta y)$, where $1 \leq i \leq N_x,\, 1 \leq j \leq
N_y$ and $\Delta x = \Delta y$, the following gives the action of the $A_{x}, A_{y}$ operators: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{x} u_{i,j} & = & u_{i-1,j} - 2 u_{i,j} + u_{i+1,j}, \\
A_{y} u_{i,j} & = & u_{i,j-1} - 2 u_{i,j} + u_{i,j+1}.\end{aligned}$$ The compression scheme and code outline given in Appendix \[sec:code\] show that only a maximum of one row or column (i.e., max($N_x,N_y)$) of storage is needed for $u^{\star}$ and $u^{\star \star}$.
Again because the fully implicit quadratic vector equation in (\[eq:yoshidaB\]) is awkward to solve, we use an Euler estimate in one of the terms. Here is one integration time step of (\[eq:yoshida\]) in discrete semi-implicit form:
\[eq:discreteyoshida\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u^{\star} & = \left( 1 +
\frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u(t) \label{eq:discreteyoshidaA} \\ u_{E} &=
u^{\star} + k A_{y} u^{\star} + h (1-u^{\star})
u^{\star} \label{eq:discreteyoshidaB} \\ \left( 1 - \frac{k}{2} A_{y}
- \frac{h}{2} (1-u_{E}) \right) u^{\star \star} & = \left( 1 +
\frac{k}{2} A_{y} + \frac{h}{2} (1-u^{\star}) \right) u^{\star}
\label{eq:discreteyoshidaC} \\
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u(t+h) & = \left( 1 + \frac{k}{4}
A_{x} \right) u^{\star \star}.
\label{eq:discreteyoshidaD}\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[eq:discreteyoshidaA\]), (\[eq:discreteyoshidaC\]), and (\[eq:discreteyoshidaD\]) are solved in sequence as multiple independent tridiagonal systems for $u^{\star}, u^{\star \star}$ and the final step $u(t+h)$.
Symmetries in 2-D case
----------------------
Our Godunov scheme (\[eq:discreteyoshida\]) is not rotationally symmetric, and thus one way to estimate the error is to assess a solution using (\[eq:discreteyoshida\]) for a symmetric problem. Again, we can use `pdepe` but now with the cylindrically symmetric parameter choice `m`=1 (see Section 12.5 in [@higham2005]). Figure \[fig:2dpcolorplots\] shows that any asymmetries are not apparent without more careful examination. Even the wave front portrait of the 2-D case in the left-hand panel of Figure \[fig:2Dwavefrontanderrors\] and the error estimate in the right-hand panel of the same Figure are not sufficiently quantitative. In particular, there should be no distinction between $x$ and $y$ directions in (\[eq:yoshida\]), while a 2-D plot of the error distribution shows a small asymmetry (compare the right-hand plot in Figure \[fig:symmetryornot\] to the left).
For this reason, we implemented an alternating direction method, [ *à la*]{} Crank-Nicholson [@leveque2007; @ritchmyer1967], which makes the error distribution more symmetric. The left panel of Figure \[fig:symmetryornot\] shows that, while symmetrization only slightly improves the r.m.s. and maximum errors, they have now the desirable property of being more rotationally equi-distributed: respectively, cyclic groups $C_{4}$ vs. $C_{2}$. Relatively larger deviations from the `pdepe` solution now correspond to directions diagonal to the spatial lattice, as expected, and do not reflect the arbitrary choice of $x$ and $y$ in the integration.
Fisher/KPP on maps {#sec:fisherkpp}
==================
The next natural step when applying a reaction-diffusion equation to the modeling of population dispersal is to include geographical and environmental effects. In this Section, we discuss how to implement our solver on domains with space- and time-dependent $\mathcal K$, and then how to treat irregular boundaries that arise when solving Fisher/KPP on geographical maps. Using the same Godunov-type splitting described above, it is more straightforward to do the simulations on a map than might be expected.
Maps with space-dependent capacity {#sec:fisherkppvarK}
----------------------------------
In our scaling of (\[eq:fisherKPP\]), the maximum population density at $\mathbf{x}$ is unity. Thus, in the following we will use a scaled carrying capacity $0 < \mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x}) \leq 1$. Our algorithm (\[eq:yoshida\]) can be modified in a straightforward way for the case that $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x},t)$ also depends explicitly on time: see Section \[sec:fisherkppvarKxt\]. First, however, let us deal with the time independent $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x})$ case, $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = (1-\frac{u}{\mathcal{K}}) u +
\frac{1}{2}\,\nabla^2 u,
\label{eq:fisherwithK}$$ (we dropped the $\mathbf x$ dependence of $\mathcal K$ for convenience of notation), for which the Godunov splitting (\[eq:yoshida\]) now becomes
\[eq:godunovwithK\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u^{\star} & = \left( 1 + \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u(t) \label{eq:godunovwithKA} \\
u_{E} &= u^{\star} + k A_{y} u^{\star} + h (1-\frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}})
u^{\star} \label{eq:godunovwithKB} \\
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{2} A_{y} - \frac{h}{2} (1-\frac{u_{E}}{\mathcal{K}}) \right) u^{\star \star} & =
\left( 1 + \frac{k}{2} A_{y} + \frac{h}{2} (1-\frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}}) \right) u^{\star}
\label{eq:godunovwithKC} \\
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u(t+h) & = \left( 1 + \frac{k}{4}
A_{x} \right) u^{\star \star}.
\label{eq:godunovwithKD}\end{aligned}$$
Again, as in (\[eq:yoshida\]), multiple tridiagonal system solves must be carried out: $N_y$ $x$-direction solutions (\[eq:godunovwithKA\]), $N_x$ $y$-direction solutions (\[eq:godunovwithKC\]), and finally, another $N_y$ $x$-direction solutions (\[eq:godunovwithKD\]). Hopefully no confusion will result from the notation: $k$ is the CFL parameter, while $\mathcal{K}$ is the (space-dependent) carrying capacity.
A desert test of space-dependent capacity {#sec:gaptest}
-----------------------------------------
Now we are in uncharted territory. To assess if the solver (\[eq:godunovwithK\]) works, let us examine a problem where we can compute a solution by independent means. The test setup follows below. Its motivations will be explained further in Section \[sec:noisyNPPmaps\].
The desert test:
1. for $-y_{0} \leq y \leq y_{0}$, $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}(x)$ is independent of $y$;
2. for $x_{0} \leq x \leq x_{L}$, let $\mathcal{K}=1$, while for $x_{L} < x < x_{H}$, let $\mathcal{K}=f_{r}$, where the fraction $0 < f_{r} \leq 1$ defines a [*desert*]{} (inhospitable region) in the domain. Finally, for $x_{H} \leq x \leq x_{1}$, again set $\mathcal{K}=1$;
3. initialize $u(x,y,t=0)$ to a strip midway between $x_{0}$ and $x_{L}$, then run the simulation to study the traveling wave behavior across the $[ x_{L}, x_{H} ]$ desert.
In other words, the variable carrying capacity domain has $\mathcal{K}=1$ for $x \leq x_{L}$ and $x \geq x_{H}$, but $\mathcal{K}=f_{r}$ in an $x$-direction desert. If the initial data $u(\mathbf{x},0)$ are widely distributed enough (nearly full $y$-width), near the middle of the domain, i.e. $y = 0$, the problem looks basically one-dimensional. Thus we can again use `pdepe` from `MatLab` to compute the behavior of the one-directional wave as it passes through the desert, and compare this solution to the behavior of our Godunov method near this same center line. According to KPP [@kolmogorov1937], the velocity in the desert is the same as in the ${\mathcal K}=1$ region, and far enough from transients it should be approximately $$V = \sqrt{2 a},$$ where parameter $a=\frac{{\rm d} \rho}{{\rm d} u}(u=0)$. In our case $\rho(u) = u (1 - u/\mathcal{K})$, so $\frac{{\rm d}\rho}{\rm d
u}(0) = 1$. Thus, when not entering or leaving the desert, the velocity should be $\sqrt{2}$ [@kolmogorov1937]. Figure \[fig:gaptestresults\] shows that the velocity agrees with the KPP prediction, and is nearly constant except for short transients entering and exiting the desert, as expected. Our metric for measuring this velocity is to find, on the leading edge of the wave front, the position $x_{1/2}$ where $u(x_{1/2})=\mathcal K/2$.
If the jump in $\mathcal K$ is deep enough ($f_r\ll1$), however, the integrator will fail without some regularization. The parameters for the results shown in Figure \[fig:gaptestresults\] are $\mathcal{K}=1$ above and below the desert, but $\mathcal{K}=0.01$ in the desert. For this case, $\frac{u}{\mathcal{K}} \gg \frac{2}{h}$ gives an instability with unpleasant sign changes, and a regularization scheme has to be used. We show this in the next subsection.
Regularization against holes and noise {#sec:noisyNPPmaps}
--------------------------------------
An obvious problem with deep holes, jumps or ragged noise in the carrying capacity $\mathcal{K}$ is this: the right hand side of equation (\[eq:godunovwithKC\]) (as well as (\[eq:godunovwithKTC\]) in the next Section) contains the term $$\left( 1 + \frac{k}{2} A_{y} + \frac{h}{2} (1-\frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}})
\right) u^{\star},
\label{eq:badeulerterm}$$ which for large ${u^{\star}}/{\mathcal{K}}$ basically determines the sign of the $u(t+h)$ on the left side of (\[eq:godunovwithKC\]) (likewise (\[eq:godunovwithKTC\])). Since both $u^{\star}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ are positive, if $\mathcal{K}$ is very small in some pixel, then we may have $$\frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}} \gg
\frac{2}{h},$$ in which case $u(t+h)$ changes sign. This is unphysical, so we would like to regularize the term (\[eq:badeulerterm\]). To do so, we need to find a monotonically increasing function, call it $g(x)$, such that $$g(x) \sim \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x & \mbox{when} \, x \, \mbox{is small} \\
1 & \mbox{when} \, x \, \mbox{is large.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Multiple choices are available, as shown in Figure \[fig:regularizers\]. We want a straight line with slope 1 when $x$ is small, then a smooth but rapid cut-off when $x = \frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}}$ gets too large. Some suitable choices are $(1-\exp{(-x^{\beta})})^{1/\beta}$, or just as cheap to compute, $$g(x) = \left( \tanh{(x^{\beta})} \right)^{1/\beta},
\label{eq:regularizer0}$$ or any variant shown in Figure \[fig:regularizers\]. We choose $g(x)$ with $\beta=4$. The regularization (\[eq:regularizer0\]) to be used in (\[eq:badeulerterm\]) and thus (\[eq:godunovwithKC\]) (likewise (\[eq:godunovwithKTC\]) in the next section) is then modified to $$\frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}} \mapsto \frac{1}{h}
g(h \frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}})
\label{eq:regularizer1}$$ where $h$ is the step-size. In the desert test presented above, using the regularizer yields the same results as decreasing $h$ tenfold.
One alternative to the above regularization (\[eq:regularizer1\]) is to use smoothing by a low pass filter which weights a center pixel (map coordinate $i,j$) and its nearest $(2L-1) \times (2L-1) - 1$ neighbors. A neighboring pixel with $X,Y$ distances $i_{x}, j_{y}$ from $(i,j)$, has weight $$w(i_{x},j_{y}) = \left( 1 - (i_{x}/L)^{2} \right)
\left( 1 - (j_{y}/L)^{2} \right)
\label{eq:weightfunction}$$ for all $-L < i_{x} < L$ and $-L < j_{y} < L$, including center at $i_{x} = j_{y} = 0$. Neighboring pixels with coordinates $(i+i_{x},j+ j_{x})$ having zero value (e.g. water), $i+i_{x} > {\rm N_X}$ or $i+i_{x} < 1$, are ignored. In Mercator projection maps, $Y$ coordinates are periodic in the longitude direction). For each $(i,j)-$pixel to be smoothed, a total of each accepted (non-zero) neighbor’s weight was kept and the resulting total was normalized appropriately. The choice (\[eq:weightfunction\]) is an approximate Gaussian weight $\exp{( -\Delta x^{2} - \Delta y^{2})}$, cut off at distances $|i_{x}| \geq L$ and $|j_{y}| \geq L$ or at uninhabitable pixels. Figure \[fig:siberiaCCrawvssmooth\] shows an example of the effect of a low-pass filter (5 cells half-width, eq. (\[eq:weightfunction\])) smoothing on one of the maps used in this study. A comparison between regularization and smoothing is shown on the right hand plot of Figure \[fig:outofafrica0\].
Time-dependent capacity maps {#sec:fisherkppvarKxt}
----------------------------
Fluctuations in climate produce environmental changes in vegatation, sea levels, opening/closing of land bridges, waxing/waning of ice sheets, and perturbations to habitable areas in general. Thus, time-dependent environments compel us to extend our procedure (\[eq:godunovwithK\]) for both space- and time-dependent $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x},t)$ (see Section \[ss:timeinterpol\]).
Since (\[eq:godunovwithK\]) is basically the trapezoidal method (see section 5.3 in [@leveque2007]), the modification for a time-dependent $\mathcal K$ is as follows:
\[eq:godunovwithKT\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u^{\star} & = \left( 1 + \frac{k}{4} A_{x}
\right) u(t) \label{eq:godunovwithKTA} \\
u_{E} &= u^{\star} + k A_{y} u^{\star} + h (1-\frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}(t)})
u^{\star} \label{eq:godunovwithKTB} \\
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{2} A_{y} - \frac{h}{2} (1-\frac{u_{E}}{\mathcal{K}(t+h)})
\right) u^{\star \star} & =
\left( 1 + \frac{k}{2} A_{y} + \frac{h}{2} (1-\frac{u^{\star}}{\mathcal{K}(t)})
\right) u^{\star} \label{eq:godunovwithKTC} \\
\left( 1 - \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u(t+h) & =
\left( 1 + \frac{k}{4} A_{x} \right) u^{\star \star},
\label{eq:godunovwithKTD}\end{aligned}$$
where we have again suppressed the $\mathbf{x}$ dependence of $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x},t)$ for simplicity of notation.
Fisher/KPP on geographical maps {#subsec:geographicalmaps}
-------------------------------
In order to solve Fisher/KPP on an irregular domain such as a geographical map, it is sufficient to break down the map into $x$- and $y$-direction segments, imposing a $u=0$ boundary condition at their endpoints; the solver can act on each segment independently, alternating the direction [@leveque2007; @ritchmyer1967] of integration as discussed above. This approach lends itself also to efficient parallelization. Appendix \[sec:code\] and Figure \[fig:mapsegmentation\] illustrate in detail our scheme with a sample Matlab code.
Note that holes in $\mathcal K$ maps can represent the partial closing of land bridges without the necessity of re-segmenting land portions, as in Section \[sec:fisherkpp\] and shown in Figure \[fig:mapsegmentation\]. However, the regularization scheme (Section \[sec:noisyNPPmaps\]) should be used with caution. A $u=0$ boundary condition region is not the same as one with low $\mathcal{K}$, which can pass a tiny population into a subequent region where it may well flourish. For example, historically known falling sea levels opened passages across Bab al Mandeb to open South Asia for human dispersal [@siddall2003], and the retreat of the North American ice sheet opened a passage on the Bering strait around 12 kya (kilo-years ago).
World-wide hominin dispersal {#sec:dispersal}
============================
We now turn to a sample application of the methods presented above: the world-wide dispersal of *Homo sapiens* out of Africa.
Capacity maps
-------------
Our construction of a time-dependent $\mathcal{K}$ uses Net Primary Productivity (NPP) as a proxy [@eriksson2012]. The Miami model [@grieser2006] was originally formulated in 1972 to estimate NPP (in grams (of carbon) in dry organic matter/m$^2$/day) from annual temperature and rainfall [@lieth1975]. In order to compute our NPP maps, we obtained the temperature and precipitation data from simulations by the [bridge]{} program [@bridgeproj] organized at the University of Bristol [@bigelow2003; @harrison2001; @pickett2004; @prentice2000]. The simulation data that we used were computed on a $96 \times 73$ grid, which we interpolated to size $100 \times 50$ and converted to NPP maps by applying the formulas given in [@grieser2006]. In Figure \[fig:siberiaCCrawvssmooth\], the original NPP units in (grams of C)/m$^{2}/day$ were adopted.
World-wide NPP data are difficult to obtain, so our Miami model-like maps are rough. As we showed in Section \[sec:gaptest\], our Godunov solver is fairly robust with respect to abrupt steps in the carrying capacity $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x})$. However, an alternative to the regularization scheme proposed in Section \[sec:noisyNPPmaps\] would be desirable, when dealing with maps in which noise and holes may not necessarily correspond to real physical conditions of the model system.
Time interpolation of maps {#ss:timeinterpol}
--------------------------
We assembled 61 NPP maps, from 120 kya to 1 kya. These are in 4 ky steps for the first 10, 2 ky steps for the next 21, then 1 ky for the remainder. Since the time stepper in our Godunov scheme can have no information about the continuity in time of NPP maps, an interpolation scheme needs to be used.
If some estimates or proxies for the carrying capacities $\mathcal{K}_{L}$, $\mathcal{K}_{H}$ at times $t_L$, $t_H$ are available, one possible estimate for $\mathcal{K}(t)$ is a homotopy $$\mathcal{K}(\mathbf x, t) = \mathcal{K}_{L}(\mathbf x)(1-S(t))
+ \mathcal{K}_{H}(\mathbf x) S(t)$$ where a sigmoid function $0 = S(t_L) < S(t) < S(t_H) = 1$ will smoothly interpolate between the two time frames. There are many choices available, such as that used in [@eriksson2012]. For this study, we used the following variant.
Start with the classical sigmoid $$S(z) = \left( 1 + e^{-z} \right)^{-1}
\label{eq:classicalsigmoid}$$ which is zero at $z = -\infty$ and unity at $z=+\infty$. The $-\infty
< z < +\infty$ interval is not what we want, but with a small change the following $t \mapsto z$ transformation permits many variants: $$\begin{aligned}
z & = \frac{2 \Delta T (t-t_{L}) -\Delta T^2}{((t-t_{L})(\Delta T -
(t-t_{L})))^\nu}.
\label{eq:ourinterpolator}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta T = t_{H} - t_{L}$. Notice that $S(z(t_{L})) = 0$ and $S(z(t_{H})) = 1$. The exponent $\nu$ in (\[eq:ourinterpolator\]) gives some freedom in choosing a particular form for $z$ for almost any $\nu > 0$. If $\nu < 1/2$, ${\rm d}^{2} S/{\rm d}t^{2}$ has more than two sign changes, so $\nu \geq 1/2$ is preferable. By the choice $\nu=1/2$, the interpolant is nearly a straight line: see Figure \[fig:sigmoids\]. However, its turn-up at $t=t_{L}$ and turn-down at $t=t_{H}$ numerically resemble very quick derivative changes. Thus, for this test case we choose $\nu=1$. At both ends, all derivatives of $S(z(t))$ in $t$ vanish. Also notice the forward/backward symmetry $S(z(t_{H}-t)) = 1 - S(z(t))$ for $t_{L}
\leq t \leq t_{H}$ [@eriksson2012].
Population dispersal
--------------------
We set up the initial population density at $t=50$ kya as shown in the top left panel of Figure \[fig:outofafrica0\]. The integration units are scaled following Tab. \[tab:scalings\] such that $\lambda =
1.67\cdot10^{-3}$ ky$^{-1}$ and $c=208$ km$^2$/ky (consistent with those used in [@young1995]). The solver is then run using time frame $\mathcal K$ maps described above, down to 1 kya. The remaining plots (Figures \[fig:outofafrica1\],\[fig:outofafrica2\]) display the resulting population dispersal simulation on unsmoothed $\mathcal{K}$ maps, regularized by (\[eq:regularizer0\]). Using population parameters consistent with the literature, the gross features of the late (50-60 kya) out-of-Africa dispersal of [*Homo sapiens*]{} are reproduced [@forster2004], e.g. the colonization of Western Europe by $\sim 40$ kya and that of South America before 14 kya. Using the solver with the same initial conditions but on a smooth NPP map, like the one shown in right panel of Figure \[fig:siberiaCCrawvssmooth\], [*without*]{} the regularizer (\[eq:regularizer0\]), yields the same wavefront propagation speed.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we presented a novel semi-implicit Godunov scheme for the Fisher/KPP equation with a constant carrying capacity $\mathcal{K}$, described in Section \[sec:methodsandsplittings\]. In one dimension, the expected traveling wave [@fisher1937; @kolmogorov1937] develops as shown in Figure \[fig:1dplots\]. In other tests, not shown here, we saw that almost any concentrated inital condition will develop similar waves: for example, two nearby peaks. Our scheme is on a rectangular grid, so in 2-D we need to ensure that in cylindrically symmetric situations we can control the errors due to the $x - y$ asymmetry. The error plots, Figure \[fig:symmetryornot\], show that we can reduce the asymmetries somewhat by an alternating direction scheme. In any case, these errors are very small even for a relatively high CFL number. As in the one-dimensional situation, a traveling wave also develops as expected [@kolmogorov1937]: Figure \[fig:2dpcolorplots\] and Figure \[fig:2Dwavefrontanderrors\] show this development and compare the results to the 2-D symmetric version of the Matlab function `pdepe`. Because the $\mathbf{x}$ discretization has truncation errors proportional to $(\Delta x)^{3}$, after $O(\frac{1}{h})$ time steps we should not be surprised to see the errors shown in Figure \[fig:2Dwavefrontanderrors\] turn up for very small $h$ and behave roughly as $O(\frac{1}{h} (\Delta x)^{3})$.
In Secs. \[sec:fisherkppvarK\] we extended our procedure to handle an $\mathbf{x}$-dependent $\mathcal{K}$, specifically eq. (\[eq:godunovwithK\]). In order to regularize our solver against bad behavior when dealing with $\mathcal{K}$ maps inferred from real-world data, in Section \[sec:gaptest\] we studied both regularization and the expected constant velocity of the traveling wave. Except for small transition regions entering or leaving a region of low carrying capacity, the velocity ($\sqrt{2}$ in our scaling) is indeed constant. In Section \[sec:fisherkppvarKxt\], we went further to develop a scheme for the situation with both $\mathbf{x}$ and $t$ dependent carrying capacity $\mathcal{K}$ via eq.(\[eq:godunovwithKT\]).
Finally, this scheme has been applied to a prototypical case in population dynamics: the out-of-Africa dispersal of [*Homo sapiens*]{}. On the Mercator projected world map, by using vegetation net primal productivity as a proxy for carrying capacity, Figure \[fig:outofafrica0\] shows that by the regularization of $\mathcal{K}$ in space via eq. (\[eq:regularizer0\]) but interpolating in time yields stable and reasonable results. In fact, the results showing ancestor arrival in NE India at roughly 40 kya, then crossing the Bering Strait before 10 kya, and multiple routes into South Asia [@reyescentento2014] are very encouraging. Honesty requires that we admit our size (408km)$^{2}$ pixels do not resolve the two crossing points at Bab al Mendab and Sinai adequately. Additionally, a [*switch*]{} (see: Section \[subsec:geographicalmaps\]) which would allow passage at the Bering Strait seems unnecessary due to the interesting coincidence that the hominin wave front reaches this passage at the beginning of the last ice age. If it were blocked previously, this would have had no effect.
The core computations performed by our solver are *independent* tridiagonal solutions, which can be easily parallelized to deal with larger grids. In order to further improve numerical performance, in the Appendix \[sec:code\], we discussed a compressed storage scheme to integrate the Fisher/KPP equation on a projected world map (or any other irregularly-shaped domain). The alternating direction scheme discussed in Section \[sec:Godunov2Dsplitting\] also works with this compressed storage. In the case of world dispersal discussed in Section \[sec:dispersal\], since about 71% of the earth’s surface is water, this compressed storage reduces computational work by the same amount.
Provenance {#provenance .unnumbered}
==========
For this paper, the simulations were run on either a Mac Mini, 2.4 GHz Intel Core Duo (Mac OS 10.6.8), or a `MacBook` laptop with the same processor specifications but running OS 10.8.4. On the Mini, `MatLab` (7.10.0.499) R2010a was used, respectively (8.1.0.604) R2013a on the MacBook laptop.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are thankful for the encouragement, financial arrangements, and technical help from Prof. G. Lake, Prof. S. Mishra, and Dr. I. Schloenvogt. Dr. Schloenvogt’s assistance at critical junctures was particularly valuable.
Map segmentation appendix {#sec:code}
=========================
In order to use our solver on a geographical map, it suffices to use a map outline, i.e., a rectangular grid with 1’s in habitable regions, and 0’s in the water, as in Figure \[fig:mapsegmentation\]. Since each Godunov direction step only involves a row, or a column, independently, we can set up the following indexing scheme. Each row $i = 1 \dots 50$ in Figure \[fig:mapsegmentation\] will have `nysegs(i)` of habitable segments, whose starting and ending positions are `ystart_seg(k)` and `yend_seg(k)`, respectively, where $k=1 \dots$`nysegs(i)`. Likewise, for $j=1
\dots 100$ columns each with `nxsegs(j)` also with start and end positions. Roughly 24% of the world map is land, i.e. habitable. As an example, Figure \[fig:mapsegmentation\] shows row 26 has 4 segments of varying size. Likewise, column 87 has 5 segments. A sample `MatLab` code in Appendix \[sec:code\] illustrates the scheme for 1/2 step of $x$-direction updates, followed by a full step of $y$-direction updates, then again 1/2 step of $x$-direction segment updates. The alternating direction method, described in Section \[sec:Godunov2Dsplitting\], just interchanges $x
\leftrightarrow y$ on alternate time steps.
For the reader’s convenience, we include here a sample Matlab code of our Godunov-Strang-Yoshida scheme.
% NY X direction updates for half-step1
locx = 0;
for j=1:NY
nsegs = nxsegs(j);
for k=1:nsegs
istart=xstart_seg(locx+k); iend=xend_seg(locx+k);
ninseg=iend-istart+1;
u0(1) = 0; u0(ninseg+2) = 0; % boundary values
u0(2:ninseg+1) = u(istart:iend,j);
% eq. (15a) solution:
ut = godunovstep1(ninseg+2,h,kcfl,u0,sc1,sc2);
u(istart:iend,j) = ut(2:ninseg+1);
end
locx = locx + nsegs;
end
% NX Y direction updates step2
locy = 0;
for i=1:NX
nsegs = nysegs(i);
for k=1:nsegs
jstart=ystart_seg(locy+k); jend=yend_seg(locy+k);
ninseg=jend-jstart+1;
u1(1) = 0; u1(ninseg+2) = 0; % boundary values
u1(2:ninseg+1) = u(i,jstart:jend)';
cap(1) = 1; cap(ninseg+2) = 1;
cap(2:ninseg+1) = kap(i,jstart:jend);
% eq. (15c) solution:
ut = godunovstep2(ninseg+2,h,kcfl,u1,sc1,sc2,cap);
u(i,jstart:jend) = ut(2:ninseg+1);
end
locy = locy + nsegs;
end
% Repeat godunovstep1, as above for eq. (15d)
% locx = 0;
% for j=1:NY
% ETC
% end
![Left: Godunov vs. `pdepe` at the end of one time step $t=h$. Right: Godunov vs. `pedpe` at time $t=30$. The time step $h=1/5$ and $\Delta x = 1/5$.[]{data-label="fig:1dplots"}](teq0plot.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: Godunov vs. `pdepe` at the end of one time step $t=h$. Right: Godunov vs. `pedpe` at time $t=30$. The time step $h=1/5$ and $\Delta x = 1/5$.[]{data-label="fig:1dplots"}](teq30plot.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: 2-D solution at $t=5$ obtained with Godunov scheme (\[eq:discreteyoshida\]). Right: same, at $t=20$. The time step was $h=1/10$, $\Delta x = 2/5$ and $N_X=N_Y=201$.[]{data-label="fig:2dpcolorplots"}](2DmeshTeq5.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: 2-D solution at $t=5$ obtained with Godunov scheme (\[eq:discreteyoshida\]). Right: same, at $t=20$. The time step was $h=1/10$, $\Delta x = 2/5$ and $N_X=N_Y=201$.[]{data-label="fig:2dpcolorplots"}](2DmeshTeq20.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: 2-D Wave front at $t=20$ compared to `pdepe`. Right: Rough RMS error as a function of step size, $h$, at $t=20$. Errors $\epsilon_{RMS}$ and $\epsilon_{MAX} \approx 3.5
\epsilon_{RMS}$ have approximately $O(h^2)$ behavior for $h \geq
1/10$, but increase if $h$ is too small: overall estimate is $O(h^{2}) + O(\Delta x^{2}) + O(\frac{1}{h} \Delta x^{3})$.[]{data-label="fig:2Dwavefrontanderrors"}](2Dteq20plot.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: 2-D Wave front at $t=20$ compared to `pdepe`. Right: Rough RMS error as a function of step size, $h$, at $t=20$. Errors $\epsilon_{RMS}$ and $\epsilon_{MAX} \approx 3.5
\epsilon_{RMS}$ have approximately $O(h^2)$ behavior for $h \geq
1/10$, but increase if $h$ is too small: overall estimate is $O(h^{2}) + O(\Delta x^{2}) + O(\frac{1}{h} \Delta x^{3})$.[]{data-label="fig:2Dwavefrontanderrors"}](P401hdep20042014.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: $|u(x,y)-u(r)|$ error profile of the Godunov scheme compared to the `pdepe` solution at $t=20$ symmetrizing $x
\leftrightarrow y$ on alternate time steps: $\epsilon_{RMS} = 7.3
\cdot 10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_{MAX} = 2.9 \cdot 10^{-2}$. Right: the same, but with fixed $x$ and $y$: $\epsilon_{RMS} = 7.4 \cdot
10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_{MAX} = 3.0 \cdot 10^{-2}$. Step size is $h=1/10$, $N_x=N_y=401$.[]{data-label="fig:symmetryornot"}](ErrorTeq20alternatefoo.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: $|u(x,y)-u(r)|$ error profile of the Godunov scheme compared to the `pdepe` solution at $t=20$ symmetrizing $x
\leftrightarrow y$ on alternate time steps: $\epsilon_{RMS} = 7.3
\cdot 10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_{MAX} = 2.9 \cdot 10^{-2}$. Right: the same, but with fixed $x$ and $y$: $\epsilon_{RMS} = 7.4 \cdot
10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_{MAX} = 3.0 \cdot 10^{-2}$. Step size is $h=1/10$, $N_x=N_y=401$.[]{data-label="fig:symmetryornot"}](ErrorTeq20TGL1foo.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: desert test density at $t=37.5$: $N_x=201$, $N_y=101$, and $h=1/8$. For $x \leq -16$ and $x \geq 16$, $\mathcal{K}=1$, while $\mathcal{K}=f_{r} = 0.01$ in the $|x| < 16$ desert. The image shows $u(x,y)$ shaded from 0 (black) to 1 (white). The wave can be seen crossing into the upper $\mathcal{K}=1$ region, while the population in the lower $\mathcal{K}=1$ region has already saturated. Right: half-height $x_{1/2}(t)$ of the wave front vs. time, compared with `pdepe`. Velocity $V$ has a transient increase, then decrease, as the wave enters/exits the desert. Initial condition: a strip with $\langle (x-x_{I})^{2}
\rangle ^{1/2} =3$ initial population starting at $x_{I}=-30$.[]{data-label="fig:gaptestresults"}](gaptestfr01T37.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: desert test density at $t=37.5$: $N_x=201$, $N_y=101$, and $h=1/8$. For $x \leq -16$ and $x \geq 16$, $\mathcal{K}=1$, while $\mathcal{K}=f_{r} = 0.01$ in the $|x| < 16$ desert. The image shows $u(x,y)$ shaded from 0 (black) to 1 (white). The wave can be seen crossing into the upper $\mathcal{K}=1$ region, while the population in the lower $\mathcal{K}=1$ region has already saturated. Right: half-height $x_{1/2}(t)$ of the wave front vs. time, compared with `pdepe`. Velocity $V$ has a transient increase, then decrease, as the wave enters/exits the desert. Initial condition: a strip with $\langle (x-x_{I})^{2}
\rangle ^{1/2} =3$ initial population starting at $x_{I}=-30$.[]{data-label="fig:gaptestresults"}](xhalfvstfr01.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Regularizers for eq. (\[eq:regularizer1\]).[]{data-label="fig:regularizers"}](regularizer5.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
![Left: Siberia rough 50kya NPP distribution. Note the $\mathcal K=0$ hole at pixel $\mbox{north}=14$, $\mbox{east}=38$. Right: same sub-map but smoothed by the low pass filter (\[eq:weightfunction\]). Scales are $\log{(1+10\mathcal{K})}$ with the original $0.3 \leq \mathcal{K}
\leq 3 \times 10^{4}$ biomass units (gm/$\mbox{m}^{2}$) [@grieser2006]. Both plots use the same colorbar.[]{data-label="fig:siberiaCCrawvssmooth"}](roughsiberia050.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: Siberia rough 50kya NPP distribution. Note the $\mathcal K=0$ hole at pixel $\mbox{north}=14$, $\mbox{east}=38$. Right: same sub-map but smoothed by the low pass filter (\[eq:weightfunction\]). Scales are $\log{(1+10\mathcal{K})}$ with the original $0.3 \leq \mathcal{K}
\leq 3 \times 10^{4}$ biomass units (gm/$\mbox{m}^{2}$) [@grieser2006]. Both plots use the same colorbar.[]{data-label="fig:siberiaCCrawvssmooth"}](smoothsiberia050.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Interpolation between $\mathcal K$ maps at different times: sigmoids (\[eq:ourinterpolator\]) for $\nu=1/2$ and $\nu=1$, straight line, and Eriksson’s $f(f(f(t)))$ model [@eriksson2012].[]{data-label="fig:sigmoids"}](sigmoidtests.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
![Color-coded $\log{(1+10u)}$ plot for out-of-Africa dispersal. Dark blue shows [*water*]{}, with $\mathcal K=0$. Growth rate is $\lambda = 1.67\cdot10^{-3}\,\mathrm{ky}^{-1}$, and diffusion coefficient $c=208\,\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{/ky}$ [@young1995]. Left: initial distribution at $t=50$ kya. This color scale is used in all subsequent dispersal plots below. Right: differences between the regularization (\[eq:regularizer0\]) of $u$ vs. smoothing of $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x},t)$ (\[eq:weightfunction\]) at $t=1$ kya.[]{data-label="fig:outofafrica0"}](regworld050.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Color-coded $\log{(1+10u)}$ plot for out-of-Africa dispersal. Dark blue shows [*water*]{}, with $\mathcal K=0$. Growth rate is $\lambda = 1.67\cdot10^{-3}\,\mathrm{ky}^{-1}$, and diffusion coefficient $c=208\,\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{/ky}$ [@young1995]. Left: initial distribution at $t=50$ kya. This color scale is used in all subsequent dispersal plots below. Right: differences between the regularization (\[eq:regularizer0\]) of $u$ vs. smoothing of $\mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x},t)$ (\[eq:weightfunction\]) at $t=1$ kya.[]{data-label="fig:outofafrica0"}](rgvssmdiffs1kya.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Out of Africa simulations by regularization (\[eq:regularizer0\]). Left: population at $t=40$ kya. Right: population at $t=30$ kya. Color scale is from Fig. \[fig:outofafrica0\] (left).[]{data-label="fig:outofafrica1"}](regworld040.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Out of Africa simulations by regularization (\[eq:regularizer0\]). Left: population at $t=40$ kya. Right: population at $t=30$ kya. Color scale is from Fig. \[fig:outofafrica0\] (left).[]{data-label="fig:outofafrica1"}](regworld030.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Out of Africa simulations with regularization (\[eq:regularizer0\]). Left: population at $t=11$ kya. Right: population at $t=1$ kya. Color scale is from Fig. \[fig:outofafrica0\] (left).[]{data-label="fig:outofafrica2"}](regworld011.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Out of Africa simulations with regularization (\[eq:regularizer0\]). Left: population at $t=11$ kya. Right: population at $t=1$ kya. Color scale is from Fig. \[fig:outofafrica0\] (left).[]{data-label="fig:outofafrica2"}](regworld001.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Map with habitable regions set to 1 (light blue) and water regions set to 0 (dark blue) on a $N_x=100$, $N_y=50$ grid. The figure shows the segmentation for row 26 and column 87, with 4 and 5 segments, shown in cyan and yellow respectively.[]{data-label="fig:mapsegmentation"}](row26col87.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
The spectrum of dileptons produced in heavy ion collisions at high energies has been proposed in the past to provide information about the dynamical evolution of quark-gluon plasmas (see, e.g., the review by Ruuskannen in ref.[@dilepton]). Unlike hadronic probes, that spectrum is sensitive to the earliest moments in the evolution, when the energy densities are an order of magnitude above the QCD confinement scale (1 GeV/fm$^3$). However, the small production cross sections for pairs with invariant mass above 1 GeV together with the large combinatorial background from decaying hadrons necessitate elaborate procedures to uncover the signal from the noise. The PHENIX detector[@CDR], now under construction at the Relativistic Heavy ion Collider (RHIC), is designed to measure $ee,e\mu$, and $\mu\mu$ pairs to carry out this task. One of the important sources of background in the few GeV mass range arises from semileptonic decay of charmed hadrons ($D \bar D$). As shown recently in ref.[@vogt], the expected thermal signals in that mass range may only reach 10% of the number of pairs from open charm decay. Therefore, special kinematical cuts and precise $e\mu$ measurements will be needed to uncover the thermal signals[@CDR].
There have been several attempts[@pcm; @MW] to take advantage of the large open charm background as a probe of the evolving gluon density. Most mid-rapidity charm pairs are produced via gluon fusion[@ccbar]. Therefore, the dileptons from charm decay carry information about the distribution of primordial gluons before hadronization. In fact, the inside-outside cascade nature of such reactions greatly suppresses[@LM; @LMW] all sources of charm production except the initial perturbative QCD source. Therefore, the open charm background is dominated by the [*initial*]{} gluon fusion ($gg\rightarrow
c\bar{c}$) rate.
The initial $c\bar c$ rate depends sensitively on the nuclear gluon structure function[@vogt2], $g_A(x,Q^2)$. The quantity of fundamental interest[@mullerq; @eskolaq] is the gluon shadowing function $$R_{g/A}(x,Q^2)=g_A(x,Q^2)/Ag_N(x,Q^2).
\label{EQ:shad}$$ The point of this Letter, is to show that the $A$ dependence of continuum dilepton pairs in the few GeV mass region provides a novel probe of that unknown gluon structure. We also show that the required measurements of $ee$,$e\mu$, and $\mu\mu$ pair yields in $p+A\rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^- X$ at $\sqrt s=200$ AGeV are not only experimentally feasible at RHIC but also that the open charm signal can be easily extracted via the proposed PHENIX detector.
A key advantage of the continuum dilepton pairs from open charm decay over those from $J/\psi$ decay is that it is possible to test the applicability of the underlying QCD dynamics at a given fixed $\sqrt s$ by checking for a particular scaling property discussed below. In quarkonium production the mass is fixed and the required scaling can be checked only by varying the beam energy. In $p+A\rightarrow J/\psi$ production the required scaling was unfortunately found to be violated in the energy range $20< \sqrt{s} < 40$ AGeV[@moss] thus precluding a determination of $R_A$. Possible explanations for the breakdown of QCD scaling for $J/\psi$ production and its anomalous negative $x_F$ behavior[@vogt2; @moss] include interaction of next-to-leading order quarkonium Fock state with nuclear matter[@ks], nuclear and comover $J/\psi$ dissociation[@huf], and parton energy loss mechanisms[@gavin]. It remains an open question whether the required scaling will set in at RHIC energies $60 < \sqrt s < 200$ AGeV.
Shadowing of the quark nuclear structure functions, $q_A(x,Q^2)$, is well established from deep inelastic $\ell A\rightarrow \ell X$ reactions[@emc]. For heavy nuclei, the quark structure functions are shadowed by a factor, $R_{q/A}(x\ll 0.1,Q^2)\approx 1.1 - 0.1 \;A^{1/3}$, nearly independent of $Q^2$. Perturbative QCD analysis[@mullerq; @eskolaq] predicts that the gluon structure will also be shadowed at $x<0.01$ due to gluon recombination processes. Therefore, a systematic measurement of gluon shadowing is of fundamental interest in understanding the parton structure of nuclei. The gluon nuclear structure is also of central importance in the field of nuclear collision since it controls the rate of mini-jet production that determines the total entropy produced at RHIC and higher energies[@hijingprl]. We focus here on $p+A$ collision rather than $A+A$ to minimize the combinatorial $\pi,K$ decay backgrounds and other final state interaction effects.
To demonstrate the sensitivity of open charm dileptons to gluon shadowing $R_{g/A}(x,Q^2)$, we calculate the pair spectrum from open charm decay in $p+Au$ reactions at 200 GeV/A using for illustration two different gluon shadowing functions. The first assumes that gluon shadowing is identical to the measured quark shadowing, i.e. $R_{g/A}(x,Q^2)=R_{q/A}(x,Q^2=4\;{\rm
GeV}^2)$, and is thus essentially $Q^2$ independent. This is the default assumption incorporated in the HIJING Monte Carlo model[@Hijing]. The second is taken from Eskola[@Eskola], where $R_{g/A}(x,Q^2)$ is computed using the modified GLAP evolution[@mullerq] starting from an assumed $R_{g/A}$ consistent with the measured quark shadowing function at $Q^2=4$ GeV$^2$. This second shadowing function depends on scale and differs for $q$ and $g$. The two shadowing functions are shown in Fig. 1.
The initial charm pair distribution from $B+A$ nuclear collisions at impact parameter $\vec{b}$ is computed as in [@MW]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac {dN^{BA}(\vec{b})}{dp_\perp^2 dy_1 dy_2}
=K \int d^2r_b d^2r_a \delta ^{(2)} (\vec b-\vec r_b -\vec r_a) \nonumber \\
& &\sum _{b,a} x_b \Gamma_{b/B}(x_b, Q^2, \vec r_b) x_a \Gamma_{a/A}(x_a,
Q^2, \vec r_a) \frac {d \hat \sigma_{ab}}{d \hat t}
\label{EQ:dncc} \end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{a/A}(x, Q^2,\vec r)=T_A(\vec r) f_{a/N}(x,Q^2) R_{a/A}(x,Q^2,
\vec r)$ is the nuclear parton density function in terms of the known nucleon parton structure functions $f_{a/N}(x,Q^2)$, the nuclear thickness function $T_A(\vec r) = \int dz n_A(\sqrt {z^2+\vec r ^2})$, and the unknown impact parameter dependent shadowing function $R_{a/A}(x,Q^2, \vec r)$. The conventional kinematic variables $x_{a,b}$ are the incoming parton light cone momentum fractions, $\hat t=-(p_b-p_1)^2$, and the final $c,\bar{c}$ have rapidities $y_1,y_2$ and transverse momenta $\vec{p}_{1\perp}=-\vec{p}_{2\perp}
\equiv \vec{p}_\perp$. Next-to-leading order corrections to the lowest order parton cross sections ${d \hat \sigma_{ab}}/{d \hat t}$ are approximately taken into account by a constant $K$ factor[@SV; @vogt3]. We use the recent MRSA[@MRSA] parton structure functions. From a fit to low energy open charm production data in $pp$ collisions, we fix $m_c=1.4$ GeV, $K=3$, $Q^2 =
\hat s/2$ for $g g \rightarrow c\bar c $ and $\hat s$ for $q\bar q \rightarrow
c \bar c$. This choice of parameters leads to a charm pair cross section of $340 \mu b$ for $pp$ collisions at RHIC. For impact parameter averaged collisions, the integral over the transverse vector in eq.(\[EQ:dncc\]) leads to a factor: $BA R_{b/B}(x_b,Q^2) R_{a/A}(x_a,Q^2)/\sigma ^{BA}_{in}$, where $\sigma ^{BA}_{in}$ is the inelastic $B+A$ cross section and $R_{a/A}(x_a,Q^2)$ is the impact parameter averaged shadowing function.
In order to compute the $D\bar D$ pair distribution, a hadronization scheme for $c \rightarrow D$ must be adopted. In $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar{c}\rightarrow
D\bar{D}X$ hadronization can be modelled via string fragmentation or fitted for example via the Peterson fragmentation function (see [@vogt4]). The final $D$ carries typically only a fraction $\sim 0.7$ of the original $c$ momentum. However, in $pp$ collisions charm hadronization is complicated by the high density of partons produced during beam jet fragmentation. In this system recombination or coalescence of the heavy quark with comoving partons provides another mechanism which in fact seems to be dominant at least at present energies. The inclusive $pp \rightarrow DX$ data is best reproduced[@vogt; @e769] with the delta function fragmentation $D(z)=\delta
(1-z)$ in all observed $x_f$ and moderate $p_T$ regions. This observation can be understood in terms of a coalescence model if the coalescence radius is $P_c \sim 400$ MeV. We assume that hard fragmentation continues to be the dominant mechanism at RHIC energies, and hence no additional A dependent effects due to hadronization arise. However, this assumption must be tested experimentally. Our main dynamical assumption therefore is that the $pp\rightarrow D$ transverse momentum distributions can be accurately reproduced from the QCD level rates assuming hard fragmentation as at present energies[@e769]. At RHIC this can be checked either via single inclusive leptons[@CDR] or directly via $K\pi$[@star].
With this assumption, the impact parameter averaged $D\bar D$ pair distribution in $p+A$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac {dN^{pA}}{dp_\perp^2 dy_3 dy_4}
= \frac {KA}{\sigma ^{pA}_{in}} \frac {E_3 E_4}{E_1 E_2} \nonumber \\
&&\sum _{b,a} x_b f_{b/N}(x_b, Q^2) x_a
f_{a/N}(x_a, Q^2) R_{a/A}(x_a,Q^2)\frac {d \hat \sigma_{ab}}{d \hat t} \end{aligned}$$ From this distribution of charmed mesons, we computed the dilepton spectrum via Monte Carlo using JETSET7.3[@jetset] to decay the $D\bar{D}$.
While the lepton pair mass $M$ and rapidity $y$ fluctuate around a mean value for any fixed $M_{c\bar{c}}$ and $y_{c\bar{c}}$, on the average $\langle y
\rangle \approx \langle y_{c\bar{c}} \rangle $, and $\langle M_{c\bar{c}}
\rangle$ can be well approximated by a linear relation $ \langle M_{c\bar{c}}
\rangle \approx \beta M+ M_0$ over the lepton pair mass range $1 \le M \le
4$GeV. For the delta function fragmentation case, $\beta\approx 1.5$ and $M_0
\approx 3.0$ GeV are determined by the D-meson decay kinematics.
Since gluon fusion dominates, there is an approximate scaling in terms of the light cone fraction $x_A$ that one of the gluon carries from nucleus $A$: $$\begin{aligned}
\ln x_A&=& -y_{c\bar{c}}+ \ln( M_{c\bar{c}}/\sqrt s) \nonumber \\
&\approx& -y+ \ln [(\beta M + M_0) /\sqrt s] \label{EQ:shift}\end{aligned}$$ The ratio of the dilepton $dN/dMdy$ spectra in $pA$ to scaled $pp$ for different pair masses is thus expected to scale approximately as $$\begin{aligned}
&&R^{pA}_{e\mu} ( M,y=-\ln x_A + \ln [ (\beta M+M_0)/
\sqrt s ] \;) \nonumber \\
&&\equiv \frac {1} {\nu} \frac {dN^{pA}_{e\mu}} {dN^{pp}_{e\mu}}
\approx R_{g/A}(x_A,Q^2\!\approx\! (\beta M\!+\!M_0)^2\!/2\;)
\label{EQ:scaling}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu \equiv A {\sigma ^{pp}_{in}}/{\sigma ^{pA}_{in}} \sim A^ {1/3}$. In order to test gluon dominance and the accuracy of the above approximate scaling we compare in Fig. 1 the gluon shadowing function to the above dilepton ratio from the Monte Carlo calculation. The solid curves are the input gluon shadowings as a function of the Bjorken $x$. The other six curves are ratios of dilepton $dN/dMdy$ spectra of shadowed $p+Au$ over those from unshadowed $p+Au$ as given by eq.(\[EQ:scaling\]) as a function of the scaling variable $x_A$ for three different dilepton masses.
Overall, the scaled ratio of lepton pair spectra approximates the shadowing function remarkably well. We conclude that this ratio can therefore serve to map out gluon shadowing in nuclei. Note that in the case of Eskola shadowing, even the $Q^2$ dependence of the shadowing function is visible through the rise of the ratio curves with $M$ in the small $x$ region.
Finally, it is important to estimate the dilepton background to see if the proposed signal is experimentally feasible. Therefore we also calculated the signal and background dileptons for the PHENIX detector[@CDR] taking into account the detector geometry and specific kinematical cuts. The electron background is mainly due to $\pi^0$ Dalitz and photon conversions. The background muon arises from random decays of charged pions and kaons. The electrons from $\pi^0$ Dalitz decay can be suppressed by small angle cut on dielectrons[@Zhang], and the background muons are mainly suppressed by reducing the free decay volume. For the detector geometry, the electron arms cover pseudo-rapidity range $-0.35 < \eta _e < 0.35$, and azimuthal angle range $\pm (22.5^\circ ,112.5^\circ )$. The muon arm covers pseudo-rapidity range $1.15 < \eta _\mu < 2.44$ and almost full azimuthal angle. For the kinematical cut, we take $E_e > 1$ GeV, $E_\mu > 2$ GeV, and require that the relative azimuthal angle of the lepton pair $\phi _{\ell^+\ell^-} > 90^\circ $ in order to improve the signal-to-background ratio.
For this background study, we use central $p+Au$ collision with HIJING shadowing. We calculate the $ee$, $e\mu$, and $\mu\mu$ signal and backgrounds coming into the detector, where the background electrons and muons are generated from HIJING Monte Carlo calculation. We find (see Fig. 2) that the signal-to-background ratio for $ee$ is very large, thus the dielectron signal from open charm decay is the easiest to extract. That ratio falls to about 2.5 for $e\mu$, and about 1/4 for $\mu\mu$. The pair rapidity distributions of the signal and backgrounds for central $p+Au$ collision are shown in Fig. 2. Due to the detector geometry, $ee$, $e\mu$, and $\mu\mu$ spectra cover pair rapidity regions centered at about 0, 1, and 2 (One can also study $Au+p$ collision and measure pair rapidity regions centered at $-1$ and $-2$). Like-sign subtraction[@NA38] should significantly reduce the noise, especially in the $\mu\mu$ channel. We conclude that the proposed measurement is feasible.
Further details of the calculations will be reported elsewhere[@long]. For example, the Cronin effect and energy loss are estimated to lead to distortions up to $10\%$ at RHIC energies. From studies of the nuclear dependence of transverse momentum of $J/\psi$ production, the typical increment, $\delta
p_\perp^2(A)$, due to multiple collisions is limited to $\sim 0.34$ GeV$^2$ even for the heaviest nuclei[@gavinmg]. This momentum spread is shared between the $c$ and $\bar{c}$, and distributed approximately as $g(\delta
p_\perp)=e^{-\delta p_{\perp}^2/\Delta ^2}/\pi \Delta ^2$, $\Delta^2 \sim 0.17$ GeV$^2$. For energy loss, we assume that the charm quark loses an energy $\delta E$ in the lab frame, and the charm quark $p_\perp$ is reduced by $(1-\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon=\delta E/[m_\perp \sinh (y+y_0)]$. Combining these two effects, we may write for the charm quark that the final $\vec
p_\perp=(\vec {p_{\perp}^{ini}} + \vec \delta p_\perp) (1-\epsilon)$. Therefore the D-meson spectrum $F(p_\perp) \equiv d^2 N/d m_{\perp}^2$ becomes $F^{\prime}(p_\perp)=\int F({p_{\perp}^{ini}}) g(\delta p_\perp) d\vec \delta
p_\perp$. Taking $F(p_\perp) \propto e^{-\alpha p_\perp}$, $\alpha \simeq 1.3$ GeV$^{-1}$ from HIJING, and expanding the convolution to lowest order, the relative change of the D-meson spectrum is given by $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\prime}(p_\perp)/F(p_\perp) \simeq 1-\alpha p_\perp \epsilon +\alpha^2
\Delta^2 /4 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is also the relative change of the $c\bar c$ pair spectrum when $M_{c\bar
c}=2 m_\perp$ in case of $y_1=y_2$, $p_{\perp 1}=p_{\perp 2}$. For $m_\perp
\sim 3$GeV, $\delta E=10$GeV, $\cosh y_0 \simeq 100$, the relative change in the pair spectrum is estimated to be $F^{\prime}(p_\perp)/F(p_\perp) \simeq
1\;-0.1( e^{-y}- 1)$.
In summary, we calculated the lepton pair spectra from open charm decay in two different shadowing scenarios. By scaling the ratios for different mass ranges according to eq.(\[EQ:scaling\]), we showed that the dilepton rapidity dependence of those ratios on $x_A$ reproduces well the underlying gluon shadowing function defined in eq.(\[EQ:shad\]). Finally we showed that the measurements required to extract the gluon shadowing are experimentally feasible at RHIC. The above analysis depends on the validity of our basic assumption regarding the hard fragmentation of charm quarks, and this can be checked explicitly via the single inclusive measurements of $D$ production.
We conclude by emphasizing the importance of determining gluon shadowing in $p+A$ to fix theoretically the initial conditions in $A+A$. In $A+A$ the open charm decay is regarded as an annoying large background that must be subtracted to uncover the thermal signal. In $p+A$ that background becomes the signal needed to determine the incident gluon flux in $A+A$. The continuum charm dileptons in $p+A$ at RHIC are likely to provide a unique source of information on the low $x_A$ nuclear gluon structure at least until HERA is capable of accelerating heavy nuclei.
Acknowledgements: We thank M. Asakawa, R. Bellweid, S. Gavin, P.E. Karchin, P. McGaughey, S. Nagamiya, M. Tannenbaum, J. Thomas, R. Vogt, X.-N. Wang, G. Young and W. Zajc for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-93ER40764.
[20]{} P.V. Ruuskannen, [*Quark-Gluon Plasma*]{}, ed. R.W. Hwa, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990), Adv. Ser. on Directions in High En. Phys., Vol. 6, p519.
S. Nagamiya [*et al.*]{}, in PHENIX Conceptual Design Report (1993) (unpublished); on internet see [*http://rsgi01.rhic.bnl.gov/ phenix/phenix\_home.html*]{}. Recently a second muon arm is added.
R. Vogt, B. V. Jacak, P. L. McGaughey and P. V. Ruuskanen, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 3345 (1994).
K. Geiger, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 4129 (1993).
B. Müller and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2437(1992).
S. J. Brodsky, P. Hoyer, A. H. Mueller and W. K. Tang, Nucl. Phys. B [**369**]{}, 519 (1992).
Z. Lin and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{}, 2177 (1995); ERRATUM-ibid. C [**52**]{}, 440 (1995).
P. Lévai, B. Müller and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{}, 3326 (1995).
S. Liuti, R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{}, 2244 (1995); S. Gupta and H. Satz, Z. Phys. C [**55**]{}, 391 (1992). R.V. Gavai, R. M. Godbole, Report No. TIFR/TH/93-57 (unpublished).
A. Mueller and J. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. B [**268**]{}, 427 (1986); J. Collins and J. Kwiecinski, Nucl. Phys. B [**335**]{}, 89 (1990).
K. J. Eskola, J. Qiu, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 36 (1994).
D. M. Alde [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 133 (1990). J. Badier [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C [**20**]{}, 101 (1983).
D. Kharzeev and H. Satz, Report No. CERN-TH/95-214.
C. Gerschel and J. Hüfner, Phys. Lett. B [**207**]{}, 253 (1988).
S. Gavin and J. Milana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1834 (1992).
EM Collaboration, M. Arneodo [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**333**]{}, 1 (1990); NM Collaboration, P. Amaudruz [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C [**51**]{}, 387 (1991); E665 Collaboration, M. R. Adams [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3266 (1992).
X.-N. Wang, M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1480 (1992).
X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 3501 (1991).
K. J. Eskola, Nucl. Phys. B [**400**]{}, 240 (1993).
I. Sarcevic and P. Valerio, Phys. Lett. B [**338**]{}, 426 (1994).
R. Vogt, Report No. LBL-37105 (1995).
A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts and W. J. Stirling, Univ. of Durham, Report No. DTP/94/78 (1994).
R. Vogt, S. J. Brodsky and P. Hoyer, Nucl. Phys. B [**383**]{}, 643 (1992); R. Vogt and S. J. Brodsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**438**]{}, 261 (1995).
S. Frixione [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**431**]{}, 453 (1994); P. E. Karchin (E769 Collaboration), Report No. FERMILAB-CONF-95-053-E.
STAR Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A [**566**]{}, 277c (1994).
T. Sjöstrand, Report No. CERN-TH.6488/92 (1992), on intenet see [*http://heplibw3.slac.stanford.edu/FIND/FREEHEP/NAME/JETSET/FULL.*]{}
P. H. Zhang [*et al.*]{}, in The TALES/SPARHC EXPERIMENT at RHIC, p23.
NA38 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B [**220**]{}, 471 (1989).
Z. Lin and M. Gyulassy, in preparation.
S. Gavin and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Lett. B [**214**]{}, 241 (1988).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We studied metastability and extinction time of a finite system with a large number of interacting components in discrete time by means of analytical and numerical investigation. The system is markovian with respect to the potential profile of the components, which are subject to leakage and gain effects simultaneously. We show that the only invariant measure is the null configuration, that the system ceases activity almost surely in a finite time and that extinction time presents a cutoff behavior. Moreover, there is a critical parameter determined by leakage and gain below which the extinction time does not depend on the system size. Above such critical ratio, the extinction time depends on the number of components and the system tends to stabilize around a unique metastable state. Furthermore, the extinction time presents infinitely many scales with respect to the system size.'
author:
- '[L. Brochini]{} [^1]'
- '[M. Abadi]{} [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'quasibib.bib'
title: Metastability and Multiscale Extinction Time on a Finite System of Interacting Stochastic Chains
---
Introduction
============
The extinction time of a stochastic process in finite systems has been an issue of interest in particle systems, especially in models for epidemics, such as the contact process [@liggett1999; @mountford1999; @valesin2010; @mountford2016; @schapira2017]. The route to extinction is known to be affected by the emergence of metastability [@schonmann1998; @cassandro1991; @mountford2013; @mourrat2016], a scenario set by phase transitions exhibited by the corresponding infinite system. For the contact process in finite graphs, for instance, the system is subject to an abrupt change in behavior according to a certain parameter, the infection rate, being below or above a critical value, causing the extinction time to depend logarithmically on the number of particles in the subcritical case [@chen1994] and exponentially in the supercritical case [@cassandro1984; @mountford1999].
Here we investigate the phenomenon of metastability and examine the extinction time with respect to the network size in a different system of interacting stochastic chains. The study is based on analytic calculations explored in by numerical experiments. Our model is inspired by leaky integrate and fire neuronal networks. A stochastic version in discrete time of such models can be found in [@Brochini2016; @Costa2017] which is a special case of the model introduced in [@Galves2013]. Here we deal with a modified version where the components are under some kind of environmental competition to fire.
The model is as follows. The system is composed of $N$ components, naturally identified as $1,2,\dots,N$. Each component $i$ has a potential that evolves in discrete time, given by $ U_n(i)$ at time $n$. We denote as ${\bf U}_n$ the potential array ${\bf U}_n=( U_n(1),\dots, U_n(N))$. The system evolution is as follows. It is an order one Markov chain where the state of the system ${\bf U}_{n+1}$ at time $n+1$, depends probabilistically only on the state of the system in the previous instant ${\bf U}_n$.
The system, at every time step, is subject to a leakage effect that leads to a reduction in the potential of each element by a factor of $0<\mu<1$. Moreover, it may either exhibit spontaneous discharge of one – and only one – of its components or no discharge at all. If a component discharges at a given time, then its potential is reset to zero in the next instant while all other components suffer a uniform and positive increase of potential $w$. The probability that a certain component will discharge is a saturated linear function of its potential at that time, normalized over the system size.
Since after firing the potential of a component resets to zero, the probability of the system not to fire is always positive and bounded from below by $1/N$. It will cause the system to eventually cease to fire. In order to understand how the system behaves up to this time, it is useful to examine an associated stochastic process $\{Y_n\}_{n\in \mathcal{N}}$ that represents the system firing history, where $Y_n$ is an indicative function that any component fired at time $n$. The process extinction time is then equivalent to the last time a 1 is observed in the process $Y$. Note that the system potential does not achieve null configuration upon extinction. Instead, it approaches asymptotically the absorbing state. Therefore, we have to deal with the issue that the extinction time is not a stopping time, which is addressed in sections \[nofire\] and \[StopCriterion\].
The main result of this paper is that a parameter dependent on leakage and gain determines a transition on the extinction time: below a critical value of this parameter it does not depend to the system size and above the critical value it presents infinitely many scales. We found that the extinction time law with respect to the number of components undergoes multiple transitions in this system. An important factor to this matter is the ratio $\gamma=w/(1-\mu)$. We show that if $\gamma<1$ the extinction time does not depend on the number of components. Conversely, if $\gamma>1$, the potential array tends to uniformize. Under the firing regime it approaches an invariant potential close to $\gamma$, which configures a metastable state. In this case, the firing blocks follow a geometric distribution of parameter $1/N$.
Surprisingly, still when $\gamma>1$, the extinction time law not only depends on $N$, but suffers multiple changes according to the specific values of $\mu$ and $w$. Considering the situation that the system is close to the metastable state, the route to extinction is ruled by how the system loses potential until it reaches a value below one. We found a crucial role for the number $m$ of times the system must fail to fire to reach a potential below 1: the extinction time is proportional in expectation to $N^m$. Note that $m$ is independent of $N$ and also determined by the specific values of $\mu$ and $w$, not only the ratio $\gamma$, meaning there are systems that reach the same metastable average potential close to the same value of $\gamma$, having very different extinction time scales. Moreover, for any given value of $w$ there can be infinitely many changes in the extinction time law for $\mu$ in the interval $]0,1[$. These results are presented in sections \[regimes\] and \[TauSec\] and illustrated numerically in section \[SecSimul\].
The Model
=========
Let $N\in \N$ be the number of components of the system. We define a Markov chain chain ${\bf U}_n= (U_n(1),\dots,U_n(N))_{n\in\N}$, where $U_n(i) \ge 0, \ i=1,\dots,N$. The evolution of the system will be determined by the following two parameters. Let $0<\mu<1$ be the leakage factor and $w>0$ be the potential gain of a non-firing component after the system fires. At each time step, a component $i$ may fire. We also introduce the resulting potential vector $\Delta^i(u)$ after the component $i$ of the given vector $u$ fires. Then denote $$\Delta^i (u)(j)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mu \ u(j) +w &\ \ j\not= i ,\\
0 &\ \ j=i .
\end{array}
\right.$$
This means that each component that did not fire suffers a leakage effect having now a proportion $\mu$ of its potential on the previous instant while also receiving an increase of $w$ due to the stimulus of the component that fired. The component that fired resets its potential to zero. If the system did not fire, then there is only the leakage effect over all the components. The Markov chain is defined by the transition probabilities given as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\P( {\bf U}_{n+1}= \Delta^i(u)\ | \ {\bf U}_n=u) &=& \frac{\phi(u(i))}{N} , \quad i=1,\dots,N, \\
\P( {\bf U}_{n+1}= \mu u \ | \ {\bf U}_n=u) &=& 1- \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{N}\phi(u(j))}{N} .\end{aligned}$$
Where the firing probability function $\phi:{\mathbb R}_{\ge 0}\to [0,1]$ is the truncated identity $$\phi(u)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u & 0 \le u<1 ,\\
1 & u \ge 1 .
\end{array}
\right.$$
Since $\phi \le 1$, the above transition probabilities are well defined.\
Mean potential evolution
========================
Our results will show that the process has a unique invariant state that is the zero configuration ${\bf U}=(0,\dots,0).$ This state is reached only when taking limit to infinity in the time scale. However, we will show that the system ceases activities almost surely at a finite time $\tau$.
We can describe the evolution of the process until $\tau$ in part with the evolution of the total potential of the system at time $n$. When the system does not fire at time $n+1$, all elements lose potential resulting in the equation ${\bf U}_{n+1}=\mu {\bf U}_n$ smaller than the previous total potential ${\bf U}_n$. On the other hand, when the system fires, one can ask what is the invariant total potential, that is the solution to the equation
$$\sum_{i\in I}U_{n+1}(i) = \mu \sum_{i\in I \setminus \{i_0\}}U_{n}(i) + (N-1) w \ ,$$
where $i_0$ is the spiking site and $I$ is the set of all components. Even when the actual potential depends on the firing site $i$, we show later on that the system has a tendency to uniformize their potentials over the sites (except for the last spiking one) and thus the no-null potential ${\bf U}_n(i)$ may be well approximated by $U_n/(N-1)$. Under this condition, the *invariant* total potential under the firing regime is $$\mathcal{U}=\mathcal{U}(\mu, w,N) = (N-1) \frac{w}{1-\mu - \frac{\mu}{N-1}} \ .$$ As a consequence, the typical non-zero potential (during this sustained firing regime) in a given site and for large $N$ is approximately ${w}/{(1-\mu)}$. Direct computations show that for a total potential above $\mathcal{U}$, the system loses total potential whether it discharges or not. On the contrary, for a potential below $\mathcal{U}$, the system typically loses total potential whenever it fails to discharges and gains total potential whenever it discharges. Moreover, even when the system discharges, one typically gets a potential below $ \mathcal{U}$. This makes the region of potential levels above $\mathcal{U}$ a transient one. Once the system is close to $\mathcal{U}$, it either loses or gains potential, moving along the interval $(0, \mathcal{U})$.
The next lemma quantifies the system tendency to uniformize their potentials mentioned above. To that, we define an auxiliary sequence of random vectors $V_n=(V_n(1),\dots,V_n(N))$ with entries $V_n(i)$ given by the *order statistics* of $U_n(i)$. Namely, define $$V_n= ({U}_n^{(1)},\dots,{ U}_n^{(N)}) \ ,$$
where ${ U}_n^{(1)} \le { U}_n^{(2)} \le \dots \le { U}_n^{(N)}$ is a re-ordering of the components of ${\bf U}_n$.
The next lemma says firstly that the non-firing effect keeps the ordering of the potential while the firing effect keeps the ordering for the potentials, except for the firing component that resets to zero and its potential becomes the smaller one.
Let $Y_n$ be the indicator function that the system fires at time $n$.\
- Suppose $Y_{n+1}=0$, then $V_{n+1}(i)=\mu V_{n}(i)$ for all $i=1,\dots,N$.
- Suppose $Y_{n+1}=1$ and that the index of $V_n$ corresponding to the firing component is $i_0$. Then $V_{n+1}(1)=0 $, $ V_{n+1}(i)=\mu V_{n}(i) + w$, for all $i=i_0+1,\dots,N$ and $ V_{n+1}(i)=\mu V_{n}(i-1) + w$, for all $i=2,\dots,i_0$.
Item $(a)$ follows since the application $u\to \mu u$ is monotonic. Item $(b)$ follows since the application $u\to \mu u + w $ is also monotonic.
Item $(b)$ says in particular that, given $U_n$ (or equivalently $V_n$), the way the system receives more potential is when $i_0$ equals 2, namely the firing component is the one with the minimum potential and the way the system receives less potential is when the firing component is the one with the largest potential.
There are two effects that work concomitantly to make the system evolve towards uniformity. First, the influence of the firing site over all the others is always $w$, regardless of the potential it had at firing time. Additionally, all elements lose a portion of their potential at rate $\mu$. Both effects are responsible for simultaneously attenuating very large potentials and increasing very low potentials. The lemma below shows the stable potential
\[basin\] Suppose $ (1-\mu^{i-1}) \ \gamma \le V_n(i) \le \gamma$ for all $i$ and that $Y_{n+1}=1$. Then $ (1-\mu^{i-1}) \ \gamma \le V_{n+1}(i) \le \gamma . $
$Y_{n+1}=1$ means that the system fired. Thus, $\phi(V_{n+1}(1))=0$. Further, suppose that the component that fired was $i_0$. Now, observe that $\gamma$ is a fixed point for the transformation $u\to \mu u + w$. Thus, by the lemma above, for $i\not=i_0$, one has $$V_{n+1}(i)= \mu V_{n}(i)+w \le \mu \gamma +w= \gamma.$$ This shows the second inequality. Now consider $i\not=i_0$.
Thus, for $i>i_0$ we have
$V_{n+1}(i) = \mu V_{n}(i)+ w \ge \mu \gamma (1-\mu^i) +w = \gamma (1-\mu^{i+1}) > \gamma (1-\mu^i) $. For $ i<i_0$ a similar computation holds: $V_{n+1}(i) = \mu V_{n}(i-1)+ w \ge \mu \gamma (1-\mu^{i-1}) +w = \gamma (1-\mu^{i}) $.
The lemma motivates to introduce the following set: $${\bf B}=\{x_1^ N \in \mathbb{R}^ N: (1-\mu^{i-1}) \ \gamma \le x_i \le \gamma, \forall 1\le i\le N \}$$ The result of the lemma states that ${\bf B}$ acts as an invariant state for the firing regime. Briefly, if $Y_{n}=1$, then ${\bf U}_{n+1}\in {\bf B} $, which defines the meta-stable state of the system.
The three regimes {#regimes}
=================
To describe the evolution of the process ${\bf U}_n$ it is useful to describe the evolution of the fire/non-fire process $Y_n$. A realization of the process $Y_n$ can be described as a composition of sequences of three regimes: the firing regime, the non-firing regime and the mixed regime. The first one corresponds to a continuum of discharges (fires) which happens when the system is, typically, in the meta-stable state ${\bf B}$. The second regime begins with the first fail to fire until the next fire or to infinity if the system ceases to fire. In the last case, the third regime begins. It lasts until the moment that the system recovers a certain minimum potential ${\bf U}_n$ such that $V_n(i)\ge \frac{1-\mu^{i-1}}{1-\mu}L$, with $1\le L\le \gamma$, or to infinity otherwise. The level $L$ is reached when the system behaves, in some sense, similarly as it does when in ${\bf B}$. It will be defined precisely later on. This, together with other analytical characteristics are described below.
Firing blocks
---------------
To describe the law of the firing regime we denote with $\theta$ an upper and a lower bound for the probability that the system fires, given that $\bf{U}_n \in {\bf B}$. That is $$\theta= \phi(\gamma) \left( 1-\frac{1}{N} \right) ,$$ and $$\eta=\phi(\gamma) \left( 1- \frac{1}{ N} \ \frac{ 1- \mu^N }{1-\mu} \right) \ .$$ Both bounds follow directly from integrating the bounds given in Lemma \[basin\]. Note that $$0 < \theta-\eta = \frac{ \phi(\gamma) \mu^N}{(1-\mu)N} \le \frac{ \mu^N}{(1-\mu)N} ,$$ which shows the closeness between both bounds for large $N$.
The next lemma gives a full picture of the statistical behavior of the firing blocks. By the Markovian property, it is enough to describe a firing block beginning at the origin. The same will be done later on for the non-firing ones.
\[fire\]
- Markovian type property $$\eta
\le
\P(Y_{n+1}=1 | Y_n=1, {\bf U}_{n}\in {\bf B}, Y_{n-k}^{n-1}=y_1^{k} )
\le \theta .
$$
- Geometric fire regime. Let ${\bf U}_{0}\in {\bf B}$. $T=\max\{n: Y_n=1\}$ verifies $$\eta^t
\le
\P(T > t) \le \theta^t \quad \forall t \ge 1 .$$
To prove $(a)$ we have $\phi(V_{n}(1))=0$ and the function $\phi$ also determines that $ \phi(V_{n}(i)) \le \phi(\gamma) $. Thus, the upper bound in $(b)$ follows summing up along $i=2,...,N$ and dividing by $N$. Similarly $ \phi(V_{n}(i))\ge \phi( \gamma(1-\mu^i)) = \min \{ \gamma(1-\mu^i), 1 \} \ge \phi(\gamma) (1-\mu^i) $. We also get the lower bound summing up along $i$.
To prove $(b)$ consider $$\P(T> t) = \prod_{i=1}^{t} \P( T >i | T> i-1 ) \P(T >0) .$$ The last factor is equal to one by definition of $T$. Each factor in the product verifies $$\P( T >i | T> i-1 ) =
\P( Y_{n+1}=1 | Y_{ n-i }^{n-1}={\bf 1} ) .$$ Using $(b)$ we finish the proof.
The last statement of the previous lemma establishes bounds for the expected length of the firing blocks, $(1-\theta)^{-1} \le \E(T)\le (1-\eta)^{-1}$. Now, when $\gamma\ge 1$, one has $(1-\theta)^{-1}= N$ while for the $\gamma < 1$ case (considering large $N$) $(1-\theta)^{-1}\approx (1-\gamma)^{-1}$. The corresponding values of $(1-\eta)^{-1}$ are close to the previous ones.
This fact motivates us to name $\gamma_c=1$ a critical value of the parameter $\gamma$ for large $N$. In fact, we refer to the case $\gamma<\gamma_c$ as subcritical in which case the size of a firing block is independent on $N$. Conversely, we refer to $\gamma>\gamma_c$ as the supercritical case where the firing activity is sustained for a geometric time of parameter $1/N$, during which the system remains in a metastable state where the average potential is very close to $\gamma$.
Non-firing blocks {#nofire}
------------------
Different from the firing regime who has a close to Markov behavior, the non-firing regime is ruled by a property close to the renewal one. That means that one has to look back until the last fire of the system, and the distribution of the non-firing blocks depends on how long this last discharge happened.
Yet, in the super-critical case, we distinguish two sub-regimes. One occurs since the system stopped firing and up to having a potential lower than one. This depends, therefore, in $\gamma$ and is due to $m=\inf\{k \in \mathbb{ N}\ | \ \mu^k\gamma<1 \}$. In this regime, by the shape of the function $\phi$, the probability of non-firing keeps being the same and equals to $1/N$. The second sub-regime begins when the potential gets below one and there is no uniformity of the non-firing probabilities, they depend on the potential level itself.
The following lemma is the counterpart of Lemma \[fire\] in the non-firing regime. It provides bounds for the potential ${\bf U}_n$ itself and for the probability that the system fires given that there are exactly $k$ consecutive times the system did not fire in the immediate past.
\[nonfire\]
Suppose ${\bf U}_{n-k} \in {\bf B}$
- Suppose $Y_{n-k+1}^{n}={\bf 0}$ (empty set in case $k=0$), $Y_{n+k}=1$. Then ${\bf U}_{n+1} \in \mu^ k {\bf B}$
- Let $m=\lceil \frac{\log(1/\gamma)}{\log \mu} \rceil $. Then
- for $k < m$ \[pqx1\] ¶(Y\_[n+1]{}=1 | Y\_[n-k+1]{}\^[n]{}=[**0**]{}, Y\_[n+k]{}=1, [**U**]{}\_[n-k]{}) .
- for $k \ge m$ \[pqx2\] \^[k]{} ¶(Y\_[n+1]{}=1 | Y\_[n-k+1]{}\^[n]{}=[**0**]{}, Y\_[n+k]{}=1, [**U**]{}\_[n-k]{}) \^k .
This proof follows mutatis mutandis the proof of Lemma \[fire\].
The following lemma describes the behavior of the length of each non-firing block of the system *once the potential gets below one*. As before for the firing one, we set the origin of the non-firing block at the origin.
\[bonfire\] Let ${\bf U}_{0}\in {\bf B}$ and define $S=\max\{ \max\{n: Y_n=0\}-m,0\}$. Let $$K=(1- \mu^{m}\theta)^{\frac{-1 }{1-\mu}}, \qquad \text{and} \qquad
J= (1-\mu^{m}\eta)^{ (1-\eta) \frac{-1}{1-\mu} } .$$ Then
- The probability that the system completely ceases to fire at any non-firing block verifies $$\frac{1}{K}
\le \P( S=\infty ) \le \frac{1}{J} .$$
- The conditional distribution of $S$ given that it is finite verifies $$\frac{ K^{-\mu^t } - 1 }{K - 1 }
\le \P( S \ge t | S<\infty)
\le \frac{ J^{-\mu^t } - 1 }{J - 1 } .
$$
By definition of $S$ $$\P(S \ge t) = \prod_{k=m}^{t-1} \P(S \ge k+1 \ | \ S \ge k) , $$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\P(S \ge k+1 \ | \ S \ge k)
& =&1- \P(Y_{k+1}= 1 | Y_{1}^{k+m} = {\bf 0}, U_{k+m-1}\in {\bf B} ) .\\ \end{aligned}$$ By (\[pqx2\]), the above display is lower and upper bounded respectively by $$1-\mu^{m+k}\theta , \qquad \text{and} \qquad 1-\mu^{m+k}\eta .$$ The first expression is bounded from above by $(1-\mu^{m}\theta)^{\mu^{k}} $. We used the inequality $1-xy \le (1-y)^{(1-y)x}$ that holds for all $0<x<1, 0<y<1 $. Summing over $k$ we get $$\P(S \ge t) \ge (1- \mu^m\theta)^{ \frac{1 -\mu^{t}}{1-\mu} }\ .$$ which converges to the claimed lower bound and proves the first inequality in (a). Similarly, to get the upper bound we also use (\[pqx2\]) to get that $\P(S \ge t) $ is bounded from above by $$(1- \mu^m\eta)^{(1-\eta) \frac{1 -\mu^{t}}{1-\mu}} \ .$$ Here we used the inequality $1-xy \le (1-y)^{(1-y)x}$ for all $0<x<1, 0<y<1 $. Taking limit on $t$, we get the upper bound.\
The proof of (b) follows by normalization to get a tail distribution $$\P(S \ge k \ | \ S < \infty) =
\frac{ \P(S \ge k ) -\P (S = \infty ) }{ 1- \P(S = \infty)} .$$
The last item of the previous lemma says that the time elapsed during a finite, non-firing regime, is independent of $N$ and so it contributes only with a constant (depending on $\mu$ and $w$ to the extinction time). Moreover, this constant may be large only when $\mu$ is close to one. Moreover, the conditional expectation verifies $
\mu^{-1} \le \E(S \ | \ S < \infty) \le \mu^{-2} .
$
\[level\] To enter the regime described in the second part of Lemma \[nonfire\] $(b)$, the system needs to cross the strip $[\gamma,1]$, which takes $m$ consecutive steps. This fact is determinant for the length of the extinction time of the system. During a period of recovery, actually take a very long time for the system potential to get again ${\bf U}_n \in {\bf B}$. However, there is the minimum level $L= \min\{u>0 \ | \ \mu^m u= 1 \}$ which also needs $m$ steps to cross this strip. This level can be reached after a relatively short sequence of fires.
The mixed regime: almost martingale properties {#mixed}
----------------------------------------------
In this section we consider the third regime, in which are observed some firing times but they are not enough to recover, and also some non-spiking periods but they are also not enough for the system to stop activities. That is, the potential of the system fluctuates between the minimum recovery potential level $L$ defined in Remark \[level\] and a low level until it fully recovers or it ceases activities.
Here we show that for the critical regime, either the mean potential level or the total potential have a behavior close to a martingale. For the supercritical case, the behavior is close to a sub-martingale and for the sub-critical, close to a supermartingale.
Consider first a total potential ${\bf U}_n>0$ such that $U_n(i) \le 1$ for all $i$ and let us compute the expectation for the next mean potential level, $$\begin{aligned}
\E(\ol U_{n+1}| \ol U_n)
&=& (\mu \ol U_n + w - \frac{\mu U_n(i_n)+w}{N} ) \ol U_n
+ \mu \ol U_n (1- \ol U_n) \\
&= & \left( \mu +w - \frac{\mu U_n(i_n)+w}{N} \right) \ol U_n .\end{aligned}$$ where $\ol U_n= \sum_{i=1}^{N}/N$ and $i_n$ denotes the spiking site at time $n$. Take $\Delta =\frac{\mu U_n(i_n)+w}{N}$. Since we are considering the regime where $U_n(i)\le 1$ for all $i$, $\Delta$ becomes bounded by $\gamma/N$. We conclude that the mean potential verifies $$| \E( \ol U_{n+1}|\ol U_n) - (\mu +w) \ol U_n | \le \frac{\gamma}{N} .$$ This can be interpreted as (except for a small random fluctuation bounded by $\gamma/N$) $\ol U_n$ being a martingale, super-martingale and sub-martingale according to the critical, sub-critical and super-critical regime respectively.
We now compute the variance. To that $$\begin{aligned}
\E( \ol U^2_{n+1} | \ol U_n) - \E^2( \ol U_{n+1} | \ol U_n)
= (w-\Delta)^2 \ol U_n (1-\ol U_n) .\end{aligned}$$
This means that, as the potential approaches zero or one, the system becomes increasingly more biased towards firing or not firing respectively. This means that the system becomes more deterministic and has a major tendency to either recover or die as each approaches one or zero respectively. We can heuristically interpret that the system does not spend a significant amount of time in this regime.
Extinction Time {#TauSec}
===============
Let $\tau$ be the time to the last fire of the system $$\tau= \max\{n \ge 1 \ | \ Y_n=1 \} .$$ The next result states the lifetime of the process is almost surely finite.
The process is almost surely finite. Namely $$\P( \tau < \infty) =1 .$$
The above probability is lower-bounded by the probability of having a non-firing block of infinite size. The non-firing blocks are measured after the system profile ${\bf U}_n$ gets to an order profile such that $V_n(i)\ge \frac{1-\mu^i}{1-\mu}L,$ (the recovery level in which the system behaves as in [**B**]{}) and then starts to fail. The Markovian property of the firing blocks guarantees that the size of the non-firing blocks are independent. Since the probability of a non-firing block to be infinite is positive, Borel-Cantelli lemma says that the claimed lower bound has probability one.
Now we address the statistical properties of the extinction time $\tau$ with respect to the size of the system. The properties depicted in section \[regimes\] indicate that a contribution to $\tau$ is given by the firing blocks, which are of mean size $N$ for the supercritical case and independent of $N$ for the subcritical case. Furthermore, the other two regimes are independent of $N$. So the question is how many firing blocks one typically observes.
Recall that the firing block is interrupted by a non-firing one, and it has a statistically distinct regime at its very beginning: for a finite time not larger than $m$ it preserves the evolution properties of the firing regime, in the sense that it preserves the probabilities of firing/non-firing until it crosses the mean potential threshold equal to one. The first one tends to make very short excursions below the meta-stable state ${\bf B}$ due to the probability $1/N$ of not firing (and $N-1/N$ to fire). Thus, the system attempts to cross the critical potential level equal to one, *once it ceases to fire*. The probability to cross this level is, at least $N^{-(m-1)}$. These two contributions make the time $\tau$ bounded from below by a mean of $N^{m}$.
The values of $m$ determine all possible different scales of the extinction time. Intuitively, one may think of a simplified version of the system. Beginning at the meta-stable state, the system starts a firing block and shall attempt to cross the critical potential level with probability bounded by $1/N^m$. The number of attempts follow a geometric law given by the probability to recover the potential up to $\frac{1-\mu^i}{1-\mu}L$ (during the non-firing or mixed regimes), which does not depend on the system size, as shown in sections \[nofire\] and \[mixed\]. Therefore, the observed extinction time is ruled by $N^m$.
Interestingly the exponent $m$ has non-trivial relation with parameters $\mu$ and $w$. Solid lines in Fig. \[ExpIdeal\] show there are infinitely many transition lines for crescent integer $m$ values in the plane $\mu\times w$. Straight dashed lines in Fig. \[ExpIdeal\] indicate the $(\mu,w)$ relation for fixed $\gamma$ values. There is only one possible $m$ value when $\gamma<1$ (green line) that is $m=0$. However, when $\gamma>1$, the lines for constant $\gamma$ cross the $m-$curves as $\mu$ increases, meaning that two systems that reach the same metastable state can present very different extinction time scales. Note that the line for $\gamma=1$ coincides with the magenta curve that defines $m=1$.
The next sections present empirical results of the behavior of the extinction time with $m$ and $\mu$.
\[ExpIdeal\]
Simulations {#SecSimul}
===========
Process Evolution
-----------------
Here we illustrate the model behavior by depicting the evolution of the mean potential in time for different simulated cases. In the subcritical case (red line on Fig. \[SampleEvol\]), the mean potential tends rapidly towards zero and the system does not present metastability. On the other hand, for the supercritical case (blue line on Fig. \[SampleEvol\]A ), the system tends to keep firing and stabilizes its potential towards $\gamma$. The system fails to fire for the first time at $n=69$, but because there is still a high probability of firing again, the system resumes firing and rapidly recovers towards $\gamma$. Fig. \[SampleEvol\] B depicts the complete time series for this simulation of the supercritical case, where a behavior of long firing sequences with some ocasional failures can be observed. At some point, a very long sequence of approximately 150 failures is observed, which causes the mean potential (and consequently the probability to fire) to approach zero irreversibly for all numerical purposes (see Sec. \[StopCriterion\]). When this event is observed, we take the last time a fire is observed and call it the observed extinction time, which is $\tau_{obs}=3139$ in this case.
A remarkable fact is that systems with different gain and leakage terms are able to reach the same quasi-stationary state $\gamma$, differing only with respect to *how* the system detours from $\gamma$ (depending on $\mu$) or approaches $\gamma$ (depending on $w$) Fig. \[SampleEvol\] C. Note that for the green line ($w=0.3, \mu=0.7533$) at every failure to fire (after a large enough firing block), the average potential drops to a value below one, whereas for the blue line ($w=0.15,\mu=0.878$), when the system is close to $\gamma$ it must fail to fire more than once in order to drop below the average potential one. Therefore, even though the metastable average potential is the same, the *extinction time* is different for each pair of parameters ($w,\mu$).
We examined the proportion of time that the average potential is smaller than $\gamma-\epsilon$ before time of extinction $\tau_{obs}$. Numerically $$q(\gamma,\mu)=\mathsf{mean}\{\frac{ | \{0<n<\tau_{obs}:\ol U_n <\gamma-\epsilon\} | }{\tau_{obs}} \} ,$$ where each $\mathsf{mean}$ is calculated across $k$ simulations, summing up a total time of activity equal to $\sum_{i=0}^{k} \tau_{obs,i} =\num{5e6}$. Figure \[SampleEvol\] D shows $q(\gamma,\mu)$ still for the same $\gamma=1.2$, using $\epsilon=0.12$ calculated for 20 trials for each $N=200,300,400$ and $500$. We observe two concurrent effects: while $q$ increases with $\mu$ for fixed $N$, it also decreases as $N$ increases when $\mu$ is fixed.
The first effect is explained by result in lemma \[nonfire\] b. Moreover, we predicted that the typical size of non-firing blocks, conditioned to being finite, can be arbitrarily large. This can be deduced from the conditional distribution in lemma \[nonfire\] b. In particular, note that in the extremal case where $\mu=1$ and $w=0$ one obtains the identity transformation which produces the indistinguishability of firing and non-firing regimes.
The second effect can be explained by the fact that the mean duration of non-firing blocks conditioned to finiteness is independent of N (lemma \[nofire\] B) while the firing regime increases with N – as shown in section 4 that excursions below $\gamma$ occur after a geometric time of mean $N$ for $\gamma>1$. This explains why the proportion $q$ decreases as $N$ increases.
Overall, Fig. \[SampleEvol\] D shows that the time the system spends away from $\gamma$ before extinction does not contribute significantly to the extinction time of the process.
As discussed in Sec. \[TauSec\], the route to extinction is governed by the system attempts to cross the critical potential level equal to 1, causing the extinction time to be dependent on the size of the system with $N^m$. This is empirically shown in the next section.
\[SampleEvol\]
Empirical extinction time
-------------------------
### Stopping criterion {#StopCriterion}
Determining the extinction time of the process poses and immediate problem in numerical experimentation because the last time the system fires does not configure a stopping time. In practice we wish to determine with great confidence the moment the system reaches a state of progressively smaller potentials that will prevent the system from ever firing again. To do so, we keep each simulation running until it reaches our stopping criterion time $n_s$
$$n_s=\min\{n>0:\sum_{i\in I}{U_n(i)<u_c}\}.$$
By the time the system reaches $n_s$ the probability it will ever fire again is given by
$$P(\sum_{n=n_s}^{\infty} Y_n >0)=1-\sum_{j=0}^\infty (1-\mu^j u_c) \approx 1-\exp\lbrace-\frac{u_c}{1-\mu}\rbrace.$$
We use $u_c=10^{-30}$ such that the probability that the system will ever fire again after $n_{s}$ is numerically immaterial for any reasonable choice of $\mu$.
The empirical extinction time of the process is then defined as the last time the system fired before $n_{s}$
$$\tau_{obs}=\max\{n<n_s: Y_n=1 \}.$$
Simulation routines were implemented in C++ using the pseudo-random number engine Mersenne Twister (mt19937\_64) of *random* C++ library with machine clock as seed.
### Extracting $m$ from $\tau_{obs}(N)$
To overcome the difficulty of computing numerically the extinction time, being of order $N^m$, in the $(w,\mu)$ plane, we performed simulations for a specific value of $w$ and how it changes with increasing $N$ and compare its result with theoretical predictions regarding its dependence on the number of components across different values of leakage. We fixed $w=0.8$ and obtained the empirical pmf $\tau_{obs}(N)$ for each $\mu$ by computing the extinction time of 1000 simulations for each choice of $N$ and $\mu$. Figure \[EmpExps\] A shows the empirical average $\overline{\tau}_{obs}(N) $ with respect to $N$ for each $\mu$. Error bars represent the standard deviation of empirical averages calculated by separating simulations in 100 trials of 10 samples each.
For each leakage value $\mu$, we use a linear regression model relative to the logarithm of the quantities $N$ and $\overline{\tau}_{obs}(N) $ to estimate the slope ${m_{obs}}$ and its standard deviation and compare it to the theoretical value $m=\lceil \frac{\log(1/\gamma)}{\log \mu} \rceil $. We observe in Fig. \[EmpExps\] A that the estimated ${m_{obs}}$ (adjacent table) are at most $5\%$ distinct from the theoretical $m$ value for each $\mu$. Moreover, different values of $\mu$ that yield the same $m$ produce parallel lines.
Figure \[EmpExps\] B shows how closely ${m_{obs}}$ (red dots with error bars) follows theoretical prediction $m$ (black line) for a more thorough grid of values $\mu$ corresponding to $m$ values up to $3$. One can notice that ${m_{obs}}$ discretely deviates from the theoretical curve as $m$ increases. This can be explained by the effect observed in Fig. \[SampleEvol\] D that shows that $q(\gamma,\mu)$ increases with $\mu$. For $N=200$ for instance, the proportion of time the system spends away from $\gamma$ before dying increases from $0.1\%$ for $\mu=0.06$ to $4\%$ for $\mu=0.67$. Nonetheless, the empirical values are still agreeable with the theoretical $m$, showing that in practice the power law $N^m$ leads to a good prediction of the extinction time, even for $q(\gamma,\mu)$ as big as $4\%$.
In order to obtain the empirical pdf, we first generate $\mathcal{T}_{\mu,N}$ which is the set of observed extinction times for a specific value of $\mu$, for $N$ fixed, for a certain number of simulations. Then, we compute $$\widehat{p}(T<\tau_{obs}(N)<T+t_b)=\frac{ | \{ \tau_{obs} \in \mathcal{T_{\mu,N} }:T<\tau_{obs}<T+t_b \} | } { | \mathcal{T}_{\mu,N} | }$$ Blue bars in \[EmpExps\] C depict the empirical pdf $\widehat{p}(T<{\tau_{obs}}_{\mu}(N)<T+t_b)$ for an example value of $\mu=0.56$, with bin size $t_b=39168$, for 1000 simulations. We indicate in a red curve an exponential distribution of parameter $N^{-m}{c}_{\mu,w}$. Here ${c}_{\mu,w}= e^{-{b}_{\mu,w}}$, where ${b}_{\mu,w}$ is the estimated constant term of the aforementioned linear model.
\[EmpExps\]
Aknowledgements {#aknowledgements .unnumbered}
===============
This article was produced as part of the activities of agreement FAPESP (SP-Brazil) and FCT (Portugal) with reference FAPESP/19805/2014 and of project FAPESP Center for Neuromathematics (grant$\#2013/ 07699-0$ , S.Paulo Research Foundation). LB thanks FAPESP grant no 2016/24676-1. We thank A. Galves for important discussions on this work.
[^1]: Instituto de Matemática e Estatística, Universidade de São Paulo.
[^2]: Instituto de Matemática e Estatística, Universidade de São Paulo. email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=1200
= =cmmib10 9==“0920 =”091E to 1,5truecm =0.2truecm
**STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS OF NUCLEI AT SMALL x**
**AND DIFFRACTION AT HERA**
by
[**A. Capella, A. Kaidalov**]{}[^1][Permanent address : ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia]{}[**, C. Merino**]{}[^2] [Permanent address : Universidade Santiago de Compostela, Dep. F[í]{}sica de Particulas, E-15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain]{}[**, D. Pertermann**]{} [^3][Permanent address : Univ-GH-Siegen, Phys. Dept., D-57068 Siegen, Germany]{} [**and J. Tran Thanh Van**]{}
Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Hautes Energies [^4][Laboratoire associé au Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - URA D0063]{}
Université de Paris XI, bâtiment 211, 91405 Orsay cedex, France
${\bf Abstract}$
Gribov theory is applied to investigate the shadowing effects in the structure functions of nuclei. In this approach these effects are related to the process of diffractive dissociation of a virtual photon. A model for this diffractive process, which describes well the HERA data, is used to calculate the shadowing in nuclear structure functions. A reasonable description of the $x$, $Q^2$ and $A$-dependence of nuclear shadowing is achieved.
to 4 truecm
LPTHE Orsay 97-07
July 1997 [**1.** ]{}
5 truemm Deep inelastic scattering (DIS) on nuclei gives important information on distributions of quarks and gluons in nuclei. The region of small Bjorken $x$ is especially interesting because partonic clouds of different nucleons overlap as $x \to 0$ and shadowing effects become important. There are experimental results in this region, which show that there are strong deviations from an $A^1$ behavior in the structure functions \[1\]. Several theoretical models have been proposed to understand these data \[1\]. The most general approach is based on the Gribov theory \[2\]. It relates partonic and hadronic descriptions of small $x$ phenomena in interactions of real or virtual photons with nuclei. In this approach the shadowing effects can be expressed in terms of the cross-sections for diffraction dissociation of a photon on a nucleon (Fig. 1). This process has been studied recently in DIS at HERA \[3\]. The detailed $x$, $Q^2$ and $M^2$ ($M$ is the invariant mass of the diffractively produced system) dependencies observed in these experiments have been well described in the theoretical model of ref. \[4\] which is based on Regge factorizations and uses as an input available information on diffractive production in hadronic interactions. Here we will apply the same model to calculate the structure functions of nuclei in the small $x$-region. The use of the model, which describes well the diffraction dissociation of virtual photons on a nucleon target, leads to a strong reduction of the theoretical uncertainty in calculations of the structure functions of nuclei in comparison with previous calculations \[1, 5-8\]. It also allows to discuss the shadowing effects in gluon distributions.
5 truemm
[**2.** ]{}
5 truemm
In the Gribov approach the forward scattering amplitude of a photon with virtuality $Q^2$ on a nuclear target can be written as the sum of the diagrams shown in Fig. 2. Since we are interested in the low $x$ region we will describe the various $\gamma^*N$ interactions by Pomeron exchange. The diagram of Fig. 2a corresponds to the sum of interactions with individual nucleons and is propotional to $A^1$. The second diagram (2b) contains a double scattering with two target nucleons. It gives a negative contribution to the total cross-section, proportional to $A^{4/3}$ (for large $A$). It describes the first shadowing correction for sea quarks. According to reggeon diagram technique \[9\] and Abramovsky, Gribov, Kancheli (AGK) cutting rules \[10\], the contribution of the diagram of Fig. 2b to the total $\gamma^*A$ cross-section is related to the diffractive production of hadrons by a virtual photon as follows : $$\sigma_A^{(2)} = - 4 \pi \ A(A - 1)
\int d^2b \ T_A^2(b) \int_{M^2_{min}}^{M^2_{max}} dM^2 \left . {d \sigma_{\gamma^*p}^{\cal D}
\over dM^2dt} \right |_{t=0} F_A^2(t_{min}) \ \ \ , \eqno(1)$$ where $T_A(b)$ is the nuclear profile function, $\rho_A$ is the nuclear density ($T_A(b) = \int_{- \infty}^{+\infty} dZ
\rho_A(b, Z),\break \noindent \int d^2b \ T_A(b) = 1$) and $$F_A(t_{min}) = \int d^2b J_0 (\sqrt{- t_{min}} b) T_A(b) \ ,
\ t_{min} = - m_N^2 \ x^2
\left ( {Q^2 \over M^2 + Q^2} \right )^{- 2} \ \ \
.$$
Note that $F_A(t_{min})$ is equal to unity as $x \to 0$ and decreases fast as $x$ increases to $x_{cr} \sim {1 \over m_N R_A}$, due to a lack of coherence for $x > x_{cr}$.
Eq. (1) is written in the approximation $R_A^2 \gg R_N^2$, where $R_N$ is the radius of the $\gamma^*p$ interaction. It will be used in this form only for $A >
20$ (see below). We have also neglected the real part of the Pomeron amplitude which is small for our value of the Pomeron intercept (see Eq. (5)). However, for higher values of this intercept the contribution of the real part can be substantial \[11\].
For a deuteron, the double rescattering contribution has the following form
$$\sigma_D^{(2)} = - 2 \int_{- \infty}^{t_{min}} dt \int_{M^2_{min}}^{M^2_{max}} dM^2 {d
\sigma^{\cal D}_{\gamma^*N} \over dM^2 dt} F_D(t) \eqno(2)$$
where $F_D(t) = \exp (at)$, with $a = 40$ GeV$^{-2}$. $M_{min}^2$ in eqs. (1), (2) corresponds to the minimal mass of the diffractively produced hadronic system and $M_{max}^2$ is chosen according to the condition : $x_P = x
\cdot {M^2 + Q^2 \over Q^2} \simeq {M^2 + Q^2 \over W^2} \leq 0.1$.
Equation (2) has been used to calculate inelastic contributions to Glauber corrections in hadron-deuteron interactions \[12, 13\] and was generalized to heavier nuclei in the form (1) in ref. \[14\].
Thus the second order rescattering term can be calculated if the differential cross-section for diffractive production by a virtual photon is known.
Higher order rescatterings are model dependent, but calculation shows that, for the values of $A$ and $x$ $(x \ \gsim \ 10^{-3})$ where experimental data exist, their contribution is rather small. We use the following unitary expression for the total $\gamma^*A$ cross-section $$\sigma_{\gamma^*A} = \sigma_{\gamma^*N} \int d^2b {A \ T_A(b)
\over 1 + (A - 1) f(x,Q^2) T_A(b)} \eqno(3)$$ where $$f(x, Q^2) = 4 \pi \int dM^2
\left .
{d\sigma_{\gamma^*p}^{\cal D} \over dM^2dt} \right
|_{t=0} F_A^2(t_{min})/\sigma_{\gamma^*N} \ \ \ .$$ This expression is valid in the generalized Schwimmer model \[15, 16\] and is obtained from a summation of fan diagrams with triple Pomeron interaction. However, its physical basis and applicability is much broader. For example it follows from the rescattering of a $q\bar{q}$ system with transverse sizes distributed according to a gaussian \[17\]. We have checked that the results obtained from a summation of higher order rescatterings of an eikonal type are very similar to the ones obtained with (3) - the differences being of the order of one percent.
Thus we have for the ratio $R_A = F_{2A}/F_{2N}$ of nucleus and nucleon structure functions, in the region of small $x$ $${F_{2A} \over F_{2N}} = \int d^2b {A \ T_A(b)
\over 1 + (A - 1) f(x, Q^2) T_A(b)} \ \
\ . \eqno(4)$$ The deviation of this ratio from $A^1 = A \int d^2b T_A(b)$ is due to the second term in the denominator of the integrand in eq. (4). Thus, knowing the differential cross-section for diffraction dissociation on a nucleon and the structure function of a nucleon ($\sigma_{\gamma^*N})$, one can predict the $A$ (and $x$, $Q^2$) dependence of structure functions of nuclei. Eq. (4) can only be used in the region of $x$ substantially smaller than $10^{-1}$ where the sea quarks component dominates. For $x$ close to $10^{-1}$ shadowing of valence quarks (which in general is not described by eq. (4)) becomes important \[18, 19\]. The effects leading to antishadowing (such as real parts in the rescattering diagram due to secondary exchanges) are also important in the region of $x \sim 0.1$.
In refs. \[4\] we described the diffractive contribution to DIS in terms of Pomeron exchange $$F_2^{\cal D}(x, Q^2, x_P, t) = {(g_{pp}^P(t) )^2 \over 16 \pi}
x_P^{1-2\alpha_P(t)} F_P(\beta, Q^2, t) \eqno(5)$$ where $g_{pp}^P(t)$ is the Pomeron-proton coupling $(g_{pp}^P(t) =
g_{pp}^P(0) \exp (Ct)$ with $(g_{pp}^P(0))^2 =$ 23 mb and $C = 2.2$ GeV$^{-2}$), $\alpha_P(t) = \alpha_P(0) + \alpha '_P(0)t$ is the Pomeron trajectory ($\alpha_P(0)$ = 1.13, $\alpha '_P(0) = 0.25$ GeV$^{-2}$) and $F_P(\beta , Q^2, t)$ is the Pomeron structure function. The variable $\beta = {Q^2 \over M^2 + Q^2} = {x \over x_P}$ plays the same role for the Pomeron as the Bjorken variable $x$ for the proton. At large $Q^2$, $F_P$ can be expressed in terms of the quark distributions in the Pomeron $$F_P(\beta , Q^2,t) = \sum_i e_i^2 \beta \left [ q_i^P(\beta , Q^2, t) +
\bar{q}_i^P(\beta , Q^2, t) \right ] \ \ \ . \eqno(6)$$ In refs. \[4\] we determined $F_P(\beta , Q^2,t)$ using Regge-factorization for small values of $\beta$ and a plausible assumption on the $\beta \to 1$ behavior. This function was then used as an initial condition for QCD evolution of partons in the Pomeron. The results of the QCD-evolution crucially depend on the form of the gluon distribution in the Pomeron. Experimental results for $F_2^{\cal D}$ can be understood only if the distribution of gluons in the Pomeron is rather hard and the gluons carry the main part of the Pomeron momentum \[4, 20-22\]. The explicit forms of all these functions are given in Appendix 1.
The validity of Pomeron factorization (5) for $F_2^{\cal D}$ as well as that of the QCD evolution for partons in the Pomeron has been questioned in recent papers. These papers deal with diffractive charm production \[23, 24\] and with the contribution of longitudinal photons to diffractive production \[25, 26\]. However, in all these papers high-twist effects (in $Q^2$ or $M^2_Q$, where $M_Q$ is the mass of the heavy quark), which give small contributions to diffractive cross-sections, were considered. Arguments in favour of usual QCD evolution for the main twist contribution to $F_2^{\cal D}$ have been given in ref. \[27\]. In any case the CKMT model \[4\] gives a reasonable description of diffractive production in DIS. Thus it effectively includes high twist effects and can be used to compute the function $f(x, Q^2)$, which determines the shadowing of nuclear structure function via (4). This function can be written in terms of the ratio $F_P/F_{2N}$ : $$f(x, Q^2) = \int {d\beta
\over 4 \beta} \left ( g_{pp}^P(0) \right )^2 \left ( {1 \over x_P} \right
)^{2\Delta} {F_P(\beta , Q^2) \over F_{2N} (x , Q^2)} F^2_A(t_{min})
\eqno(7)$$
where the integration limits are $x/x_{0P}$ with $x_{0P} = 0.1$ and $Q^2/(M_{min}^2 + Q^2)$. In the following we take $M_{min}^2 =$ 0.4 GeV$^2$, in order to include the $\rho$-meson peak in the integration region.
The parametrization of the Pomeron \[4\] and nucleon \[28\] structure functions are given in Appendix 1. Note that the $Q^2$-dependence of nuclear shadowing is obtained by evolving separately the nucleon and Pomeron structure functions and taking their ratio in eq. (7). Actually, one should compute first $F_{2A}$ at $Q^2 = Q_0^2$ and evolve it using the nuclear partonic distributions. However, this would require the knowledge of these distributions for all values of $x$. At small $x$, where sea quarks are dominant, these two procedures are equivalent for the Born term and the first rescattering correction in eq. (4). As discussed above, higher rescattering corrections are small.
In the numerical calculations we use a standard Woods-Saxon profile $T_A(b)$ for $A > 20$. For light nuclei ($A < 20$) we use a gaussian profile
$$T_A(b) = {3 \over 2 \pi R_A^2} \exp (- 3b^2/2 R_A^2) \eqno(8)$$
with an r.m.s. radius parametrized as \[29\]
$$R_A = 0.82 \ A^{1/3} + 0.58 \ {\rm fm} \ \ \ . \eqno(9)$$
For deuteron eq. (9) is not valid. In this case we use eq. (2). The simple exponential form of $F_D(t)$ gives results which differ by less than 20 $\%$ from the more sophisticated parametrization used in refs. \[6\] \[30\].
In eq. (1) we have neglected the $t$-dependence of the $\gamma^*p$ diffractive cross-section. As explained above, this approximation is only used for large nuclei where nucleon sizes can be neglected as compared to nuclear ones. For light nuclei ($A < 20$), we take into account this $t$ (or $b$)-dependence by making the following replacement
$$R_A^2 \Rightarrow R_A^2 + R_N^2 \quad , \qquad R_N = 0.8 \ {\rm fm} \ \ \ .
\eqno(10)$$
This nucleon radius approximately describes the $t$-dependence of the $\gamma^*p$ diffractive cross-section in the kinematical region we are interested in.
5 truemm
[**3.** ]{}
5 truemm
The results of our calculations are shown in Figs. 3-8. Theoretical predictions for the deuteron structure function $F_{2}^D/2F_2^N$ are shown in Fig. 5. Our results are close to those of refs. \[30, 31\] but smaller by a factor of about 3 from the results of ref. \[6\]. Comparison of our predictions for the ratio ${2 \over
A} F_2^A/F_2^D$ with experimental data of NMC \[32\] is shown in Fig. 3 and for ratios of different nuclei in Fig. 4. New data for the ratio $F_2^{S_n}/F_2^C$ \[33\] are also shown in Fig. 4. It is important to note that experimental points in Figs. 3, 4 for different $x$ correspond to different values of $<Q^2>$ \[32\] \[33\]. This correlation has been taken into account in our calculations. The agreement between theoretical predictions and experimental data is good. Note that there are no free parameters in our calculations.
Our predictions for the ratio ${1 \over A} {F_{2A} \over F_{2N}}$ in the region of very small $x$ are shown in Figs. 5 for fixed values of $Q^2$. They could be confronted to experiment if nuclei at HERA would be available. Note that our results are more reliable for small values of $x$ ($x < 10^{-2}$) where the effects of both valence quark shadowing and antishadowing are negligeable. The curves for shadowing effects in the gluon distribution of nuclei ${1 \over A}
{g^A(x, Q^2) \over g^N(x,Q^2)}$ are shown in Figs. 6. They look similar to the shadowing for the quark case. However the absolute magnitude of the shadowing is smaller in the gluon case contrary to expectations of some theoretical models \[1\] but in agreement with \[34\]. (Note that these results are sensitive to the gluonic distribution in the Pomeron, which is poorly known at present). These predictions can be tested in experimental studies of $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$-production on nuclear targets at RHIC and LHC.
Finally we want to discuss in more detail the $Q^2$-dependence of the shadowing. Recent NMC data \[33\] for the ratio of $F_2^{S_n}/F_2^C$ are shown in Figs. 7 as functions of $Q^2$ for fixed values of $x$ in the small $x$ region. The theoretical curves have a weak dependence on $Q^2$ and are in reasonable agreement with experiment, although the $Q^2$ dependence seems stronger in the data especially in the region of small $Q^2$. At larger values of $x$ the data are practically $Q^2$-independent. These properties should be checked in future experiments.
5 truemm
[**4.** ]{}
5 truemm
In conclusion, a model based on the Gribov-Glauber theory of nuclear shadowing and the properties of diffraction in DIS observed at HERA, leads to a fair description of experimental data on structure functions of nuclei in the small $x$ region. Predictions of shadowing effects for quark and gluon distributions are given. They can be tested in future experiments at HERA and in hadronic colliders.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
One of us (A.C.) would like to thank G. Do Dang for discussions. A. K. and D. P. wish to thank the LPTHE for hospitality during a period when this work was initiated. This work has been partially supported by grant 93-0079 of INTAS. A. K. also acknowledges support from the grant N$^{\circ}$ 96-02-19184 of RFFI.
**Appendix 1**
3 truemm For the Pomeron and nucleon structure functions we use the parametrization of the CKMT model \[4, 28\] $$F_{2N}(x, Q^2) = A(Q^2) x^{- \Delta (Q^2)} (1 - x)^{n(Q^2) + 4} + B(x, Q^2) x^{1 -
\alpha_R(0)} (1 - x)^{n(Q^2)} \ , \eqno(A.1)$$ $$F_P(\beta , Q^2) = F_{2N} (\beta , Q^2; A \to eA , B(x) \to fB', n\to n-2) \eqno(A.2)$$ where $$A(Q^2) = A \left ( {Q^2 \over Q^2 + a} \right )^{1 + \Delta (Q^2)} \ \ , \ \ B(x, Q^2) =
B(x) \left ( {Q^2 \over Q^2 + b} \right )^{\alpha_R}$$ $$\Delta (Q^2) = \Delta_0 \left ( 1 + {2Q^2 \over Q^2 + d} \right ) \ \ , \ \ n(Q^2) = {3
\over 2} \left ( 1 + {Q^2 \over Q^2 + c} \right )$$ with (all dimensional quantities are in Gev$^2$) $$A = 0.1502 \ \ , \ \ B' = 1.2035 \ \ , \ \ \alpha_R = 0.4150 \ \ , \ \ \Delta_0 = 0.07684$$ $$a = 0.2631 \ \ , \ \ b = 0.6452 \ \ c = 3.5489 \ \ , \ \ d = 1.1170 \ \ , \ \ e = f = 0.07
\ \ \ .$$ Finally, we have \[28\] $$B(x) = 0.754 + 0.4495 (1 - x) \ \ \ . \eqno(A.3)$$ The two terms in Eq. (A.3) appear because we have used for the valence quark distributions in the proton $d(x) = u(x) (1 - x)$. Such a difference between $u$ and $d$ quark distributions is not present in the Pomeron case, and we have dropped the $1 - x$ factor in (A.3). In the CKMT model the Pomeron structure function is determined from the nucleon one using triple Regge couplings determined from soft diffraction data and Regge factorization.
Comparison of eqs. (A.2) and (6) allows to determine the valence and sea quark distributions in the Pomeron. Likewise one can determine the corresponding ones in the nucleon. These distributions are used as initial conditions at $Q^2 = Q_0^2$ in the DGLAP evolution equation, as described in \[28\]. The gluon distributions for $Q^2 \leq Q_0^2$ in the nucleon and the Pomeron are \[4, 28\] $$g^N(x, Q^2) = A_g(Q^2) \ x^{-\Delta (Q^2)} (1 - x)^{n(Q^2)+2} \eqno(A.4)$$ $$g_{_P}(x, Q^2) = e \ A_g(Q^2) \ x^{- \Delta (Q^2)} (1 - x)^{-0.5} \eqno(A.5)$$ where $A_g(Q^2)$ has the same form as $A(Q^2)$ in eqs. (A.1) and (A.2) : $$A_g(Q^2) = A_g \left ( {Q^2 \over Q^2 + a} \right )^{1 + \Delta (Q^2)} \ \ \ .$$
The normalization of $g^N$ is obtained from the energy-momentum sum-rule. For the Pomeron this sum-rule is not valid and the normalization of $g_P$ is obtained from that of $g^N$ using Regge factorization. The constant $e = 0.07$ is the same as in eq. (A.2). Actually there is a large ambiguity in the shape of $g_P$. We have only determined the $x$-behaviour at small $x$ as well as the absolute normalization. The form (A.5) is just a simple extrapolation to the region of $x \to 1$.
Using the gluon distributions in eqs. (4) and (7) one can obtain the corresponding distributions in nuclei.
In order to have exactly the diffractive cross-section computed in ref. \[4\] as well as the same $F_{2N}$ of ref. \[28\] we use the values of $Q^2_0$ in those references. These are $Q_0^2 =$ 5 GeV$^2$ for the Pomeron and $Q_0^2 =$ 2 GeV$^2$ for the nucleon. The corresponding gluon normalizations obtained from the energy-momentum sum rule are $A_g =
1.84$ at $Q_0^2$ = 2 GeV$^2$ and $A_g =$ 1.71 at $Q_0^2 =$ 5 GeV$^2$.
**References**
3 truemm
[\[1\]]{} M. Arneodo, Phys. Reports [**240**]{} (1994) 301 (and references therein).
[\[2\]]{} V. N. Gribov, ZhETF [**56**]{} (1969) 892, ibid [**57**]{} (1969) 1306 \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**29**]{} (1969) 483, [**30**]{} (1970) 709\].
[\[3\]]{} T. Ahmed et al (H1 collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B348**]{} (1995) 681.
M. Derrick et al (Zeus collaboration), Z. Phys. [**C68**]{} (1995) 569 ; Z. Phys. [**C70**]{} (1996) 391.
[\[4\]]{} A. Capella, A. Kaidalov, C. Merino and J. Tran Thanh Van, Phys. Lett. [**B343**]{} (1995) 403.
A. Capella, A. Kaidalov, C. Merino, D. Pertermann and J. Tran Thanh Van, Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{} (1996) 2309.
[\[5\]]{} K. Boreskov, A. Capella, A. Kaidalov and J. Tran Thanh Van, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{} (1993) 219.
[\[6\]]{} V. Barone et al, Z. Phys. [**C58**]{} (1993) 541.
[\[7\]]{} W. Melnitchouk, A. W. Thomas, Phys. lett. [**B317**]{} (1993) 437 ; Phys. Rev. [**C52**]{} (1995) 3373.
[\[8\]]{} G. Piller, W. Ratzka, W. Weise, Z. Phys. [**A352**]{} (1995) 427.
[\[9\]]{} V. N. Gribov, ZhETF [**57**]{} (1967) 654 \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**26**]{} (1968) 14\].
[\[10\]]{} V. A. Abramovsky, V. N. Gribov and O. V. Kancheli, Yad. Fiz. [**18**]{} (1973) 595 \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**18**]{} (1974) 308\].
[\[11\]]{} A. Bialas, W. Czyz and W. Florkowski, TPJU-25/96 and references therein.
[\[12\]]{} A. B. Kaidalov, L. A. Kondratyuk, JETP Letters [**15**]{} (1972) 170 ; Nucl. Phys. [**B56**]{} (1973) 90.
[\[13\]]{} V. V. Anisovich, L. G. Dakhno and P. E. Volkovitsky, Yad. Fiz. [**15**]{} (1972) 168 \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**15**]{} (1972) 97\].
[\[14\]]{} V. A. Karmanov and L. A. Kondratyuk, JETP Letters [**18**]{} (1973) 266.
[\[15\]]{} A. Schwimmer, Nucl. Phys. [**B94**]{} (1975) 445.
[\[16\]]{} K. G. Boreskov et al., Yad. Fiz. [**53**]{} (1991) 569 \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**53**]{} (1991) 356\].
[\[17\]]{} B. Kopeliovich et al., JINR E2-86-125.
[\[18\]]{} L. L. Frankfurt, M. I. Strikman and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{} (1990) 1725.
[\[19\]]{} A. B. Kaidalov, C. Rasinariu and U. Sukhatme, UICHEP-TH/96-9.
[\[20\]]{} T. Gehrmann and W. J. Stirling, Z. Phys. [**C70**]{} (1996) 89.
[\[21\]]{} K. Golec-Biernat and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Lett. [**B353**]{} (1995) 329.
[\[22\]]{} J. Dainton (H1 collaboration), Proceedings Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD, Paris, France, 24-28 April 1995 (ed. J. P. Laporte and Y Sirois).
[\[23\]]{} M. Genovese, N. N. Nikolaev, B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. [**B378**]{} (1996) 347.
[\[24\]]{} E. M. Levin, A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin, T. Teubner, DTP 96-50.
[\[25\]]{} J. Bartels, H. Lotter, M. Wusthoff, Phys. Lett. [**B379**]{} (1996) 248 ; J. Bartels, C. Ewerz, H. Lotter, M. Wusthoff, Phys. Lett. [**B386**]{} (1996) 389.
[\[26\]]{} M. Genovese, N. N. Nikolaev, B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. [**B380**]{} (1996) 213.
[\[27\]]{} A. Berera and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{} (1996) 6162.
[\[28\]]{} A. Capella, A. Kaidalov, C. Merino, J. Tran Thanh Van, Phys. Lett [**B337**]{} (1994) 358.
[\[29\]]{} M. A. Preston and R. K. Bhoduri, Structure of the Nucleus, Addison-Wesley, New York 1975.
[\[30\]]{} W. Melnitchoak, A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{} (1993) 3783.
[\[31\]]{} B. Badelek, J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{} (1994) 4.
[\[32\]]{} P. Amandruz et al (NMC collaboration), Nucl. Phys. [**B441**]{} (1995) 3.
[\[33\]]{} N. Arneodo et al (NMC collaboration), Nucl. Phys. [ **B481**]{} (1996) 23.
[\[34\]]{} K. J. Eskola, Nucl. Phys. [**B400**]{} (1994) 240.
**Figure Captions**
3 truemm
= 2 truecm
[**Fig. 1 :**]{} Diffractive dissociation of a virtual photon. The shaded area represents the exchange of a Pomeron. 3 truemm
[**Fig. 2 :**]{} The first two terms (single and double scattering) of the multiple scattering series for the total $\gamma^*N$ cross-section in the Gribov-Glauber approach. 3 truemm
[**Fig. 3 :**]{} The ratios $(2/A) F_2^A/F_2^D$ computed from eq. (3) for different values of $x$. The experimental points are from ref. \[17\]. The values of $Q^2$ are different for different$x$-values \[17\].
3 truemm
[**Fig. 4 :**]{} The ratios $(A_1/A_2) F_2^{A_2}/F_2^{A_1}$ computed from eq. (3) for different values of $x$. The experimental points are from refs. \[17\] and \[18\]. The values of $Q^2$ are different for different $x$ values \[17, 18\].
3 truemm
[**Fig. 5 :**]{} The ratios $(1/A) F_2^{A}/F_2^{N}$ computed from eq. (3) for different values of $x$ in the small $x$ region, at fixed values of $Q^2$.
3 truemm
[**Fig. 6 :**]{} The ratios $(1/A_2) g^A/g^N$ of gluon distribution functions computed for different values of $x$ in the low $x$ region, at fixed values of $Q^2$.
3 truemm
[**Fig. 7 :**]{} The ratio $(12/119) F_2^{S_n}/F_2^C$ computed from eq. (3) for different values of $Q^2$, at two fixed values of $x$. The data points are from ref. \[18\].
[^1]: \*
[^2]: \*\*
[^3]: \*\*\*
[^4]: \*\*\*\*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper provides a summary of our recent work on the scaling relations between the specific angular momentum $j_{\star}$ and mass $M_{\star}$ of the stellar parts of normal galaxies of different bulge fraction $\beta_{\star}$. We find that the observations are consistent with a simple model based on a linear superposition of disks and bulges that follow separate scaling relations of the form $j_{\star{\rm d}} \propto M_{\star{\rm d}}^{\alpha}$ and $j_{\star{\rm b}} \propto M_{\star{\rm b}}^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha = 0.67 \pm 0.07$ but offset from each other by a factor of $8 \pm 2$ over the mass range $8.9 \leq \log (M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \leq 11.8$. This model correctly predicts that galaxies follow a curved 2D surface in the 3D space of $\log j_{\star}$, $\log M_{\star}$, and $\beta_\star$.'
---
Introduction
============
Specific angular momentum ($j = J/M$) and mass ($M$) are two of the most basic properties of galaxies. We have studied the scaling relations between $j$ and $M$ from both observational and theoretical perspectives (Fall 1983; Romanowsky & Fall 2012; Fall & Romanowsky 2013, 2018; hereafter Papers 0, 1, 2, and 3). Here, we present some highlights from Paper 3 of this series.
Results
=======
Figure 1 shows $\log j_{\star}$ plotted against $\log M_{\star}$ for the 94 galaxies in our sample (with $8.9 \leq \log (M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \leq 11.8$). Galaxies of different bulge fraction, $\beta_{\star} \equiv (B/T)_{\star} \equiv M_{{\star}{\rm b}} / ( M_{{\star}{\rm d}} + M_{{\star}{\rm b}} )$, are indicated by symbols with different shapes and colors in this diagram. Here and throughout, the subscript $\star$ refers to the stellar components of galaxies, as distinct from their interstellar, circumgalactic, and dark-matter components, while the subscripts d and b refer to disks and bulges, respectively. We note from Figure 1 that galaxies with different $\beta_{\star}$ follow roughly parallel scaling relations of the form $j_{\star} \propto M_{\star}^{\alpha}$ with exponents close to $\alpha = 2/3$ ($\alpha \approx 0.6$ for disks, $\alpha \approx 0.8$ for bulges).
![Stellar specific angular momentum $j_\star$ versus stellar mass $M_\star$ for galaxies of different stellar bulge fraction $\beta_\star \equiv (B/T)_\star$ (as indicated by symbol shapes and colors). The dashed lines are scaling relations for disks and bulges from 3D fitting.[]{data-label="fig2"}](FM_fig1.pdf){width="5in"}
Figure 2 illustrates schematically the parallel $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ scaling relations for galaxies of different bulge fraction $\beta_*$. This immediately suggests a connection between the locations of galaxies in the $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ diagram and their morphologies. And this in turn suggests that the distribution of galaxies of different $\beta_\star$ in the $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ diagram is a physically based alternative to the Hubble sequence. The analogy here is with the description of elementary particles – the “eigenstates” for galaxies being disks and bulges. One wonders whether Hubble might have proposed a classification scheme for galaxies based on physical variables like $j$ and $M$ if he had been a physicist rather than an astronomer.
![Physically motivated classification diagram of galaxies, with parallel $j_\star$–$M_\star$ scaling relations for fixed bulge fractions (see cartoon examples at right).[]{data-label="fig2"}](FM_fig2.png){width="5in"}
Figure 3 shows the distribution of our sample galaxies in the 3D space of ($\log j_{\star}$, $\log M_{\star}$, $\beta_{\star}$). Figure 1 is, of course, just the projection of this distribution onto the $\log j_{\star}$–$\log M_{\star}$ plane. We note that galaxies lie on or near the curved 2D orange surface in the 3D space. The orange surface is derived from a simple model based on a linear superposition of disks and bulges that follow separate scaling relations of the form $j_{\star{\rm d}} \propto M_{\star{\rm d}}^{\alpha}$ and $j_{\star{\rm b}} \propto M_{\star{\rm b}}^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha = 0.67 \pm 0.07$ but offset from each other by a factor of $8 \pm 2$.
![Bulge fraction versus specific angular momentum and mass. Points show the data, and orange surface shows our 3D relation based on independent disks and bulges.[]{data-label="fig3"}](FM_fig3.pdf){width="4.5in"}
In Paper 3, we make detailed comparisons between our $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ scaling relations and those of other authors. We find excellent agreement between our results from Paper 2 and those of Obreschkow & Glazebrook (2014) and Posti et al. (2018) for disk-dominated galaxies. The $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ scaling relation derived by Sweet et al. (2018) appears to suffer from an unknown systematic error (by a factor of 2) relative to the relations derived in the other three studies. We find no statistically significant indication that galaxies with classical bulges and pseudo bulges follow different relations in ($\log j_{\star}$, $\log M_{\star}$, $\beta_{\star}$) space.
In Paper 3, we provide an updated interpretation of the $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ scaling relations, following the precepts of Paper 1. In particular, we have revised slightly our earlier estimates of the fractions of angular momentum in the stellar components of galaxies relative to dark matter, $f_j \equiv j_\star / j_{\rm halo}$. We now find $f_j \sim 1.0$ for disks (slightly higher than before) and $f_j \sim 0.1$ for bulges (slightly lower than before). We also note that these fractions are expected to be nearly constant over the mass range $10^{9.5} M_\odot {{\>\rlap{\raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$} \>}}M_\star {{\>\rlap{\raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$} \>}}10^{11.5} M_\odot$. Posti et al. (2018) suggested that $f_j$ may decrease gradually toward lower galactic masses based on their extension of the $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ relation down to $\sim10^7 M_\odot$. Future studies should aim to determine $f_j$ for dwarf galaxies from the [*baryonic*]{} $j$–$M$ relation (including both stars and cold gas) since this may be slightly shallower than the [*stellar*]{} $j$–$M$ relation, and thus consistent with $f_j \approx {\rm constant}$.
We note that the retention factor $f_j \sim 1.0$ derived from the observed $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ relation for galactic disks agrees well with the value of $f_j$ postulated in simple disk formation models (Paper 0), although the physical reasons for this agreement are still an active research topic (as discussed at this meeting by Bullock, DeFelippis, El-Badry, Genel, and others). The retention factor $f_j \sim 1.0$ also agrees well with the observed sizes of disk-dominated galaxies over the redshift range $0 \leq z \leq 3$. Using the method of abundance matching, Huang et al. (2017) showed that the relation between the sizes of galaxies and their dark-matter halos is linear and stable over this redshift range and consistent with simple disk formation models (i.e., $f_j \sim 1.0$).
Conclusions
===========
1\. The observed $j_{\star}$–$M_{\star}$ scaling relations for galaxies with different $\beta_\star$ constitute a physically motivated alternative to subjective classifications schemes such as the Hubble sequence.
2\. At fixed $\beta_\star$, specific angular momentum and mass are related by power laws, $j_\star \propto M_{\star}^{\alpha}$, with $\alpha \approx 0.6$ for disks, $\alpha \approx 0.8$ for bulges, and $\alpha \approx 2/3$ overall.
3\. For giant galaxies (with $10^{9.5} M_\odot {{\>\rlap{\raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$} \>}}M_\star {{\>\rlap{\raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$} \>}}10^{11.5} M_\odot$), the angular momentum retention or sampling factors are $f_j \sim 1.0$ for disks and $f_j \sim 0.1$ for bulges.
1983, in: E. Athanassoula (ed.), *IAU Symp. 100, Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies* (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), p. 391 (Paper 0)
2013, *ApJ* (Letters), 769, L26 (Paper 2)
Fall, S.M., & Romanowsky, A.J. 2018, ApJ, 868, 133 (Paper 3)
2017, *ApJ*, 838, 6
2014, *ApJ*, 784, 26
2018, *A&A*, 612, L6
2012, *ApJS*, 203, 17 (Paper 1)
2018, *ApJ*, 860, 37
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
22.5cm 15.0cm
[ ]{} 0.8in T. MUNEHISA and Y.MUNEHISA 0.2in Faculty of Engineering, Yamanashi University
Takeda, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8511, Japan 0.5in
0.5in [**ABSTRACT**]{}
We report an attempt to calculate energy eigenvalues of large quantum systems by the diagonalization of an effectively truncated Hamiltonian matrix. For this purpose we employ a specific way to systematically make a set of orthogonal states from a trial wavefunction and the Hamiltonian. In comparison with the Lanczos method, which is quite powerful if the size of the system is within the memory capacity of computers, our method requires much less memory resources at the cost of the extreme accuracy.
In this paper we demonstrate that our method works well in the systems of one-dimensional frustrated spins up to 48 sites, of bosons on a chain up to 32 sites and of fermions on a ladder up to 28 sites. We will see this method enables us to study eigenvalues of these quantum systems within reasonable accuracy.
0.5in [**KEYWORDS: Quantum system, Diagonalization, Large size**]{}
[**1 Introduction** ]{}
So far a lot of methods have been developed to calculate eigenvalues of large size quantum systems. They can be brought under two chief categories, the exact diagonalization methods[@dagetal] and the Monte Carlo approaches[@book1]. In the former category, where the Lanczos method proves itself to be quite useful, one can expect strictly accurate results as long as the size of a system is small enough. The reason why the size of a system is limited in the Lanczos method is that it consumes enormous memory resources to keep every component of the state. Within this category the density renormalization group method[@white] seems most prosperous to study systems of large sizes, but its effectivity strongly depends on both the system’s properties and its dimensionality. By means of the Monte Carlo methods, on the other hand, it is possible to study quantum systems with many sites. Instead it becomes necessary to deal with the statistical errors and in some cases the so-called negative sign problem would prevent us to obtain meaningful results. Another disadvantage of the methods is that the dynamical quantities are out of their reach.
In this paper we propose a new method to obtain the eigenvalues in quantum systems of large sizes, which is to be classified into the exact diagonalization approaches. A basic idea is that we calculate expectation values $$\langle \Psi \mid \hat{O}_i \hat{H} \hat{O}_j \mid \Psi \rangle ,$$ with a choice of a trial wavefunction $\mid \Psi \rangle $ and a set of trial operators $ \{ \hat{O}_i \}$ aimed to demand much less memory than that required in the Lanczos method, so that the effective Hamiltonian matrix is diagonalized within reasonable computer resources. A good property of our method is that it is applicable to various types of systems.
In the next section we give a brief description of the method, giving general guidelines to find out the trial wavefunction and the trial operators in the systematic way. Concrete expressions for them will be given in the following sections together with the results for the spin, the boson and the fermion systems. The final section is devoted to summary and discussion.
[**2 Method** ]{}
In this section we outline our method to calculate the energy eigenvalues and their eigenstates, comparing it with the Lanczos method if necessary.
Let us consider to calculate energy eigenvalues using a finite number of elements of the system’s Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, $$H_{ij} = \langle \psi_i \mid \hat{H} \mid \psi_j \rangle,$$ where the states $\{ \psi_1, \psi_2, \cdots , \psi_n \}$ form a orthonormal set $$\langle \psi_i \mid \psi_j \rangle = \delta_{ij}.$$ A good choice of the set is essential to obtain accurate eigenvalues using the presently available computer resources.
In the Lanczos method, one begins with an orthogonal set made from an initial state $\mid \Psi \rangle$, $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \mid \Psi \rangle, \hat{H} \mid \Psi \rangle, \hat{H}^2 \mid \Psi \rangle,
\cdots , \hat{H}^{n-1} \mid \Psi \rangle \},
\label{eq:setL}\end{aligned}$$ the value of $n$ being, empirically, of order $100$. Then the matrix elements are given by the expectation values $\langle \Psi \mid \hat{H}^{k} \mid \Psi \rangle$ where $k$ runs from 0 to $2n-1$. How the CPU time and the memory resources needed to calculate these expectation values increase with the system size $N$? To find an answer to this question we assume, for concreteness, that the number of components of each state vector grows as $p^N$ with some positive integer $p$ and that the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ is the sum of the partial Hamiltonians $\hat{h}_i $ $(i=1, \cdots , N)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{h}_i,
\label{eq:Hh}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{h_i}$ denotes interactions between the site $i$ and the site $i+1$. The CPU time to obtain the expectation values $\langle \Psi \mid H^k \mid \Psi \rangle$ would be of order $Nk$ provided that the time to calculate $\hat{h}_i \mid \phi \rangle$ is in the same order for any intermediate state $\mid \phi \rangle$. It should be noted that the CPU time increases not [*exponentially*]{} but [*linearly*]{} as $N$ increases. The number of the components, on the contrary, will rapidly increase as $(pN)^{k/2}$ if each $\hat{h}_i$ produces a new state. Since one needs to keep [*every*]{} component of the states in the evaluation, the exhaustion of the memory resources would prevent one to enlarge the system size $N$.
Now let us introduce our method. We would like to emphasize that this method needs much less memory resources compared with the Lanczos method and moderate, executable CPU time to obtain results on the eigenvalues and the eigenstates within acceptable numerical errors. Instead of the set (\[eq:setL\]) used in the Lanczos method we employ $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \hat O_0 \mid \Psi \rangle \equiv \mid \Psi \rangle ,
\hat O_1 \mid \Psi \rangle ,
\hat O_2 \mid \Psi \rangle \cdots , \hat O_{n-1} \mid \Psi \rangle \},
\label{eq:setO}\end{aligned}$$ where these statevectors should be linearly independent with each others and every operator $\hat O_i$ should have the same symmetry as the Hamiltonian $\hat H$ has—the translational invariance, the conservation of the total spin, the conservation of the particle number and so on—so that any state generated from $\hat O_i$ keeps the related quantum numbers. These requests are, however, too general to find out definite expressions of $\hat O_i$. Being strongly motivated by the success of the Lanczos method we additively demand that the expectation values $\langle \Psi \mid \hat H^k \mid \Psi \rangle $ can be, in principle, accurately evaluated with the set $ \{ \mid \Psi \rangle , \hat O_1 \mid \Psi \rangle ,
\hat O_2 \mid \Psi \rangle \cdots , \hat O_{n-1} \mid \Psi \rangle \}$. Thus we find a hint for a systematic choice of $\{ \hat O_i \}$ in the expression obtained using (\[eq:Hh\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Psi \mid \hat{H}^{k} \mid \Psi \rangle
=\sum_{i_1=1}^N \sum_{i_2=1}^N \cdots \sum_{i_k=1}^N
\langle \Psi \mid \hat h_{i_1} \hat h_{i_2} \cdots \hat h_{i_k}
\mid \Psi \rangle .
\label{eq:f1}\end{aligned}$$ Since the number of components one needs to calculate each $\langle \Psi \mid \hat h_{i_1} \hat h_{i_2} \cdots
\hat h_{i_k}\mid \Psi \rangle$ is of the order of $p^{k/2}$, it seems favorable for our purpose to select the operators $\{ \hat O_i \}$ from $\{ \hat h_{i_1} \hat h_{i_2} \cdots \hat h_{i_k} \}$. Although we can deal with, of course, only a small portion of the whole $\{ \hat h_{i_1} \hat h_{i_2} \cdots \hat h_{i_k} \}$ for systems of large sizes because the number of terms in the sum increases as $N^k$, we will see it is often the case that such $\{ \hat O_i \}$ is enough to obtain the satisfying results.
As for the initial state $\mid \Psi \rangle$, the symmetry of the state we want to study—the lowest energy state for example—is useful to determine it. It is desirable to choose a $\mid \Psi \rangle$ possessing the same quantum numbers as the state to be studied. The restructuring method[@munes] for re-arrangements of states is, in addition, quite helpful to get the $\mid \Psi \rangle$ which effectively reduces the CPU time in the calculation.
Once the operators $\{ \hat O_i \}$ and the initial state $\mid \Psi \rangle$ are determined for the system under consideration, the rest of the calculation is conventional. We calculate the Hamiltonian matrix $H_{Oij}$ $(i,j = 1, \cdots, n)$, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{Oij} \equiv \langle \Psi \mid \hat O_{i-1} \hat{H} \hat O_{j-1} \mid \Psi
\rangle .
\label{eq:f2}\end{aligned}$$ Then, employing the Gram-Schmidt method to create an orthonormal set\
$\{ \mid \psi_1 \rangle, \cdots , \mid ~ \psi_n \rangle \}$, we obtain the coefficients $t_{ki}$, $$\mid \psi_k \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^k \hat{O}_{i-1} \mid \Psi \rangle t_{ki},$$ which are utilized to calculate the effective Hamiltonian matrix $\overline{H}_{Oij}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{H}_{Oij} =
\sum_{i'=1}^n \sum_{j'=1}^n H_{Oi'j'}t_{ii'}t_{jj'} ,
\label{eq:f3}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{ki} \equiv 0$ for $i > k $. The resultant $\overline{H}_{Oij}$ can be easily diagonalized by means of the traditional numerical methods.
[**3 Spin system** ]{}
In this section we apply our method to a quantum spin system. We employ the one-dimensional frustrated system which has both the nearest-neighbor and the next-nearest-neighbor interactions, concentrating our attention to its ground state. The reasons why we adopt this system here are that its ground state is non-trivial and that the exact energy eigenvalues obtained by other methods are available for the system of small sizes.
The Hamiltonian we study is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} =
\sum_{i=1}^{N'} \vec{\sigma}_{a,i}\vec{\sigma}_{a,i+1}
+\sum_{i=1}^{N'} \vec{\sigma}_{b,i}\vec{\sigma}_{b,i+1}
+\sum_{i=1}^{N'} \vec{\sigma}_{a,i}\vec{\sigma}_{b,i}
+\sum_{i=1}^{N'} \vec{\sigma}_{b,i}\vec{\sigma}_{a,i+1},
\label{eq:Hs}\end{aligned}$$ where the suffix $a$ ($b$) denotes the odd (even) sites on a chain with $N \equiv 2N'$ spins and the periodic boundary condition $\vec{\sigma}_{a(b),N'+1} \equiv \vec{\sigma}_{a(b),1}$ is imposed.
First let us discuss on the initial state $\mid \Psi \rangle$. In conventional calculations each state of the system is represented by $\mid s_{a,1}, s_{b,1}, s_{a,2}, s_{b,2}, \cdots , s_{a,N'}, s_{b,N'} \rangle
$ with each $s_{a(b),i}= \pm$, which indicates that the $z$ component of the spin is $\pm 1/2$. In the restructuring method[@munes] we rearrange states $s_{a,i}$ and $s_{b,i}$ into a singlet state $ \mid \ominus_i \rangle $ and three triplet states $ \mid 1_i \rangle$, $\mid \oplus_i \rangle$ and $\mid -1_i \rangle$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mid \ominus _i\rangle & = & {1 \over \sqrt{2}} \left (
\mid +_{a,i},-_{b,i} \rangle - \mid -_{a,i},+_{b,i} \rangle \right ), \\
\nonumber
\mid 1_i \rangle & = & \mid +_{a,i}, +_{b,i} \rangle , \\
\nonumber
\mid \oplus _i \rangle & = & {1 \over \sqrt{2}} \left (
\mid +_{a,i},-_{b,i} \rangle + \mid -_{a,i},+_{b,i} \rangle \right ), \\
\mid -1_i \rangle & = & \mid -_{a,i}, -_{b,i} \rangle ,
\label{eq:Si}\end{aligned}$$ which we inclusively denote by $\mid S_i \rangle$. The complete set for the states of the system is now given by $\{ \mid S_1, S_2, \cdots , S_{N'} \rangle \}$. Since the spin-singlet state in this set is expressed by only one component we employ this as the initial state, $$\mid \Psi \rangle =\mid \ominus_1,\ominus_2, \cdots ,\ominus_{N'} \rangle,$$ so that we can largely reduce the CPU time needed in the calculation. It should be minded that the contamination of the states with momentum $\pi$ is an undesirable feature of this choice, because the ground state should have the zero momentum only. In spite of this fact, however, we will see we can obtain satisfying results with this $\mid \Psi \rangle$.
Next we construct the operators $\{ \hat O_i \}$ from $\hat H^k$. Taking the restructuring method into account, we resolve the Hamiltonian $\hat H$ into its components $\vec{\sigma}_{a,i}\vec{\sigma}_{b,i}$ and $\hat{h}_i \equiv \vec{\sigma}_{a,i}\vec{\sigma}_{a,i+1}
+\vec{\sigma}_{b,i}\vec{\sigma}_{b,i+1}
+\vec{\sigma}_{b,i}\vec{\sigma}_{a,i+1}$, $$\hat{H} = \sum_{i=1}^{N'} \vec{\sigma}_{a,i}\vec{\sigma}_{b,i}
+ \sum_{i=1}^{N'} \hat{h}_{i} .$$ Then in the expansion of $\hat H^k$ we direct our attention to the terms which are products of several $\hat{h}_{i}$’s with the suffix $i$ being in the whole range $1 \le i \le N'$. We combine those terms to express the candidates for $\{ \hat O_i \}$, which are described by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{O}(k_1, k_2, \cdots , k_{L}) \equiv
\sum_{i=1}^{N'}\hat{h}_{i+k_1} \hat{h}_{i+k_2} \cdots \hat{h}_{i+k_L}
\label{eq:Os}\end{aligned}$$ with some positive integer $L$, which we will call [*the order of the operator*]{} hereafter, and some positive integers $k_2$, $k_3$, $\cdots$, $k_L$. Here we keep $k_1 \equiv 0$.
Now we show the numerical results. First let us report that this method presents the exact eigenvalues for the system of small sizes up to $N=12$. For $N=8$ the set of the states $$\{ \mid \Psi \rangle , \hat{O}_1 \mid \Psi \rangle , \cdots ,
\hat{O}_5 \mid \Psi \rangle \}$$ with $$\mid \Psi \rangle = \mid \ominus_1,\ominus_2, \ominus_3,\ominus_4 \rangle ,$$ and $$\hat{O}_1=\hat{O}(0), \; \;
\hat{O}_2=\hat{O}(0,1), \; \;
\hat{O}_3=\hat{O}(0,2), \; \;
\hat{O}_4=\hat{O}(0,1,0), \; \;
\hat{O}_5=\hat{O}(0,1,2)$$ gives us the exact eigenvalues[^1].
When $N=12$ the exact eigenvalue is obtainable with 28 states selected in the similar way. Table 1 presents the list of the operators $\hat O_i$ in this case. In order to see, without using other methods, whether the calculated eigenvalue of $\hat H$ is exact, we need to calculate the corresponding eigenvalue of $\hat H^2$, too. If the latter value agrees with the square of the former, the result is exact. Table 2 shows that the differences between the two for the $N=12$ chain are negligible.
In the cases of larger sizes we have to do with approximate eigenvalues obtained from a limited number of the operators. To make a systematic selection of $\hat O_i $ from its candidates, we gradually increase the value of the order of the operator $L$ in Eq.(\[eq:Os\]). Suppose that we have already picked up the operators up to, say, $L \le L_0$. The next step of the procedure is to list up $ \hat{O}(k_1,k_2, \cdots ,k_{L_0+1}) $’s with possible values of $\{ k_2, k_3, \cdots, k_{L_0+1} \}$ ($k_1 \equiv 0$) and add each of them into the set of $\{ \hat O_i \}$ if it creates a new state, namely a state which is linearly independent of all the previously chosen $\hat O_i \mid \Psi \rangle$’s, when operated to the initial state $\mid \Psi \rangle$. The operators in Table 1 also have been generated by this way. Note that the whole procedure is carried out by a computer program so that any work by hand is not necessary here.
In Table 3 we show the approximate eigenvalues of the ground state energy in the case of $N$=48 for $L \le 5$, together with the exact one obtained by the Lanczos method[@dagetal]. We see the approximation is improved as we pick up more operators bearing the cost of the longer CPU time, which is mainly originated from the increasing number of the states. In other words, in order to investigate systems of larger sizes within the available CPU time we have to adopt less precise results. So the maximum size of the system is determined by arranging a compromise between these factors. The size $N$=48 is the largest one we study in this paper.
[**4 Boson system** ]{}
Now let us turn our attention to boson systems with the invariant boson number $N_b$. We consider the one-dimensional system with $N$ sites, whose Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} = -t \sum_{i=1}^{N} ( \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{i+1}\hat{a}_i
+ \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{i} \hat{a}_{i+1} ) +
\lambda \sum_{i=1}^{N} ( \hat{a}^{\dagger}_i \hat{a}_i )^2,
\label{eq:Hb}\end{aligned}$$ $ \hat{a}_i(\hat{a}^{\dagger}_i)$ being an annihilation (a creation) operator on the site $i$, with the periodic boundary condition $\hat a^{(\dagger)}_{N+1} \equiv \hat a^{(\dagger)}_1$. In the numerical work we take $t \equiv 1$, while $\lambda = 4$ unless stated otherwise.
Limiting ourselves to the case $N_b=N$ we employ a translational invariant state $\mid 1, 1, \cdots, 1 \rangle$, where each site of the chain has one boson on it, as the initial state $\mid \Psi \rangle$. Note that we expect this is a good choice for large values of the coupling $\lambda$ since the state is the exact ground state in the strong coupling limit $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$.
As for the operators $\{ \hat O_i \}$, we follow the same procedure as previously stated in Section 3 to select them from the candidates $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{O}(k_1,k_2, \cdots ,k_{L}) \equiv
\sum_{i=1}^{N}\hat{g}_{i+k_1}
\hat{g}_{i+k_2} \cdots \hat{g}_{i+k_L},
\label{eq:Ob}\end{aligned}$$ where we use the notation $\hat g_{i} \equiv \hat{a}^{\dagger}_i
\hat{a}_{i+1} +\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{i+1} \hat{a}_i$. The reason why we do not include the diagonal terms of the Hamiltonian in $\hat g_{i}$ is that more of the inner products $\langle \Psi \mid \hat O_i \hat O_j \mid \Psi \rangle$ will become zero without the diagonal terms.
Figs. 1 and 2 present the results on the system’s ground state energy. In Fig. 1 we plot the errors in our calculations for the $N=8$ system, which is small enough to obtain the exact value using the Lanczos method, as a function of the coupling $\lambda$. The results indicate that our method works well in a wide range of the parameter space. Especially in the strong coupling region we see the agreement is excellent, which confirms our expectation that the initial state we employed is good there. Fig. 2 shows our results on chains up to $N = 32$, together with the exact values for $N \le 10$. The discrepancy between the “exact” value, which we guess from the exact values obtained on the short chains, and our result is about $0.5\%$ $(1\%)$ for $N=16$ $(32)$, respectively. These errors could be lessened by including the higher-order operators with $L \ge 5$.
[**5 Fermion system** ]{}
This section is devoted to the study of two fermion systems, the standard Hubbard model and the extended Hubbard model which has been extensively studied by the authors using a quantum Monte Carlo method[@ehm]. Here we limit ourselves only to the ground state of the half-filled system. We will show our method nicely works for these systems, too.
The Hamiltonian of the extended Hubbard model we study is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hat{H} = -t_c
\sum_{\sigma} \sum_{l} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r}
[c^\dagger_{i,l,\sigma}c_{i+1,l,\sigma} + h.c.]
-t_r \sum_{\sigma} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r}
[c^\dagger_{i,a,\sigma}c_{i,b,\sigma} + h.c.] \\
+V_c
\sum_{\sigma, \sigma'} \sum_{l} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r-1}
n_{i,l,\sigma}n_{i+1,l,\sigma'}
+V_r \sum_{\sigma, \sigma'} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r}
n_{i,a,\sigma}n_{i,b,\sigma'}
+U \sum_{l} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r}
n_{i,l,\uparrow}n_{i,l,\downarrow},
\label{eq:Hf}\end{aligned}$$ where $c^{(\dagger)}_{i,l,\sigma}$ denotes the annihilation (creation) operator for an electron, whose spin being $\sigma$ ($\uparrow$ or $\downarrow$), located on the $i$-th rung along the leg $l$ ($a$ or $b$) of a ladder which has $N_r$ rungs in total and $n$ is the number operator $n_{i,l,\sigma} \equiv c^\dagger_{i,l,\sigma}c_{i,l,\sigma}$. We assume the periodic boundary conditions $c^{(\dagger)}_{N_r+1,l,\sigma} \equiv c^{(\dagger)}_{1,l,\sigma}$. The standard Hubbard model is described by setting parameters $V_r = V_c = 0$.
In the calculation we employ the restructuring method. We use a complete set $\{ \mid \alpha \rangle \}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\mid \alpha \rangle = \mid S_1, S_2, \cdots , S_{N_r} \rangle ,
\label{eq:cpls}\end{aligned}$$ with sixteen states in Table 4 to denote the state $S_i$ on the $i$-th rung[^2]. It should be noted that the states in the table are eigenstates for the interaction terms between two sites on the $i$-th rung, namely eigenstates for $$-t_r \sum_\sigma [c^\dagger_{i,a,\sigma}c_{i,b,\sigma} + h.c.]
+V_r \sum_{\sigma, \sigma'} n_{i,a,\sigma}n_{i,b,\sigma'}
+U \sum_l n_{i,l,\uparrow}n_{i,l,\downarrow} .$$
The operator $\hat O_i$ is the product of $$\hat{f}_{i} \equiv -t_c \sum_{\sigma} \sum_{l}
[c^{\dagger}_{i,l,\sigma} c_{i+1,l,\sigma} + h.c.]
+V_c \sum_{\sigma, \sigma'} \sum_{l}
n_{i,l,\sigma}n_{i+1,l,\sigma'} ,$$ which comes from the interaction terms along the chains, selected from the candidates $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{O}(k_1,k_2, \cdots ,k_{L}) \equiv
\sum_{i=1}^{N}\hat{f}_{i+k_1}
\hat{f}_{i+k_{2}} \cdots \hat{f}_{i+k_{L}}.
\label{eq:Of}\end{aligned}$$
First let us report the results for the standard Hubbard model. In this case we choose as an initial state $\mid \Psi \rangle$ a translational invariant state whose all $S_i$ are No. 9 in Table 4. We plot the results on the ground state energy per site in Fig. 3 as a function of the maximum value of $L$, $L_{max}$, for several values of $N (= 2N_r)$ up to 28. Here the values of the active parameters in (\[eq:Hf\]) are set to be $t_c = 1$, $t_r =2$ and $U = 4$, respectively. We see that the values in Fig. 3 nicely converge into a value around $-1.269$. We would like to emphasize that this value is compatible with our newly calculated quantum Monte Carlo result for the same Hamiltonian with the different boundary conditions. Although we have to accept the poor statistical accuracy for the almost half-filled[^3] standard Hubbard model because of the negative-sign problem, we obtain the value $-1.26 \pm 0.02$ at the inverse temperature $\beta = 10$ on an $N=32$ ladder with the open boundary conditions.
Next we show the results on the extended Hubbard model with parameters $t_c = 1$, $t_r =2$, $V_c = 2$, $V_r =-4$ and $U = 4$ in (\[eq:Hf\]). In our previous quantum Monte Carlo study[@ehm] it turned out that the negative-sign problem is not serious for these values of the parameters in a wide range of the chemical potential and that the system indicates a signal to the phase separation. Since we have learned from this study that the ground state near the half-filled system is abundant in both the hole pairs on the rungs and the doubly occupied sites, we choose the initial state in which the state on each rung $i$ is No. 1 (No. 16) in Table 4 for even (odd) $i$. In Fig. 4 we plot the results for the ground state energy per site on the even $N_r$ ladders obtained with such initial states. They also show nice convergence and are close to the exact value $-2.202$ on the $N = 8 $ ladder with the periodic boundary conditions. The quantum Monte Carlo result for the mostly half-filled case of the model is $-2.234 \pm 0.007$ (statistical error only) with $\beta = 5$ and $N = 16$ under the open boundary conditions.
[**6 Summary and Discussion**]{}
In this paper we showed an attempt to calculate eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian in various quantum systems of large sizes. In the calculation we start from a trial wavefunction, which we should choose carefully taking account of the symmetry of the state to be studied. Then we make a set of states by repeatedly applying some operators $\{ \hat{O}_i \}$ to the trial wavefunction. Our basic idea is to determine each $\hat{O}_i$ systematically using several terms in the Hamiltonian of the system under consideration. Then we select a limited number of states to construct an effective matrix of the Hamiltonian, whose eigenvalues are easily obtained by the conventional diagonalization methods. In our calculation restrictions from the memory resources of computers are relaxed, while the available CPU time sets bounds to the obtainable accuracy and the reachable maximum system size. As concrete examples we demonstrate the results for low-dimensional spin, boson and fermion systems. We find the method works satisfactorily for all cases we studied.
In order to pursue further precise numerical results or to apply our method to larger systems including higher-dimensional ones, however, we need to achieve some more improvements. One of them concerns with the size of the effective Hamiltonian matrix. Since we select states from $H^k \mid \Psi \rangle $, the number of the candidate states rapidly increases as either the power $k$ or the size of the system becomes large. For the purposes stated above, therefore, we would be obliged to construct the larger effective Hamiltonian matrices for which serious restrictions again would come from the available memory resources. So we should develop an effective method to treat large size matrices. Another problem is that, because of the rapidly increasing CPU time, it is difficult to increase the order of the operators beyond the values we have used here. A possible breakthrough for it would be to develop techniques to predict which of the states are linearly dependent.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}
We would like to thank Prof. Nishimori for his programs on the diagonalization.
[99]{}
E. Dagotto: Rev. of Mod. Phys. Vol. 66 (1994) 763.\
E. Dagotto and A. Moreo: Phys. Rev. [**D21**]{} (1985) 865.\
E. S. Heeb and T. M. Rice: Z. Phys. [**B90**]{} (1993) 73.\
E. Gaglino, E. Dagotto, A. Moreo and F. Alcaraz: Phys. Rev. [**B34**]{} (1986) 1677.\
H. Nishimori and H. Nakanishi: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**57**]{} (1990) 4454.
N. Hatano and M. Suzuki: [*Quantum Monte Carlo Methods in Condensed Matter Physics*]{}, ed. M. Suzuki (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993) p.13.
S. R. White: Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 2863;\
Phys. Rev. [**B48**]{} (1993) 10345.
T. Munehisa and Y. Munehisa: Phys. Rev. [**B49**]{} (1994) 3347;\
Prog. Theor. Phys. [**92**]{} (1994) 309;\
Prog. Theor. Phys. [**93**]{} (1995) 251;\
Prog. Theor. Phys. [**96**]{} (1996) 59.
T. Munehisa and Y. Munehisa: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{} (1997) 3876.
No. Order $k_1$ $k_2$ $k_3$ $k_4$ $k_5$ No. Order $k_1$ $k_2$ $k_3$ $k_4$ $k_5$
----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
1 0 — — — — — 15 4 0 1 0 5 —
2 1 0 — — — — 16 4 0 1 2 1 —
3 2 0 1 — — — 17 4 0 1 2 3 —
4 2 0 2 — — — 18 4 0 1 2 4 —
5 2 0 3 — — — 19 4 0 1 3 2 —
6 3 0 1 0 — — 20 4 0 1 3 4 —
7 3 0 1 2 — — 21 4 0 2 1 4 —
8 3 0 1 3 — — 22 5 0 1 0 2 3
9 3 0 1 4 — — 23 5 0 1 0 2 4
10 3 0 2 1 — — 24 5 0 1 0 3 2
11 3 0 2 4 — — 25 5 0 1 0 3 4
12 4 0 1 0 2 — 26 5 0 1 2 1 4
13 4 0 1 0 3 — 27 5 0 1 2 3 4
14 4 0 1 0 4 — 28 5 0 2 1 4 3
: Operators $\hat O (k_1, k_2, \cdots, k_L)$’s needed for the spin system on the $N=12$ chain. See (9) for the definition of the operator.
No. $\hat{H}$ $\hat{H}^2$ Diff. No. $\hat{H}$ $\hat{H}^2$ Diff.
----- ----------- ------------- ------------- ----- ------------ ------------- -------------
1 $-$23.585 556.24 0.37064E-07 15 $-$7.0086 49.121 0.82701E-08
2 $-$22.901 524.44 0.37073E-07 16 $-$6.9468 48.258 0.25527E-07
3 $-$18.409 338.90 0.46285E-07 17 $-$4.2793 18.313 0.15361E-07
4 $-$17.271 298.29 0.27047E-07 18 $-$4.0000 16.000 0.10467E-07
5 $-$15.904 252.93 0.82821E-09 19 $-$3.4452 11.869 0.41185E-08
6 $-$13.904 193.31 0.29984E-07 20 $-$1.5279 2.3344 0.98762E-10
7 $-$13.411 179.85 0.44405E-07 21 $-$1.2330 1.5204 0.10958E-08
8 $-$12.000 144.00 0.26574E-07 22 $-$0.69308 0.48036 0.13380E-08
9 $-$11.446 131.00 0.42669E-07 23 0.47600 0.22658 0.14751E-08
10 $-$11.266 126.92 0.33501E-08 24 3.3595 11.286 0.52512E-08
11 $-$10.472 109.67 0.22215E-07 25 4.8753 23.768 0.89002E-08
12 $-$10.065 101.29 0.31402E-09 26 5.9206 35.054 0.53468E-09
13 $-$8.0485 64.778 0.26372E-07 27 10.167 103.37 0.16889E-07
14 $-$7.6605 58.684 0.26150E-07 28 16.676 278.10 0.32337E-07
: Eigenvalues obtained in our calculations for the $N=12$ chain. Here the operators of the order $L\leq 5$ are used. The column of $\hat{H}$ shows the eigenvalues of the truncated Hamiltonian matrix, while those from the Hamiltonian squared are shown in the column of $\hat{H}^2$. The third value is the difference between the second value and the square of the first one.
Size Maximum order Num. of state E E(exact)
------ --------------- --------------- ------------ ------------
16 4 37 $-$1.935 $-$1.94010
20 4 59 $-$1.928 $-$1.93565
24 4 92 $-$1.920 —
28 4 134 $-$1.911 —
32 4 191 $-$1.902 —
36 4 263 $-$1.892 —
40 4 352 $-$1.883 —
44 4 460 $-$1.874 —
48 4 591 $-$1.865 —
12 5 28 $-$1.96538 $-$1.96538
16 5 78 $-$1.9040 $-$1.94010
: Eigenvalues of the ground state for the truncated Hamiltonian matrix up to $N \le 48$. The second column (Maximum order) indicates the maximum value of $L$.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ No. $ state
--------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
$1$ $\mid 00 \rangle $
$2$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
+c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow})\mid 00 \rangle $
$3$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
-c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow})\mid 00 \rangle $
$4$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
+c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})\mid 00 \rangle $
$5$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
-c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})\mid 00 \rangle $
$6$ $c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow}\mid 00 \rangle $
$7$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}
+c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow}) \mid 00 \rangle $
$8$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
- c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}) \mid 00 \rangle $
$9$ $[u_1 (c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}
-c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow})
+u_2 (c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
+ c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})]
\mid 00 \rangle $
$10$ $[u_2 (c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}
-c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow})
-u_1 (c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
+ c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})]
\mid 00 \rangle $
$11$ $c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}\mid 00 \rangle $
$12$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow}
+c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})
\mid 00 \rangle $
$13$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow}
-c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})
\mid 00 \rangle $
$14$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}
+c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})
\mid 00 \rangle $
$15$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}
-c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow})
\mid 00 \rangle $
$16$ $ c^\dagger_{i,a,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,a,\downarrow}
c^\dagger_{i,b,\uparrow} c^\dagger_{i,b,\downarrow}
\mid 00 \rangle $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: States on two sites of the $i$-th rung used to construct a complete set. $\mid 00 \rangle$ represents a state with no electrons on either site of the rung. Parameters $u_1$ and $u_2$ are functions of $t_r$, $V_r$ and $U$ defined in Section 5.
=0.65
=0.65
=0.65
=0.65
[^1]: Note that the number of the states necessary for the set also strongly depends on the system’s property. For the quantum spin system on a ladder where there are no cross terms $ \vec{\sigma}_{b,i}\vec{\sigma}_{a,i+1}$, for instance, three states are enough to obtain the exact eigenvalue.
[^2]: Parameters $u_1$ and $u_2$ in Table 4 are functions of $t_r$, $V_r$ and $U$ given by $u_1 \equiv \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{1+ \frac{U-V_r}{\sqrt{(U-V_r)^2+16t_r^2}}}$ and $u_2 \equiv \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{1- \frac{U-V_r}{\sqrt{(U-V_r)^2+16t_r^2}}}$.
[^3]: In the Monte Carlo study the number of the fermions can slightly fluctuate according to the given value of the chemical potential.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop a method for predicting the performance of reinforcement learning and bandit algorithms, given historical data that may have been generated by a different algorithm. Our estimator has the property that its prediction converges in probability to the true performance of a counterfactual algorithm at the fast $\sqrt{N}$ rate, as the sample size $N$ increases. We also show a correct way to estimate the variance of our prediction, thus allowing the analyst to quantify the uncertainty in the prediction. These properties hold even when the analyst does not know which among a large number of potentially important state variables are really important. These theoretical guarantees make our estimator safe to use. We finally apply it to improve advertisement design by a major advertisement company. We find that our method produces smaller mean squared errors than state-of-the-art methods.'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Interactive reinforcement learning (RL) and bandit systems (e.g. personalized education and medicine, ad/news/recommendation/search platforms) produce log data valuable for evaluating and redesigning the systems. For example, the logs of a news recommendation system record which news article was presented and whether the user read it, giving the system designer a chance to make its recommendation more relevant.
Exploiting log data is, however, more difficult than conventional supervised machine learning: the result of each log is only observed for the action chosen by the system (e.g. the presented news) but not for all the other actions the system could have taken. Moreover, the log entries are biased in that the logs over-represent actions favored by the system.
A potential solution to this problem is an A/B test that compares the performance of counterfactual systems. However, A/B testing counterfactual systems is often technically or managerially infeasible, since deploying a new policy is time- and money-consuming, and entails a risk of failure.
This leads us to the problem of *counterfactual (off-policy, offline) evaluation and learning*, where one aims to use batch data collected by a logging policy to estimate the value of a counterfactual policy or algorithm without employing it. Such evaluation allows us to compare the performance of counterfactual policies to decide which policy should be deployed in the field. This alternative approach thus solves the above problem with the naive A/B test approach. Key prior studies include @li2010contextual [@Strehl2010; @li2011unbiased; @Li2012; @Swaminathan2015; @Swaminathan2015b; @wang2016optimal; @swaminathan2017off; @Dimakopoulou2017; @narita2018efficient] for bandit algorithms, and @precup2000eligibility [@precup2001temporal; @bottou2013counterfactual; @thomas2015confidence; @Jiang16; @munos2016safe; @Thomas16; @gu2017interpolated; @liu2018representation; @Farajtabar2018MoreRD; @hanna2018importance; @Irpan2019OffPolicyEV; @kallus2019intrinsically] for RL algorithms.
**Method.** For off-policy evaluation with log data of RL feedback, this paper develops and empirically implements a novel technique with desirable theoretical properties. To do so, we consider a class of RL algorithms, including contextual bandit algorithms as important special cases. This class includes most of the widely-used algorithms such as (deep) Q-learning, Actor Critique, contextual $\epsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling, as well as their non-contextual analogs and random A/B testing. We allow the logging policy to be an unknown function of numerous potentially important state variables. This feature is salient in real-world applications. We also allow the evaluation target policy to be degenerate, again a key feature of real-life situations.
{width="15cm"}
*Notes*: This figure shows root mean squared error of the predicted CTRs of the evaluation policy compared to its actual CTR. Root mean squared error is normalized by the actual CTRs for confidentiality reasons. We obtain these estimates by the inverse probability weighting estimator, Doubly Robust estimator, and Double Machine Learning estimator (our proposal) using the true logging policy (propensity score) or estimated one. These objects are defined and analyzed in Section 3. Bars indicate 95% confidence intervals based on our asymptotic variance estimators.
We consider an offline estimator for the expected reward from a counterfactual policy. Our estimator integrates a well-known doubly robust (DR) estimator (@rotnitzky1995semiparametric and modern studies cited above) with “double/debiased machine learning" developed in econometrics and statistics [@Chernozhukov2018; @Chernozhukov2018LR]. Building upon these prior studies, we show the following result:
> **Theoretical Result.** Our estimator is “$\sqrt{N}$-consistent” in the sense that its prediction converges in probability to the true performance of a counterfactual policy at the $\sqrt{N}$ rate as the sample size $N$ increases. Our estimator is also “asymptotically normal." We provide a consistent estimator of its asymptotic variance, thus allowing for measuring statistical uncertainty in our prediction.
For many special cases, including all contextual bandit algorithms, our estimator is shown to have lowest variance in a wide class of estimators, achieving variance reduction relative to standard estimators. These theoretical properties suggest that our estimator is safe to use. In contrast, existing estimators lack or have not been shown to have these theoretical guarantees.
**Application.** We empirically apply our estimator to evaluate and optimize the design of online advertisement formats. Our application is based on proprietary data provided by CyberAgent Inc., the second largest Japanese advertisement company with about 5 billion USD market capitalization (as of February 2020). This company uses randomly chosen bandit algorithms to determine the visual design of advertisements assigned to users. This A/B test of randomly choosing an algorithm produces logged data and the ground truth for the performance of alternative algorithms.
We use this data to examine the performance of our proposed method. Specifically, we use the log data from an algorithm to predict the the click through rates (CTR) of another algorithm, and then assess the accuracy of our prediction by comparing it with the ground truth. This exercise shows the following:
> **Empirical Result.** Our estimator produces smaller mean squared errors than widely-used benchmark methods in the spirit of @Jiang16 and @Thomas16.
This result is reported in Figure \[fig:result2\], where the mean squared errors using our estimator (Double Machine Learning; colored red) are lower than others using existing estimators (Inverse Probability Weighting or Doubly Robust). This improvement is statistically significant at the 5% level. Importantly, this result holds regardless of whether we know the data-generating logging policy or not; these two scenarios correspond to the figure’s two panels, respectively. This finding shows that our estimator can substantially reduce bias and uncertainty we face in real-world decision-making.
This improved performance motivates us to use our estimator to optimize the advertisement design for maximizing the CTR. We estimate how much the CTR would be improved by a counterfactual policy of choosing the best action (advertisement) for each context (user characteristics). This exercise produces the following bottomline: Our estimator predicts the hypothetical policy to statistically significantly improve the CTR by 30% (compared to the logging policy) in one of the three campaigns we analyze. Our approach thus generates valuable managerial conclusions.
Setup
=====
Data Generating Process
-----------------------
We consider historical data of trajectories that follow a Markov Decision Process (MDP) as a mathematical description of RL and bandit algorithms. Specifically, we closely follow the setups of @Jiang16, @Thomas16 and @Farajtabar2018MoreRD.
An MDP is given by ${\cal M}=\langle {\cal S},{\cal A},P_{S_0},P_S,P_R\rangle$, where $\cal{S}$ is the state space, $\cal{A}$ is the action space, $P_{S_0}: {\cal S}\rightarrow [0,1]$ is the initial state distribution, $P_S: {\cal S}\times {\cal A}\rightarrow \Delta({\cal S})$ is the transition function with $P_S(s'|s,a)$ being the probability of seeing state $s'$ after taking action $a$ given state $s$, and $P_R:{\cal S}\times {\cal A}\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow [0,1]$ be the conditional distribution of the immediate reward with $P_R(\cdot|s,a)$ being the immediate reward distribution conditional on the state and action being $(s,a)$. Given $P_R$, we define the mean reward function $\mu:{\cal S}\times {\cal A}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as $\mu(s,a)=\int r dP_R(r|s,a)$, and define the reward variance function $\sigma_R^2:{\cal S}\times {\cal A}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ as $\sigma^2_R(s,a)=\int (r-\mu(s,a))^2dP_R(r|s,a)$. For simplicity, we assume that the state space ${\cal S}$ and the action space ${\cal A}$ are finite.
We call a function $\pi: {\cal S}\rightarrow \Delta({\cal A})$ a [*policy*]{}, which assigns each state $s\in {\cal S}$ a distribution over actions, where $\pi(a|s)$ is the probability of taking action $a$ when the state is $s$. Let $H=(S_0,A_0,R_0,...,S_T,A_T,R_T)$ be a [*trajectory*]{}, where $S_t$, $A_t$ and $R_t$ are the state, the action, and the reward in step $t$, respectively, and $T$ is the number of steps. We say that a trajectory $H$ is generated by a policy $\pi$, or $H\sim \pi$ in short if $H$ is generated by the following process:
- The initial state $S_0$ is drawn from the initial distribution $P_{S_0}$. Given $S_0$, the action $A_0$ is randomly chosen based on $\pi(\cdot|S_0)$. The reward $R_0$ is drawn from the conditional reward distribution $P_R(\cdot|S_0,A_0)$.
- For $t=1,...,T$, the state $S_t$ is determined based on the transition function $P_S(\cdot|S_{t-1},A_{t-1})$. Given $S_t$, the action $A_t$ is randomly chosen based on $\pi(\cdot|S_t)$. The reward $R_t$ is drawn from the conditional reward distribution $P_R(\cdot|S_t,A_t)$.
Suppose that we observe [*historical data*]{} $\{H_i\}_{i=1}^N$ where trajectories are independently generated by a fixed [*behavior policy*]{} $\pi_b$, i.e., $H_i\sim \pi_b$ independently across $i$. The historical data is a collection of iid trajectories. Importantly, we allow the components of the data generating process ${\cal M}$ and $\pi_b$ to vary with the sample size $N$. Specifically, let ${\cal M}_N$ and $\pi_{bN}$ be the MDP and the behavior policy, respectively, when the sample size is $N$, and let $\mathbb{P}_N$ denote the resulting probability distribution of $H_i$. $\mathbb{P}_N$ is allowed to vary with $N$ in a way that the functions $P_{S_0N}$, $P_{RN}$ and $\pi_{bN}$ are high dimensional relative to sample size $N$ even when $N$ is large. In some RL problems, for example, there are a large number of possible states. To capture the feature that the number of states $|{\cal S}_N|$ is potentially large relative to sample size $N$, we may consider a sequence of $\mathbb{P}_N$ such that $|{\cal S}_N|$ is increasing with $N$. For the sake of notational simplicity, we make implicit the dependence of ${\cal M}$ and $\pi_{b}$ on $N$.
We assume that we know the state space ${\cal S}$ and the action space ${\cal A}$ but know none of the functions $P_{S_0}$, $P_S$ and $P_R$. In some environments, we know the function $\pi_b$ or observe the probability vector $(\pi_b(a|S_{it}))_{a\in {\cal A}, t=1,...,T}$ for every trajectory $i$ in the historical data. Our approach is usable regardless of the availability of such knowledge on the behavior policy.
Examples
--------
This data generating process allows for many popular RL and bandit algorithms, as the following examples illustrate.
\[ex:deepQ\] In each round $t$, given state $s_t$, a Q Learning algorithm picks the best action based on the estimated Q-value of each actions, $Q(s, a)$, which estimates the expected cumulative reward from taking action $a$ (following the state and the policy). Choice probabilities can be determined with an $\epsilon$-Greedy or soft-max rule, for instance. In the case where the soft-max rule is employed, the probability of taking each action is as follows: $$\pi(a|s_t) = \frac{ \exp ( Q(s_t,a)) }{\sum_{a' \in A} \exp ( Q(s_t,a')) }.$$ Deep Q Learning algorithms estimate Q-value functions through deep learning methods.
\[ex:AC\] An Actor Critic is a hybrid method of value-based approach such as Q-learning and policy-based method such as REINFORCE. This algorithm has two components called Actor and Critic. Critic estimates the value function and Actor updates the policy using the value of Critic. In each round t, we pick the best action according to the value of Actor with some probability. As in Deep $Q$ Learning algorithms, we can use $\epsilon$-Greedy and soft-max for determining an action.
Contextual bandit algorithms are also important examples. When $T=0$, a trajectory takes the form of $H=(S_0,A_0,R_0)$. Regarding $S_0$ as a context, it is possible to consider $\{H_i\}_{i=1}^N$ as batch data generated by a contextual bandit algorithm. In additional examples below, the algorithms use past data to estimate the mean reward function $\mu$ and the reward variance function $\sigma^2_R$. Let $\hat\mu$ and $\hat \sigma^2_R$ denote any given estimators of $\mu$ and $\sigma^2_R$, respectively.
\[ex:e-greedy\] When the context is $s_0$, we choose the best action based on $\hat \mu(s_0,a)$ with probability $1-\epsilon$ and choose an action uniformly at random with probability $\epsilon$: $$\pi(a|s_0)= \begin{cases}
1-\epsilon + \frac{\epsilon}{|{\cal A}|}& \ \ \ \text{if $a={\mathop{\rm argmax}\limits}_{a'\in {\cal A}}\hat \mu(s_0,a')$}\\
\frac{\epsilon}{|{\cal A}|} & \ \ \ \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
\[ex:Thompson\] When the context is $s_0$, we sample the potential reward $r_0(a)$ from the normal distribution $N(\hat \mu(s_0,a),\hat \sigma^2_R(s_0,a))$ for each action, and choose the action with the highest sampled potential reward, ${\mathop{\rm argmax}\limits}_{a'\in {\cal A}}r_0(a')$. As a result, this algorithm chooses actions with the following probabilities: $$\pi(a|s_0) = \Pr\{a={\mathop{\rm argmax}\limits}_{a'\in {\cal A}}r_0(a')\},$$ where $(r_0(a))_{a\in{\cal A}}\sim N(\hat \mu(s_0),\hat \Sigma(s_0))$, $\hat \mu(s_0)=(\hat \mu(s_0,a))_{a\in{\cal A}}$, and $\hat \Sigma(s_0)$ is the diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are $(\sigma^2_R(s_0,a))_{a\in{\cal A}}$.
Prediction Target
-----------------
With the historical data $\{H_i\}_{i=1}^N$, we are interested in estimating the discounted value of the [*evaluation policy*]{} $\pi_e$, which might be different from $\pi_b$: $$V^{\pi_e}\coloneqq\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t R_t],$$ where $\gamma\in [0,1]$ is the discount factor.
Estimator and Its Properties {#section:estimation}
============================
The estimation of $V^{\pi_e}$ involves estimation of the behavior policy $\pi_b$ (if unknown), the transition function $P_S$, and the mean reward function $\mu$. These functions may be high dimensional and complex. To handle the issue, we use the double/debiased machine learning (DML) method developed by @Chernozhukov2018.
Before presenting our proposed estimator, we introduce some notations. $H_t^{s,a}=(S_0,A_0,...,S_t,A_t)$ is a trajectory of the state and action up to step $t$. $\rho_t^{\pi_e}: ({\cal S}\times {\cal A})^t\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ is an importance weight function with $$\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})\coloneqq \prod_{t'=0}^t \frac{\pi_e(A_{t'}|S_{t'})}{\pi_b(A_{t'}|S_{t'})}$$ being the probability of the first $t$ steps of $H$ under the evaluation policy $\pi_e$ divided by its probability under the behavior policy $\pi_b$. Viewing $\rho_t^{\pi_e}$ as a function of $\pi_b$, define $\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a};\tilde \pi_b)$ as the value of $\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})$ defined as above with the true behavior policy $\pi_b$ replaced with a candidate function $\tilde \pi_b$, i.e., $$\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a};\tilde \pi_b)\coloneqq \prod_{t'=0}^t\frac{\pi_e(A_{t'}|S_{t'})}{\tilde \pi_b(A_{t'}|S_{t'})}.$$ We can think of $\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a};\tilde \pi_b)$ as the estimated importance weight function when we use $\tilde \pi_b$ as the estimate of $\pi_b$. By definition, $\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a};\pi_b)=\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})$, where the left-hand side is $\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a};\tilde \pi_b)$ evaluated at the true $\pi_b$ and the right-hand side is the true importance weight function.
Finally, let $q_t^{\pi_e}:{\cal S}\times {\cal A}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be the action-value function under policy $\pi_e$ at step $t$, where $q_t^{\pi_e}(s,a)\coloneqq\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[\sum_{t'=t}^T\gamma^{t'-t}R_{t'}|S_t=s,A_t=a]$. Using the transition function $P_S$ and the mean reward function $\mu$, $q_t^{\pi_e}$ can be obtained recursively: let $$\begin{aligned}
q_T^{\pi_e}(s,a) &= \mu(s,a) \label{eq:Q_T}\end{aligned}$$ and for $t=0,...,T-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&q_t^{\pi_e}(s,a)\nonumber\\
=&\mu(s,a)+\gamma\sum_{(s',a')}P_S(s'|s,a)\pi_e(a'|s')q_{t+1}^{\pi_e}(s',a'). \label{eq:Q_t}\end{aligned}$$ Our estimator is based on the following expression of $V^{\pi_e}$ [@Thomas16]: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\pi_e}=&~\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\psi(H;\pi_b,\{q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)] \label{eq:value},\end{aligned}$$ where for any candidate tuple $\tilde \eta=(\tilde \pi_b,\{\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi(H;\tilde \eta)\\
=&~\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t \{\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_{t}^{s,a};\tilde \pi_b)(R_{t}-\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_{t},A_{t}))\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~+\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a};\tilde \pi_b)\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_{t})\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_{t},a)\},\end{aligned}$$ where we set $\rho_{-1}^{\pi_e}=0$. We construct our estimator as follows.
1. Take a $K$-fold random partition $(I_k)_{k=1}^K$ of trajectory indices $\{1,...,N\}$ such that the size of each fold $I_k$ is $n=N/K$. Also, for each $k=1,...,K$, define $I_k^c\coloneqq \{1,...,N\}\setminus I_k$.
2. For each $k=1,...,K$, construct estimators $\hat \pi_{b,k}$ (if $\pi_b$ is unknown), $\hat\mu_{k}$ and $\hat P_{S,k}$ of $\pi_b$, $\mu$ and $P_S$ using the subset of data $\{H_i\}_{i\in I_k^c}$. We then construct estimator $\{\hat q^{\pi_e}_{t,k}\}_{t=0}^T$ of $\{q^{\pi_e}_t\}_{t=0}^T$ by plugging $\hat\mu_{k}$ and $\hat P_{S,k}$ into the recursive formulation (\[eq:Q\_T\]) and (\[eq:Q\_t\]).
3. Given $\hat\eta_k=(\hat\pi_{b,k},\{\hat q_{t,k}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$, $k=1,...,K$, the DML estimator $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DML}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DML}}
=&\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_k}\psi(H_{i};\hat \eta_k)\\
=& \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_k}\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t \{\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_{it}^{s,a};\hat \pi_{b,k})(R_{it}-\\
&\hat q_{t,k}^{\pi_e}(S_{it},A_{it}))+\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{it-1}^{s,a};\hat \pi_{b,k})\\
&\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_{it})\hat q_{t,k}^{\pi_e}(S_{it},a)\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Possible estimation methods for $\pi_b$, $\mu$ and $P_S$ in Step 2 are (i) classical nonparametric methods such as kernel and series estimation, (ii) off-the-shelf machine learning methods such as random forests, lasso, neural nets, and boosted regression trees, and (iii) existing methods developed in the off-policy policy evaluation literature such as representation balancing MDPs [@liu2018representation]. These methods, especially (ii) and (iii), are usable even when the analyst does not know the relevant state variables and there are a large number of potentially important state variables. This DML estimator differs from the DR estimator developed by @Jiang16 and @Thomas16 in that we use the cross-fitting procedure, as explained next.
[**A. Cross-Fitting.**]{} The above method uses a sample-splitting procedure called [*cross-fitting*]{}, where we split the data into $K$ folds, take the sample analogue of (\[eq:value\]) using one of the folds ($I_k$) with $\pi_b$ and $\{ q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T$ estimated from the remaining folds ($I_k^c$) plugged in, and average the estimates over the $K$ folds to produce a single estimator. Cross-fitting has two advantages. First, if we used instead the whole sample both for estimating $\pi_b$ and $\{ q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T$ and for computing the final estimate of $V^{\pi_e}$ (the “full-data” variant of the DR estimator of @Thomas16), substantial bias might arise due to overfitting [@Chernozhukov2018; @newey2018crossfitting]. Cross-fitting removes the potential bias by making the estimate of $V^{\pi_e}$ independent of the estimates of $\pi_b$ and $\{ q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T$. Thanks to this, the DML estimator has properties such as $\sqrt{N}$-consistency and asymptotic normality under milder condtions than those necessary without sample splitting.
Second, a standard sample splitting procedure uses a half of the data to construct estimates of $\pi_b$ and $\{ q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T$ and the other half to compute the estimate of $V^{\pi_e}$ (the DR estimator of @Jiang16 and the “half-data” variant of the DR estimator of @Thomas16).[^1] In contrast, cross-fitting swaps the roles of the main fold ($I_k$) and the rest ($I_k^c$) so that all trajectories are used for the final estimate, which enables us to make efficient use of data.
[**B. Neyman Orthogonality.**]{} There is another key ingredient important for DML to have desirable properties. The DML estimator is constructed by plugging in the estimates of $\pi_b$ and $\{ q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T$, which may be severely biased due to regularization if they are estimated with machine learning methods. However, the DML estimator is expected to be robust to the bias, since $\psi$ satisfies the [*Neyman orthogonality*]{} condition [@Chernozhukov2018]. The condition requires that for any candidate tuple $\tilde \eta=(\tilde \pi_b,\{\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$, $$\left. \frac{\partial \mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\psi(H;\eta+r(\tilde \eta-\eta))]}{\partial r}\right|_{r=0}=0,$$ where $\eta=(\pi_b,\{q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$ is the tuple of the true functions (see the supplementary material for the proof that DML satisfies this). Intuitively, the Neyman orthogonality condition means that the right-hand side of (\[eq:value\]) is locally insensitive to the value of $\pi_b$ and $\{q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T$. As a result, plugging in noisy estimates of $\pi_b$ and $\{q_t^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T$ does not strongly affect the estimate of $V^{\pi_e}$.
In contrast, the well-known Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) estimator is based on the following expression of $V^{\pi_e}$: $V^{\pi_e}=\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\psi_{IPW}(H;\pi_b)]$, where for any candidate $\tilde \pi_b$, we define $\psi_{IPW}(H;\tilde \pi_b)=\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t \rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_{t}^{s,a};\tilde \pi_b)R_{t}$. The Neyman orthogonality condition does not hold for IPW: for some $\tilde \pi_b\neq \pi_b$, $$\left. \frac{\partial \mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\psi_{IPW}(H;\pi_b+r(\tilde \pi_b-\pi_b))]}{\partial r}\right|_{r=0}\neq0.$$ Therefore, IPW is not robust to bias in the estimate of $\pi_b$.
$\sqrt{N}$-consistency and Asymptotic Normality
-----------------------------------------------
Let $$\sigma^2 =\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[(\psi(H;\eta)-V^{\pi_e})^2]$$ be the variance of $\psi(H;\eta)$. To derive the properties of the DML estimator, we make the following assumption. Recall that $\mathbb{P}_N$, the probability distribution of $H_i$, is allowed to vary with the sample size $N$, and that any characteristics of the distribution may implicitly depend on $N$.
\[as:regularity\]
1. \[as:variance\] There exists a constant $c_0>0$ such that $c_0\le \sigma^2 <\infty$ for all $N$.
2. \[as:nuisance-est\]The estimator $\hat \eta_k=(\hat \pi_{b,k},\{\hat q_{t,k}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$ belongs to a set ${\cal T}_N$ with probability approaching one, where ${\cal T}_N$ contains the true $\eta=(\pi_b,\{q_{t}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$ and satisfies the following:
(i) \[as:moment\] There exist constants $q>2$ and $c_1>0$ such that $\sup_{\tilde \eta\in {\cal T}_N}(\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[(\psi(H;\tilde\eta)-V^{\pi_e})^q])^{1/q}\le c_1$ for all $N$.
(ii) \[as:dif\] $
\sup_{\tilde \eta\in {\cal T}_N}(\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[(\psi(H;\tilde \eta)-\psi(H;\eta))^2])^{1/2} = o(1).
$
(iii) \[as:second\_d\] $
\sup_{r\in(0,1),\tilde \eta\in {\cal T}_N} \left|\dfrac{\partial^2 \mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\psi(H;\eta+r(\tilde \eta-\eta))]}{\partial r^2}\right|\\=o(1/\sqrt{N}).
$
Assumption \[as:regularity\] \[as:variance\] assumes that the variance of $\psi(H;\eta)$ is nonzero and finite. Assumption \[as:regularity\] \[as:nuisance-est\] states that the estimator $(\hat \pi_{b,k},\{\hat q_{t,k}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$ belongs to the set ${\cal T}_N$, a shrinking neighborhood of the true $(\pi_b,\{q_{t}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$, with probability approaching one. It requires that $(\hat \pi_{b,k},\{\hat q_{t,k}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$ converge to $(\pi_b,\{q_{t}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$ at a sufficiently fast rate so that the three rate conditions in Assumption \[as:regularity\] \[as:nuisance-est\] are satisfied.
The following proposition establishes the $\sqrt{N}$-consistency and asymptotic normality of $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DML}}$ and provides a consistent estimator for the asymptotic variance.
\[prop:step-DR\] Suppose that Assumption \[as:regularity\] holds. Then, $$\sqrt{N}\sigma^{-1}(\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DML}}-V^{\pi_e})\rightsquigarrow N(0,1),$$ where the symbol $\rightsquigarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution. Moreover, let $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \sigma^2&=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_k}(\psi(H_i;\hat \eta_k)-\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DML}})^2\end{aligned}$$ be a sample analogue of $\sigma^2$. We then have $$\hat \sigma^2=\sigma^2 +o_p(1)$$ $$\sqrt{N}\hat \sigma^{-1}(\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DML}}-V^{\pi_e})\rightsquigarrow N(0,1).$$
The above convergence results hold under any sequence of probability distributions $\{\mathbb{P}_N\}_{N\ge 1}$ as long as Assumption \[as:regularity\] holds. Therefore, our approach is usable, for example, in the case where there are a growing number of possible states, that is, $|{\cal S}|$ is increasing with $N$.
A Special Case: Contextual Bandits
----------------------------------
Suppose that the algorithms are contextual bandits, as in Examples \[ex:e-greedy\] and \[ex:Thompson\]. When $T=0$, the DML estimator becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\hat V^{\pi_e}_{DML} =& \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_k} \{\frac{\pi_e(A_{i0}|S_{i0})}{\hat\pi_{b,k}(A_{i0}|S_{i0})} (R_{i0}-\hat\mu_k(S_{i0},A_{i0}))\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_{i0})\hat\mu_k(S_{i0},a)\},\end{aligned}$$ where $(\hat \pi_{b,k},\hat \mu_k)$ is the estimator of $(\pi_b,\mu)$ using the subset of data $\{H_i\}_{i\in I_k^c}$. This estimator is the same as the DR estimator of @Dudik2014 except that we use the cross fitting procedure. Proposition \[prop:step-DR\] has the following implication for the contextual bandit case.
Suppose that $T=0$ and that Assumption \[as:regularity\] holds. Then, $$\sqrt{N}\sigma^{-1}_{CB}(\hat V^{\pi_e}_{DML}-V^{\pi_e})\rightsquigarrow N(0,1),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_{CB}&=\mathbb{E}_{S_0\sim P_{S_0}}[\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\frac{\pi_e(a|S_0)^2}{\pi_b(a|S_0)}\sigma^2_R(S_0,a)\\
&~~~~~~+(\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_0)\mu(S_0,a)-V^{\pi_e})^2].
\end{aligned}$$
The variance expression coincides with the “semiparametric efficiency bound" obtained by @narita2018efficient, where the semiparametric efficiency bound is the smallest possible asymptotic variance among all consistent and asymptotically normal estimators. Hence $\hat V^\pi_{DML}$ is the lowest variance estimator at a given $\mathbb{P}_N=\mathbb{P}$.
Experiment
==========
{width="10cm"}
------------- ------------------- -------------------
Method relative-RMSE relative-RMSE
IPW 0.72531 (0.03077) 0.72907 (0.03061)
DR 0.65470 (0.02900) 0.65056 (0.02880)
DML 0.56623 (0.02952) 0.56196 (0.02922)
Sample size
------------- ------------------- -------------------
*Notes*: This table shows the relative root mean squared error of the predicted CTRs of the evaluation policy compared to its actual CTR. The standard errors of these root mean squared errors are in parentheses.
{width="12.5cm"}
*Notes*: This figure shows estimates of the expected CTRs of the logging policy and a counterfactual policy of choosing the best action for each context. Three panels correspond to three campaigns. CTRs are multiplied by a constant for confidentiality reasons. We obtain these estimates by our proposed estimator (the DML estimator using the estimated propensity scores). Bars indicate 95% confidence intervals based on our asymptotic variance estimators developed in Proposition \[prop:step-DR\].
We apply our estimator described in Section \[section:estimation\] to empirically evaluate the design of online advertisements. This application uses proprietary data provided by CyberAgent Inc., which we described in the introduction. This company uses bandit algorithms to determine the visual design of advertisements assigned to user impressions in a mobile game. Some examples of ad designs are shown in Figure \[fig:ads\_sample\].
Our data are logged data from a 7-days A/B test on several ad “campaigns," where each campaign randomly uses either a multi-armed bandit (MAB) algorithm or a contextual bandit (CB) algorithm for each user impression. Both of the two algorithms are updated every 6 hours. As the A/B test lasts for 7 days, there are 28 time periods in total. The MAB policy and CB policy stay constant across rounds within each time period.
In the notation of our theoretical framework, reward $R_0$ is a click while action $A_0$ is one of the possible individual advertisement designs. If the algorithm is a contextual bandit, context $S_0$ is user and ad characteristics used by the algorithm. Context $S_0$ is high dimensional and has tens of thousands of possible values.
We utilize this data to examine the performance of our proposed method. For each campaign and time period, we regard the MAB algorithm as the behavior policy $\pi_b$ and the CB algorithm as the evaluation policy $\pi_e$. We use the log data from user impressions assigned to the MAB algorithm to estimate the value of the CB policy by our method. We also compute the actual value of the CB policy using the log data from user impressions assigned to the CB algorithm. We then compare the predicted value with the actual one.
We consider the relative root mean squared error (relative-RMSE) as a performance metric. Let $C$ and $T$ denote the number of campaigns ($C=4$) and the number of time periods ($T=28$), respectively. Let $N_{c,t}$ denote the number of user impressions assigned to the CB algorithm for campaign $c$ in period $t$. Let $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$ and $\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$ be the estimated value and the actual value (the click rate) for campaign $c$ in period $t$. We define relative-RMSE as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&relative-RMSE \\
=&~ \sqrt{\frac{1}{\sum_{c=1}^C\sum_{t=1}^T N_{c,t}}\sum_{c=1}^C\sum_{t=1}^T N_{c,t}\left(\frac{\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}-\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}}{\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}}\right)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ As the actual click rate $\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$ varies across campaigns and time periods, we normalize the prediction error $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}-\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$ by dividing it by the actual value $\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$ to equally weight every campaign-time combination.
We calculate the standard error (statistical uncertainty) of relative-RMSE by a bootstrap-like procedure. This procedure is based on normal approximation of the distributions of $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$ and $\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$: for each $(c,t)$, $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}\sim N(V^{\pi_e}_{c,t},\frac{\hat \sigma^{2,ope}_{c,t}}{N^{ope}_{c,t}})$ and $\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}\sim N(V^{\pi_e}_{c,t},\frac{\hat \sigma^{2,online}_{c,t}}{N_{c,t}})$, where $V_{c,t}^{\pi_e}$ is the true value of policy $\pi_e$, $\hat \sigma^{2,ope}_{c,t}$ is the estimator for the asymptotic variance of $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$ given in Proposition \[prop:step-DR\], $N^{ope}_{c,t}$ is the number of impressions used to estimate $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}$, and $\hat \sigma^{2,online}_{c,t}=\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t}(1-\bar V^{\pi_e}_{c,t})$ is the sample variance of the click indicator among the impressions assigned to the CB algorithm.
The standard error is computed as follows. First, we compute $\hat\sigma^{2,ope}_{c,t}$ and $\hat\sigma^{2,online}_{c,t}$ for each $(c,t)$. Second, we draw $\hat V^{\pi_e,sim}_{c,t}$ and $\bar V^{\pi_e,sim}_{c,t}$ independently from $N(\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t},\frac{\hat \sigma^{2,ope}_{c,t}}{N^{ope}_{c,t}})$ and $N(\hat V^{\pi_e}_{c,t},\frac{\hat \sigma^{2,online}_{c,t}}{N_{c,t}})$ for every $(c,t)$, and calculate the relative-RMSE using the draws $\{(\hat V^{\pi_e,sim}_{c,t},\bar V^{\pi_e,sim}_{c,t})\}_{c=1,...,C, t=1,...,T}$. We then repeat the second step 100,000 times, and compute the standard deviation of the simulated relative-RMSEs.
We examine the performance of three off policy evaluators, Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW; @Strehl2010, [-@Strehl2010]), Doubly Robust (DR), and Double Machine Learning (DML; our proposal) with $2$-fold cross-fitting. IPW and DR are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm IPW}} =& \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{\pi_e(A_{i0}|S_{i0})}{\hat\pi_{b}(A_{i0}|S_{i0})} R_{i0},\\
\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DR}} =& \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \{\frac{\pi_e(A_{i0}|S_{i0})}{\hat\pi_{b}(A_{i0}|S_{i0})} (R_{i0}-\hat\mu(S_{i0},A_{i0})\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_{i0})\hat\mu(S_{i0},a)\},\end{aligned}$$ where $(\hat \pi_{b},\hat \mu)$ is the estimator of $(\pi_b,\mu)$ using the [*whole*]{} sample. $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm IPW}}$ does not satisfy the Neyman orthogonality nor use the cross-fitting. $\hat V^{\pi_e}_{{\rm DR}}$ satisfies the Neyman orthogonality but does not use the cross-fitting. As we formalize in the theory part, the DML estimator is expected to perform better than the other two estimators.
For both DR and DML, we use LightGBM [@ke2017lightgbm] as a reward estimator $\hat\mu$. For DR, we split the whole data into training and validation sets, train the reward model with the training set, and tune hyperparameters with the validation set. We then use the tuned model and the whole sample to obtain the reward estimator $\hat\mu$. For DML, we hold out a fold ($I_k$) and apply the same procedure to the rest of the data ($I_k^c$) to obtain the reward estimator $\hat\mu_k$. We repeat this for each of the $K(=2)$ folds.
For the propensity score, we use the true one or an estimated one. We compute the true propensity score by Monte Carlo simulation of the beta distribution used in Thompson Sampling the MAB algorithm uses. Our estimated propensity score is the empirical share of a selected arm in the log.
We present our key empirical result in Table \[ca-bandit-result\] and Figure \[fig:result2\]. Regardless of whether the true propensity score is available or not, DML outperforms IPW by more than 20 % and outperforms DR by more than 10 % in terms of relative-RMSE. These differences are statistically significant at 5% level. This result supports the value of our proposed estimator.
Finally, we use our proposed method to measure the performance of a new counterfactual policy of choosing the ad design predicted to maximize the CTR. We obtain the counterfactual policy by training a click prediction model with LightGBM on the data from $t = 1$ to $t = T-1$. In the training, we set the number of leaves to 20 and the learning rate to 0.01, and decide the number of boost rounds by cross-validation. We then use our estimator to predict its performance on the data where $t = T$. This final period $t=T$ contains three campaigns. The resulting off-policy evaluation results are reported in Figure \[table2\]. The results show that the counterfactual policy performs better than the existing algorithms in two of the three campaigns, with a statistically significant improvement in a campaign.
Conclusion
==========
This paper proposes a new off-policy evaluation method, by marrying the doubly robust estimator with double/debiased machine learning. Our estimator has two features. First, unlike the IPW estimator, it is robust to the bias in the estimates of the behavior policy and of the action-value function (Neyman orthogonality). Second, we use a sample-splitting procedure called cross-fitting. This removes overfitting bias that would arise without sample splitting but still makes full use of data, which makes our estimator better than DR estimators. Theoretically, we show that our estimator is $\sqrt{N}$-consistent and asymptotically normal with a consistent variance estimator, thus allowing for correct statistical inference. Our experiment shows that our estimator outperforms the standard DR and IPW estimators in terms of the root mean squared error. This result not only demonstrates the capability of our estimator to reduce prediction errors, but also suggests the more general possibility that the two features of our estimator (Neyman orthogonality and cross-fitting) may improve many variants of the DR estimator such as MAGIC [@Thomas16], SWITCH [@wang2016optimal] and MRDR [@Farajtabar2018MoreRD].
Appendices {#appendices .unnumbered}
==========
Lemmas {#lemma}
======
\[lemma:step-IS:R\] For $t=0,...,T$, $\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})R_t]=\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[R_t]$.
Let $P^{\pi}(h_t^{s,a})$ denote the probability of observing trajectory $h_t^{s,a}=(s_0,a_0,...,s_t,a_t)$ when $H\sim \pi$ for some policy $\pi$. Under our data generating process, $$P^{\pi}(h_0^{s,a})=P_{S_0}(s_0)\pi(a_0|s_0),$$ and for $t\ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
P^{\pi}(h_t^{s,a})=&P_{S_0}(s_0)\pi(a_0|s_0)P_S(s_1|s_0,a_0)\\
&\cdots P_S(s_t|s_{t-1},a_{t-1})\pi(a_t|s_t).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $P^{\pi_b}(h_t^{s,a})\rho_t^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})=P^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})$ for any $t=0,...,T$. We then have that $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})R_t]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[R_t|H_t^{s,a}]]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})\mu(S_t,A_t)]\\
=~&\sum_{h_{t}^{s,a}}P^{\pi_b}(h_t^{s,a})\rho_t^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})\mu(s_t,a_t)\\
=~&\sum_{h_{t}^{s,a}}P^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})\mu(s_t,a_t)\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[\mu(S_t,A_t)]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[R_t|H_t^{s,a}]]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[R_t],
\end{aligned}$$ where we use $\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[R_t|H_t^{s,a}]=\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[R_t|H_t^{s,a}]=\mu(S_t,A_t)$, and we use $P^{\pi_b}(h_t^{s,a})\rho_t^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})=P^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})$ for the fourth equality.
\[lemma:step-IS\] $\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\sum_{t=0}^T\gamma^t\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})R_t]=V^{\pi_e}$.
This immediately follows from Lemma \[lemma:step-IS:R\] and the definition of $V^{\pi_e}$.
\[lemma:step-IS:S-A\] For $t=0,...,T$ and for any measurable function $g_t:({\cal S}\times{\cal A})^t\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})g_t(H_t^{s,a})]=\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[g_t(H_t^{s,a})]$.
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})g_t(H_t^{s,a})]\\
=~&\sum_{h_{t}^{s,a}}P^{\pi_b}(h_t^{s,a})\rho_t^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})g(h_t^{s,a})\\
=~&\sum_{h_{t}^{s,a}}P^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})g(h_t^{s,a})\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[g_t(H_t^{s,a})],
\end{aligned}$$ where we use $P^{\pi_b}(h_t^{s,a})\rho_t^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})=P^{\pi_e}(h_t^{s,a})$ for the second equality.
\[lemma:step-IS:S\] For $t=1,...,T$ and for any measurable function $g_t:({\cal S}\times{\cal A})^{t-1}\times {\cal S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a})g_t(H_{t-1}^{s,a},S_t)]=\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[g_t(H_{t-1}^{s,a},S_t)]$.
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a})g_t(H_{t-1}^{s,a},S_t)]\\
=~&\sum_{(h_{t-1}^{s,a},s_t)}P^{\pi_b}(h_{t-1}^{s,a})P_S(s_t|s_{t-1},a_{t-1})\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\times\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(h_{t-1}^{s,a})g(h_{t-1}^{s,a},s_t)\\
=~&\sum_{(h_{t-1}^{s,a},s_t)}P^{\pi_e}(h_{t-1}^{s,a})P_S(s_t|s_{t-1},a_{t-1})g(h_{t-1}^{s,a},s_t)\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[g_t(H_{t-1}^{s,a},S_t)],
\end{aligned}$$ where we use $P^{\pi_b}(h_{t-1}^{s,a})\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(h_{t-1}^{s,a})=P^{\pi_e}(h_{t-1}^{s,a})$ for the second equality.
Proof of Proposition 1 {#proof}
======================
We use Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 of @Chernozhukov2018 for the proof. We verify that $\mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_b}[\psi(H;\eta)]=V^{\pi_e}$ and that $\psi$ satisfies the Neyman orthogonality condition. For the first part, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_b}[\psi(H;\eta)]\\
=~&\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t \mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_b}[\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})(R_t-q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t))\\
&~~~~~~~~~~+\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a})\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_t)q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,a)]\\
=~&V^{\pi_e} -\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t \{\mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_e}[q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)]\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_e}[\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_t)q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,a)]\}\\
=~&V^{\pi_e}-\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t \{\mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_e}[q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)]\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_e}[q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)]\}\\
=~&V^{\pi_e},\end{aligned}$$ where we use Lemmas \[lemma:step-IS\], \[lemma:step-IS:S-A\] and \[lemma:step-IS:S\] for the second equality.
We now show that $\psi$ satisfies the Neyman orthogonality condition. Let $$D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b]\coloneqq \left. \frac{\partial \rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a};\pi_b+r(\tilde \pi_b-\pi_b))}{\partial r}\right|_{r=0}$$ for any candidate $\tilde \pi_b$. Note that by Lemmas \[lemma:step-IS:S-A\] and \[lemma:step-IS:S\], $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[-\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)\\
&+\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a})\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_t)\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,a)]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[-\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)+\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_t)\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,a)]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[-\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)]+\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_e}[\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)]\\
=~&0\end{aligned}$$ for $t=0,...,T$. We then have that for any candidate $\tilde \eta=(\tilde \pi_b,\{\tilde q_{t}^{\pi_e}\}_{t=0}^T)$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\left. \frac{\partial \mathbb{E}_{H\sim\pi_b}[\psi(H;\eta+r(\tilde \eta-\eta))]}{\partial r}\right|_{r=0}\\
=~&\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b](R_t-q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t))\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~+D\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b]\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_t)q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,a)\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a})\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_t)\tilde q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,a)]\\
=~&\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b](R_t-q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t))\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~+D\rho_{t-1}^{\pi_e}(H_{t-1}^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b]\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_t)q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,a)]\\
=~&\gamma^T\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_T^{\pi_e}(H_T^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b](R_T-q_T^{\pi_e}(S_T,A_T))]\\
&+\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \gamma^t\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b](R_t-q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~+\gamma\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_{t+1})q_{t+1}^{\pi_e}(S_{t+1},a))].\end{aligned}$$ Since $\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[R_T|H_T^{s,a}]=\mu(S_T,A_T)$ and $q_{T_e}^\pi(S_T,A_T)=\mu(S_T,A_T)$, the first term is zero by the law of iterated expectations. The second term is also zero, since for $t=0,...,T-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b]\\
&~~~~~~\times(R_t+\gamma\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_{t+1})q_{t+1}^{\pi_e}(S_{t+1},a))]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b]\\
&\times\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[R_t+\gamma\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|S_{t+1})q_{t+1}^{\pi_e}(S_{t+1},a)|H_t^{s,a}]]\\
=~&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde \pi_b](\mu(S_t,A_t)\\
&+\gamma\sum_{s\in {\cal S}}P_S(s|S_t,A_t)\sum_{a\in{\cal A}}\pi_e(a|s)q_{t+1}^{\pi_e}(s,a))]\\
=&\mathbb{E}_{H\sim \pi_b}[D\rho_t^{\pi_e}(H_t^{s,a})[\tilde\pi_b]q_t^{\pi_e}(S_t,A_t)],\end{aligned}$$ where we use the recursive formulation of $q_t^\pi$ for the last equality.
The convergence results then follow from Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 of @Chernozhukov2018.
[^1]: In their experiments, @Jiang16 also implement cross-fitting as one variant of the DR estimator. Their DR estimator with cross-fitting is the same as our DML estimator if we plug the true behavior policy $\pi_b$ into DML. However, we (i) allow the behavior policy to be unknown, (ii) allow for having a large number of potentially important state variables, and (iii) present statistical properties of the estimator while they do not.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'When electron doped, the layered transition metal nitrides ${\cal T}$NCl (${\cal T}$ = group IVB transition metal ion) become impressive superconductors with critical temperature T$_c$= 15-26K. Here we take the most studied member, ZrNCl, as a representative and calculate the dielectric response $\epsilon(\omega)$ versus frequency and concentration of doped electronic carriers. The static dielectric constant $\epsilon_{\infty}$=5 is reproduced extremely well. We establish that the differences between rigid band modeling and virtual crystal treatment are small, and compare also with actual lithium doping using supercells. We obtain the variations upon changing the doping level of the reflectivity and energy loss function as well, many of which are found not to be correlated with the observed (non)variation of T$_c(x)$. The main plasmon peaks appear where the electron gas model suggests, in the range 1.2-2.0 eV for $x$ varying from 0.16 to 0.50.'
author:
- 'Antia S. Botana'
- 'Warren E. Pickett'
title: 'Dielectric Response of Electron-doped Ionic Superconductor Li$_x$ZrNCl'
---
Introduction and Background
===========================
Superconductivity in doped quasi-two-dimensional compounds or at surfaces has been a focus of interest of the community since the work of Ginzburg,[@ginzburg_1; @ginzburg_book] and has gained fevered activity after the discovery of the strong dependence of the critical temperature (T$_c$) upon intercalation of the transition metal dichalcogenides and the discovery of high T$_c$ in 2D cuprates. The way in which doping of 2D layers modifies the electronic behavior of a compound giving rise to superconductivity greatly depends on the specific system. In copper oxides there is a magnetic insulator to strange metal transition that completely modifies the electronic structure. However, in bismuthates and in electron-doped nitridochloride $A_x{\cal T}$NCl superconductors (where ${\cal T}$ is a group IVB transition metal Ti, Zr, Hf) there is only Pauli paramagnetic behavior. The cause of superconductivity in this latter class of materials remains unknown, with neither spin nor conventional phonons being responsible for their superconducting behavior, as we discuss below. [@pickett_1]
The superconductivity in transition metal nitridochlorides (with maximum T$_c$ = 17, 15, 26 K for Ti, Zr, Hf respectively) emerges when the insulating parent compounds are electron-doped.[@yamanaka_nat_hfncl; @yamanka_tincl; @yamanka_zrncl] To clarify the mechanism of superconductivity an understanding of the electronic behavior is crucial because only then can the key issue of electron pairing be addressed. Electron doping in the metal nitride double honeycomb planes, as shown in Fig. \[zrncl\_struct\], is achieved by intercalation of alkali ions into the van der Waals gap between Cl layers. Large organic molecules may also be included.[@interlayer_coupling_2; @tincl_res; @interlayer_coupling_1] However, the origin of the high T$_c$ remains unknown, as the characteristics of this class of superconductors are unique. There is a low DOS at the Fermi level and a weak electron phonon coupling has been suggested both experimentally [@iwasa_heat_2; @iwasa_tc_enhancement_doping] and theoretically. [@bohnen; @weht]
![Crystal structure of ZrNCl (left) and the doped compound Li$_{0.5}$ZrNCl (right). Zr atoms are blue, N red, Cl green and Li yellow.[]{data-label="zrncl_struct"}](FIG1.eps "fig:"){width="4.6cm"} ![Crystal structure of ZrNCl (left) and the doped compound Li$_{0.5}$ZrNCl (right). Zr atoms are blue, N red, Cl green and Li yellow.[]{data-label="zrncl_struct"}](FIG2.eps "fig:"){width="2.95cm"}
There are several unusual characteristics that make the $A_x{\cal T}$NCl class of superconductors unique. First, and an aspect that is not usually emphasized, they are extremely bad conductors, with reported residual resistivity (T$\rightarrow$0) of $10^3-10^5$ $\mu \Omega$ cm.[@iwasa_prb; @interlayer_coupling_2; @interlayer_coupling_1; @yamanaka_nat_hfncl; @tincl_res] In some cases the temperature dependence crosses from metallic to semiconducting and weak localization behavior arises just above T$_c$. Second, except near the critical concentration $x_{cr}$ where the insulator to metal transition occurs,[@iwasa_tc_enhancement_doping] T$_c$ is almost independent of the doping level $x$ whereas the Fermi level DOS undergoes a change as doping is increased. Specifically, there is no superconducting dome, and the constancy of T$_c$ continues well into the region where the density of states at the calculated Fermi level $N(E_F)$ increases sharply, as the ${\cal T}$ ion $d$ states other than the in-plane $d_{xy},
d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals begin to be filled. [@dft3] Thirdly, there is one property that correlates strongly with T$_c$: the separation of the ${\cal T}N$ bilayers along the $z$ direction. For the Hf and Zr counterparts, from the minimum separation, at small Li intercalation, T$_c$ increases sharply by $\approx$30% before leveling off and remaining nearly constant up to the largest separations that have been achieved ($\sim$ 20 Å), by introducing large molecules along with the dopant metal atoms.[@interlayer_coupling_2; @interlayer_coupling_1] Thus the superconductivity in these systems is truly 2D.
The very “bad conductor” aspect can be clarified by trying to apply conventional Fermi liquid metallic formalism. Interpreting the residual resistivity $\rho_{\circ} = 4\pi/\Omega_p^2 \tau$ $\sim$ 10$^4$ $\mu$$\Omega$ cm gives, with in-plane $\hbar\Omega_p \approx$ 3 eV, $\hbar/\tau \sim$ 10 eV, corresponding to a totally washed out band structure. Putting $\tau$ together with the Fermi velocity $v_F \approx$ 10$^8$ cm/s leads to a mean free path ($l$= 2$\pi$/$\Delta$$k$) that implies the Brillouin zone (BZ) would be completely wiped out. This analysis indicates the transport is not metallic, and an alternative picture is needed to understand electronic behavior.
Takano *et al.*, on the other hand, use the measured superconducting coherence length $\xi$, the BCS relation for $\xi_0$, and the phenomenological relation $\xi^{-1}$= $\xi_0^{-1}$+ $l$$^{-1}$ to infer values of $l$$\sim$ 10 nm for their samples. [@iwasa_prb] In any case, the lack of consistency in these interpretations indicates problems with Fermi liquid theory for transport. This conclusion gains support from the recent report from $^{91}$Zr and $^{15}$N NMR studies[@nmr], which finds pseudogap character typical of non-Fermi liquid phases in the 0.06$\leq$$x$$\leq$0.10 regime. This is the regime where enhanced susceptibility is reported;[@enhancement_pairing] curiously, the NMR data show no evidence of enhanced spin fluctuations on the verge of the superconductor to insulator transition, causing difficulties for applying a model of pairing by this mechanism. Kuroki proposed that the high T$_c$ in doped Hf/ZrNCl is a characteristic feature of the spin fluctuation-mediated superconductivity in a honeycomb lattice.[@kuroki]
Superconductivity emerges in this system from a very badly conducting state. Jaramillo *et al.*[@jaramillo] have proposed that a strong interaction that can shift spectral weight over a large energy scale is necessary for bad metal conductivity. In the case of rare-earth nickelates, this strong interaction happens between lattice distortions and Ni-O covalence, but its origin may vary depending on the system (and nickelates do not superconduct). The question of whether this explanation may apply to the bad conductivity in $A_x{\cal T}$NCl superconductors and if so, what the driving interaction might be, is still open.
There is no local moment behavior, so the electronic state and the pairing mechanism are very different from the high temperature superconducting cuprates and Fe-based materials. Based on the standard Landau Fermi liquid (metallic) viewpoint, the electron-phonon coupling has been calculated to be clearly too weak to account for the observed values of T$_c$. [@bohnen; @weht] From density functional theory (DFT) based calculations for Li-doped ZrNCl, $T_c$ of only 5 K is obtained, using a typical value of the Coulomb pseudopotential for a normal metal $\mu^*$= 0.1.[@bohnen] A suggestion was made by Yin [*et al.*]{}[@kotliar_hybrid] that a different exchange-correlation functional, the hybrid (part unscreened exchange) functional, is more appropriate for this class of doped insulators. They found that the additional exchange potential increases the shifts of certain bands due to selected frozen phonon modes, giving them an enhanced electron-phonon coupling. However, a full calculation was not carried out. In any case, whichever functional is chosen, it seems apparent from the observed resistivity that Li$_x$ZrNCl has no transport Fermi surface at all, or very few mobile carriers, or both.
The N isotope shift of T$_c$ seems to be non-zero but is so small as to be very discouraging for any lattice mechanism relying on N displacements. [@n_isotope_shift_hf; @n_isotope_shift_zr] The density functional theory for superconductors (SCDFT)[@scdft] has been shown to reproduce the observed T$_c$ of a selection of phonon-mediated superconductors.[@scdft_mgb2; @scdft_graphite; @scdft_li_al] This approach differs largely in the DFT-based treatment of the Coulomb interaction. When SCDFT was applied to ${\cal T}$NCl superconductors,[@dft3] a T$_c$ of only 4.3 K and 10.5 K was obtained for the Zr and Hf counterparts, respectively. In addition, T$_c$ increases with increasing doping level in clear contrast to the experimental results. In Li$_x$ZrNCl, an enhancement of T$_c$ with a reduction in the carrier density in the low doping regime towards the metal-insulator transition has been observed.[@iwasa_tc_enhancement_doping]
Several works have tried to consider the origin of pairing in strongly layered superconductors beyond the standard Migdal-Eliashberg ansatz. Bill *et al.*[@dynamical_screening; @bill] have considered that the dynamical screening of the Coulomb interaction is essentially different in layered structures, and built a model that provides for an additional contribution to the pairing from dynamical electronic screening and low energy plasmons, which leads to a drastic enhancement of T$_c$ in ${\cal T}$NCl superconductors. We also mention the work of Pashitskii and Pentegov[@pashitskii] that has included classes of vertex corrections within the picture of a plasmon mechanism of pairing.
To elucidate the electronic behavior and help to understand the origin of the unique properties of this class, we analyze the dependence of the dielectric response on frequency and concentration for Li$_x$ZrNCl calculated within the random phase approximation from the Kohn Sham band structure. This treatment is consistent with the Landau Fermi liquid picture which as we have noted is quite suspect for transport but may yet apply for higher energy excitations.
The paper is organized as follows. After describing the computational methods and crystal structure in Sections \[structure\] and \[methods\], we revisit the electronic structure of the pristine compound and Li$_x$ZrNCl ($x=$ 0.16, 0.25 and 0.50), analyzed using supercells to reproduce the desired doping levels (Section \[es\]). The obtained electronic structure of the doped compounds is then contrasted to that obtained using the virtual crystal approximation (VCA). In Section \[optic\], the dielectric response versus frequency and concentration is discussed. Differences in the dielectric behavior do not correlate with doping in the observed variation of T$_c(x)$ suggesting that pairing based on the electronic overscreening is not a viable picture.
Structure
=========
Although the compound $\beta$-ZrNCl has been known since the 60‘s, its crystal structure was for some time under debate.[@structure_diff; @structure_zrncl_1; @structure_zrncl_2] We have used the structures determined by x-ray diffraction on single crystals[@structure_zrncl_2] that confirmed the results obtained by others using neutron powder diffraction.[@shamoto_structure]
The structure of the insulating parent compound $\beta$-ZrNCl is shown in the left panel of Fig. \[zrncl\_struct\]. The central structural units are double honeycomb layers of ZrN sandwiched between two Cl layers leading to a neutral ZrNCl unit. Adjacent ZrN layers are rotated such that a short Zr-N interlayer bond exists. Each Zr atom is bonded to four neighboring N, three belonging to the same ZrN layer and one to the adjacent layer. The bonding between the ZrNCl units is of a weak van der Waals type, allowing intercalation by alkali ions and also by large organic molecules. Neighboring Zr$_2$N$_3$Cl$_2$ slabs are shifted relative to each other, resulting in a rhombohedral space group $R{\bar 3}M$.
Upon Li doping, the dopants occupy a high symmetry site ($3a$) within the van der Waals gap between two Cl layers (see right panel of Fig. \[zrncl\_struct\]). As there is one such $3a$ site per bilayer, full occupancy corresponds to a doping level of $x=$0.5. The space group is not changed but the shift between neighboring bilayers is altered in such a manner that the stacking sequence is changed from ABC to ACB upon Li intercalation (see Fig. \[zrncl\_struct\]).
Computational Methods {#methods}
=====================
T$_c$ does not change for the range $x=$ 0.16 to 0.50 so this is the doping range we will focus on, performing calculations for $x=$ 0.16, 0.25 and 0.5.[@enhancement_pairing] The different doping levels have been achieved in two different ways: $(i)$ constructing supercells from the structural data for Li$_{0.21}$ZrNCl (full occupancy of the $3a$ site) introducing Li vacancies to reach the desired doping level (for $x=$ 0.16, $3\times 2\times1$, for x= 0.25, $2\times 2\times1$), $(ii)$ using virtual crystal approximation (VCA) to avoid the use of supercells. In this case an artificial doping is achieved changing the electron count to the desired level to account for a certain doping. A doping level of 0.16 would correspond to 1/3 occupation of the Li site and 0.25 to 1/2. Two models can be used: without Li, but with 1/2(1/3) electrons per unit cell added to simulate the Li doping of 0.25(0.16) starting from the structure of ZrNCl or with one Li per unit cell (full occupancy) but removing 2/3(1/2) electrons to reach the same doping levels of 0.16(0.25). [@bohnen]
The electronic structure calculations were performed with the WIEN2k code,[@wien2k; @wien] based on density functional theory[@dft; @dft_2] (DFT) utilizing the augmented plane wave plus local orbitals method (APW+lo).[@sjo] All structures were fully relaxed using the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) PBE scheme[@gga] and the lattice parameters were optimized within the same scheme. The lattice parameters used in the calculations for the doped compound were $a=$ 3.60 Å and $c=$ 27.83 Å; for the undoped compound, $a=$ 3.59 Å and $c=$ 27.67 Å.
The calculations were well converged with respect to the k-mesh and R$_{mt}$K$_{max}$. R$_{mt}$K$_{max}$= 7.0 was chosen for all the calculations. Selected muffin tin radii were the following: 2.07 a.u. for Li, 2.42 for Cl, 2.00 for Zr and 1.72 a.u. for N.
The optical properties were obtained using the optic code implemented within WIEN2k. The theoretical background is described in detail in Ref. . The calculation of optical properties requires a dense mesh of eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors (up to 10000 k points were used for Li$_x$ZrNCl).
The program optic generates the symmetrized squared momentum matrix elements between all band combinations for each $k$-point, then it carries out the BZ integration. The interband and the intraband contributions to the imaginary part of the dielectric tensor are discussed separately in Section \[optic\]. The Kramers-Kronig transform real component can be computed allowing the evaluation of the optical conductivity, loss function, and reflectivity.[@claudia]
Electronic structure, with ZrNCl as the prototype {#es}
=================================================
Undoped ZrNCl
-------------
![Top panels. Band structure along high symmetry direction with band character emphasized, for ZrNCl. Left Zr $3d$, right N $2p$ character, is highlighted. The size of the symbols is proportional to the Zr or N character of the corresponding eigenfunction. Bottom panel: three dimensional isocontour plot of the charge density for the ZrN bilayer obtained using the Xcrysden package.[@xcrysden] The nearly spherical density obtained for both Zr and N atoms reflects that substantial Zr $3d$ character is mixed into the occupied N $2p$ bands, somewhat reducing the ionic character from nominal values. []{data-label="bs_zrncl"}](FIG3.eps "fig:"){width="4.05cm"} ![Top panels. Band structure along high symmetry direction with band character emphasized, for ZrNCl. Left Zr $3d$, right N $2p$ character, is highlighted. The size of the symbols is proportional to the Zr or N character of the corresponding eigenfunction. Bottom panel: three dimensional isocontour plot of the charge density for the ZrN bilayer obtained using the Xcrysden package.[@xcrysden] The nearly spherical density obtained for both Zr and N atoms reflects that substantial Zr $3d$ character is mixed into the occupied N $2p$ bands, somewhat reducing the ionic character from nominal values. []{data-label="bs_zrncl"}](FIG4.eps "fig:"){width="3.58cm"} ![Top panels. Band structure along high symmetry direction with band character emphasized, for ZrNCl. Left Zr $3d$, right N $2p$ character, is highlighted. The size of the symbols is proportional to the Zr or N character of the corresponding eigenfunction. Bottom panel: three dimensional isocontour plot of the charge density for the ZrN bilayer obtained using the Xcrysden package.[@xcrysden] The nearly spherical density obtained for both Zr and N atoms reflects that substantial Zr $3d$ character is mixed into the occupied N $2p$ bands, somewhat reducing the ionic character from nominal values. []{data-label="bs_zrncl"}](FIG5.eps "fig:"){width="3cm"}
The electronic structure of ZrNCl, with filled N $2p$ and Cl $2p$ bands and empty Zr $3d$ bands, is well characterized by the formal ionic description Zr$^{4+}$N$^{3-}$Cl$^{1-}$. Zr-N covalency is however substantial, so ZrNCl is quite different from a purely ionic insulator. In Fig. \[bs\_zrncl\] the band structure with band character plot for Zr and N atoms is shown. The band gap value for the parent compound determined experimentally is 2.5 eV,[@exp_bw] the one derived within GGA is 1.7 eV. The conduction band is dominated by empty Zr-$d$ states above the gap. The $k_z$ dispersion along $\Gamma-A$ in the undoped compound, which is comparable to in-plane dispersion, is due to the small interlayer distance. This dispersion will disappear when Li is placed between the (ZrNCl)$_2$ slabs, thereby separating the layers and practically eliminating overlap between them.
The Cl and N states are mixed in the valence band region, though at the top of the valence band N states dominate. The lowest lying conduction bands (at $K$) are formed precisely from the Zr $d_{xy}$, $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals, and the bands just below the gap are N $p_x, p_y$ states.[@seshadri] With 3-fold in-plane coordination, N $p_x, p_y$ orbitals should be thought analogously to the $sp^2$ orbitals in graphene. Likewise, the Zr $d$ orbitals should be pictured in terms of 3-fold symmetry adapted orbitals, for both pairs ($d_{x^2-y^2}$,$d_{xy}$) and $(d_{xz}, d_{yz}$). However, isovalent TiNCl with T$_c$=17 K has an orthorhombic structure,[@yin] so it seems clear that the honeycomb structure of ZrNCl and HfNCl does not play a specific role in the occurrence of high temperature superconductivity in this materials class.
The electron carriers go into states largely on Zr, with lobes of maximum charge pointing [*between*]{} neighboring N ions, as the crystal field picture would suggest. The density on the N ions, according to the same picture is oriented directly at the positive Zr ions. The Zr-N hybridization is best characterized as antibonding. [@weht] The $d$$_{xz}$,$d$$_{yz}$ and $d$$_{z^2}$ orbitals lie successively higher in energy.
Li$_x$ZrNCl supercells
----------------------
{width="5cm"} {width="5cm"} {width="5cm"}
The band structures for Li$_x$ZrNCl $x$= 0.16, 0.25 (using supercells) and $x$= 0.50 are shown in Fig. \[lix\_bs\_1\]. Neither the structural changes nor the occupation of the Li site seem to alter significantly the shape of the lowest conduction band except to greatly decrease $k_z$ dispersion due to separation of the constituent layers. The differences that are visible can be ascribed to supercell effects arising from the (artificial) periodicity.
The densities of states (DOS) for the various doping levels are shown in Fig. \[dos\_zrncl\] with the zero of energy set at the bottom of the conduction band. The lowest band is characterized by a small density of states at the Fermi level and a small effective mass as shown in Fig. \[dos\_zrncl\] ($N(E_F)$= 0.34 states/eV f.u corresponds to an effective mass $m$$^*$=0.66 $m$).[@bohnen] The Fermi level (dashed lines) for the two lowest doping levels ($x$= 0.16 and 0.25) lies within this band with low DOS. For $x=$ 0.5, states other than the lowest in-plane $d$$_{x^2-y^2}$+$d$$_{xy}$ begin to be filled with correspondingly higher N(E$_F$). The valence bandwidths reported experimentally are 6.1 for the parent compound and 7.0 for Li$_{0.25}$ZrNCl,[@exp_bw] underestimated (which is not uncommon) by calculations performed using GGA. The DOS gives a clearer view of the fact that, upon electron doping, except for a shift in the chemical potential, the change in position of E$_F$ for higher doping levels, and some changes in the first peak in the DOS appearing at about 1 eV above the bottom of the conduction band, it remains unchanged. In the valence band region, bigger changes take place, the DOS at the top of the valence band changes not being only a rigid-band like shift. This difference should be irrelevant to superconductivity though.
![Total DOS for ZrNCl and Li$_x$ZrNCl with increasing $x$ (from top to bottom). The zero energy is set at the bottom of the conduction band. The Fermi level is marked with a dashed line. Note that the DOS at the top of the valence band changes, i.e. it is not rigid band like.[]{data-label="dos_zrncl"}](FIG9.eps){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
The specific heat ($C_v$ ) jump at T$_c$ is a measure of N(0) (and the density of pairs that are formed). The observed extremely bad metallic character suggests that only a very small density of pairs may be formed at T$_c$. In BCS or Eliashberg-type materials, $\Delta C_v$ = 2-3 $\gamma T_c$, where $\gamma$ is the specific heat $\gamma$ proportional to N(0) $\gamma$= 2/3(1+$\lambda$)$\pi^2k_B^2N(0)$. From the experimentally determined $\gamma$= 1.1 mJ/molK$^2$ using $N(0)= 0.19-0.26$ states/(eV spin f.u) a $\lambda \leq 0.22$ has been obtained by Iwasa *et al.*[@iwasa_heat_1; @iwasa_heat_2] This value belongs to the weak coupling regime and will never produce any finite value of T$_c$ once the Coulomb pseudopotential $\mu^*$= 0.10-0.15 is included.
Li$_x$ZrNCl within VCA
----------------------
Given the impressive superconductivity in this system and the uncertain nature of the pairing mechanism, it is important to quantify the effect on the electronic structure of including Li explicitly, and on the method of doing so. This aspect of charge rearrangement due to doping was found to be surprisingly large[@Ylvisaker] in (Al,Mg)CuO$_2$, another layered transition metal compound. We have evaluated the electronic structure of Li$_x$ZrNCl within VCA using two alternative strategies: removing electrons from the stoichiometric structure of Li$_{0.5}$ZrNCl (one f.u. is Li(ZrNCl)$_2$) and adding electrons from ZrNCl. [@bohnen] We find that actual occupation of the Li site does not alter the band structure in any significant way, with carrier doping occurring in a rigid band fashion as has been assumed in all previous works both theoretical (band structure calculations)[@bohnen] and experimental (optical reflectivity measurements). [@iwasa_optic] For the lowest doping levels studied electrons will fill only the same single band with minimum at $K$ with Zr-($d_{x^2-y^2}$,$d_{xy}$) character using both VCA methods. For x= 0.5, some out of plane $d$-states start being occupied as shown in the previous section. In Na-doped ZrNCl and HfNCl, photoemission spectroscopy studies[@yok_1; @yok_2] have shown non-rigid like behavior against theoretical predictions.[@weht] The behavior appears as spectral weight shifts, whereas peak centroids remain rigid-band like.
The similarity of the electronic structures in the vicinity of the Fermi energy for empty and full occupation of the Li shows that, as far as the electronic properties are concerned, the Li atoms simply act as donators of electrons to the ZrN bilayers, which can justify a simpler doping study using VCA instead of the more computationally demanding use of supercells.
Electron density plots for Li$_x$ZrNCl
--------------------------------------
In Fig. \[contour\] we show a three dimensional (3D) isocontour plot of the doped electron density for each non zero value of $k$ (from only the conduction bands) as well as a contour plot in a plane lying within one ZrN layer. The density at small doping was earlier characterized as Zr $d_{x^2-y^2}$, $d_{xy}$ and N $p_x, p_y$ character.[@weht] For $x=$ 0.16 and 0.25, the 3D plot demonstrates that this characterization is incomplete, because the lobes on Zr lie alternately above and below its equatorial plane. Thus there is significant $d_{xz}, d_{yz}$ mixture due to structural asymmetries. The contour plots confirm that the maxima around the Zr atoms are oriented between, rather than towards, the nearby N anions, a simple crystal field effect.
![Left panels: contour plots for Li$_x$ZrNCl for increasing values of $x= 0.16,
0.25$ and $0.50$ from top to bottom. The plane of the figure lies between Zr and N layers, which are only roughly coplanar. Right panels: the corresponding three dimensional isocontour plot of the electron density obtained using Xcrysden.[@xcrysden] The blue and pink spheres represent Zr and N respectively.[]{data-label="contour"}](FIG10.eps "fig:"){width="3.8cm"} ![Left panels: contour plots for Li$_x$ZrNCl for increasing values of $x= 0.16,
0.25$ and $0.50$ from top to bottom. The plane of the figure lies between Zr and N layers, which are only roughly coplanar. Right panels: the corresponding three dimensional isocontour plot of the electron density obtained using Xcrysden.[@xcrysden] The blue and pink spheres represent Zr and N respectively.[]{data-label="contour"}](FIG11.eps "fig:"){width="3.6cm"} ![Left panels: contour plots for Li$_x$ZrNCl for increasing values of $x= 0.16,
0.25$ and $0.50$ from top to bottom. The plane of the figure lies between Zr and N layers, which are only roughly coplanar. Right panels: the corresponding three dimensional isocontour plot of the electron density obtained using Xcrysden.[@xcrysden] The blue and pink spheres represent Zr and N respectively.[]{data-label="contour"}](FIG12.eps "fig:"){width="3.8cm"} ![Left panels: contour plots for Li$_x$ZrNCl for increasing values of $x= 0.16,
0.25$ and $0.50$ from top to bottom. The plane of the figure lies between Zr and N layers, which are only roughly coplanar. Right panels: the corresponding three dimensional isocontour plot of the electron density obtained using Xcrysden.[@xcrysden] The blue and pink spheres represent Zr and N respectively.[]{data-label="contour"}](FIG13.eps "fig:"){width="3.6cm"} ![Left panels: contour plots for Li$_x$ZrNCl for increasing values of $x= 0.16,
0.25$ and $0.50$ from top to bottom. The plane of the figure lies between Zr and N layers, which are only roughly coplanar. Right panels: the corresponding three dimensional isocontour plot of the electron density obtained using Xcrysden.[@xcrysden] The blue and pink spheres represent Zr and N respectively.[]{data-label="contour"}](FIG14.eps "fig:"){width="3.8cm"} ![Left panels: contour plots for Li$_x$ZrNCl for increasing values of $x= 0.16,
0.25$ and $0.50$ from top to bottom. The plane of the figure lies between Zr and N layers, which are only roughly coplanar. Right panels: the corresponding three dimensional isocontour plot of the electron density obtained using Xcrysden.[@xcrysden] The blue and pink spheres represent Zr and N respectively.[]{data-label="contour"}](FIG15.eps "fig:"){width="3.6cm"}
For $x$ = 0.5 new bands contribute to the density (see Fig. \[dos\_zrncl\]) which is reflected in a dramatic reorientation of the high density lobes being directed towards N, with formation of a more bonding-like structure between Zr and N. This substantial change is not reflected in superconducting behavior however, as T$_c$ is observed to depend hardly at all on the doping level in the range we have considered. [@interlayer_coupling_2]
Dielectric response of Li$_x$ZrNCl {#optic}
==================================
For the symmetry of Li$_x$ZrNCl the dielectric tensor is diagonal with only in-plane $xx$ and perpendicular $zz$ components. For simplicity, and because electronic structure differences between supercell and VCA calculations are small, we present calculations using VCA and the primitive cell to evaluate the imaginary part of the $q$=0 dielectric tensor within the random phase approximation (RPA). The calculation takes the usual expression requiring the band energies and momentum matrix elements between Kohn-Sham wavefunctions.[@lindhard; @lindhard_2; @claudia] For x$\geq$ 0, we focus on the results obtained from VCA calculations in which electrons are removed from Li$_{0.5}$ZrNCl.
We have performed calculations for the polarization parallel to the ZrN planes and also for the perpendicular polarization to study anisotropy and discriminate the contribution of the ZrN planes making possible to identify the excitations in the ZrN plane and to further characterize the electronic structure of that plane for the respective doping level.
Handling of the Intraband Part
------------------------------
Without considering scattering, the intraband part is a $\delta$-function at $\omega$=0 with strength given by the Drude plasma frequency $\Omega_p$ obtained from the Fermi surface average density of states and velocity $\vec v_k$ averages $$\Omega^2_{p,\alpha\alpha} = 4\pi e^2 N(0) v^2_{F,\alpha}.$$ Considering that electrons are always interacting, with electrons, with phonons, and with defects, a lifetime broadening $\gamma$ is introduced, leading to the form $$\label{im_eps}
\epsilon_{2,\alpha\alpha}^{intra}(\omega)=\frac{\gamma \Omega^2_{p,\alpha\alpha}}{\omega(\omega^2+\gamma^2)}$$ with Kramers-Kronig transform $$\label{real_eps}
\epsilon_{1,\alpha\alpha}^{intra}(\omega)=1- \frac{\Omega^2_{p,\alpha\alpha}}{\omega^2+\gamma^2}$$ from the combined expression $$\epsilon_{\alpha\alpha}^{intra}(\omega) = 1 -\frac{\Omega^2_{p,\alpha\alpha}}{\omega^2 + \gamma^2}(1 - i\frac{\gamma}{\omega})
= 1 - \frac{\Omega^2_{p,\alpha\alpha}}{\omega (\omega + i \gamma)}.$$ The imaginary part retains the $\omega\rightarrow$0 divergence of a metal. Given no relevant experimental information, we have used $\gamma$ = 0.1 eV throughout, corresponding to a relaxation time $\tau$ $\approx$ 7$\times$ 10$^{-15}$ s.
The calculated plasma frequencies in eV for the x= 0.21 structure (interlayer distance= 9.28 Å) are $$\begin{aligned}
x=0.16& ~~~\Omega_{p,xx}=2.97,&~~~ \Omega_{pl,zz}=0.70\nonumber \\
x=0.25& ~~~\Omega_{p,xx}=3.14,&~~~ \Omega_{pl,zz}=0.68\nonumber \\
x=0.50& ~~~\Omega_{p,xx}=2.80,&~~~ \Omega_{pl,zz}=0.71\end{aligned}$$ The first two values of $\Omega_{p,xx}$ are roughly consistent with a constant DOS with initial doping and $v_F \propto k_F \propto \sqrt{x}$ for a 2D system, as $\sqrt{x}$ increases only from 0.4 to 0.5. For $x$=0.50, the Fermi level has moved into additional bands and the values of the plasma frequency cannot be estimated. The constancy of the values of $\Omega_{p,zz}$ is consistent with the interlayer spacings which do not vary much with the Li content. They will however decrease drastically when large organic molecules are intercalated with the Li, separating the layers considerably and increasing T$_c$ in the process. The Li intercalation appears to enhance hopping along the $c$ axis. For the undoped compound with an interlayer distance of 9.22 Å (with electrons added to simulate the desired doping level) the $zz$ values can drop by an order of magnitude or more: $$\begin{aligned}
x=0.16& ~~~\Omega_{p,xx}=2.41,&~~~ \Omega_{pl,zz}=0.03\\
x=0.25& ~~~\Omega_{p,xx}=2.91,&~~~ \Omega_{pl,zz}=0.06\end{aligned}$$
Dielectric Tensor
-----------------
Fig. \[eps\] shows the calculated dependence of the real and imaginary part of both components of the dielectric function for the pristine compound as well as for Li$_x$ZrNCl ($x$= 0.16, 0.25, and 0.50). For undoped ZrNCl the experimental value[@iwasa_optic] of the static dielectric constant is $\epsilon_{1,xx}$=5. From the calculated electronic structure we obtain an almost identical value. The dielectric function is featureless until the energy reaches the gap. Above the onset transitions from N $2p$ valence bands to Zr $3d$ conduction bands give rise to structure. Structures appear in $\epsilon_{1,xx}$ and $\epsilon_{2,xx}$ at energies in agreement with structures seen in reflectivity measurements (see more discussion below). In $\epsilon_{1,zz}$ and $\epsilon_{2,zz}$ the response is similar with structure appearing at higher energies (above 3.5 eV).
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
As mentioned above, for $x$$>$ 0, we focus on $\epsilon(\omega)$ obtained from VCA calculations in which electrons are removed from Li$_{0.5}$ZrNCl (shown in Fig. \[eps\]). In every case the optical spectrum can be divided in two regions: a lower energy range where peaks appear at 1-2 eV linked to interband transitions within the conduction bands occupied by doped-in carriers, and a higher energy range from 3 eV onwards that includes valence-conduction transitions.
[*In-plane polarization.*]{} Superconductivity in this system is clearly associated with the 2D Zr-N bilayer alone as discussed in the Introduction, so we discuss first the $xx$ component. The contribution from doped carriers appears in the 0.7-1.4 eV region, where there is mild interband structure in $\epsilon_{2,xx}$ for $x$=0.16 and 0.25. For $x$=0.50, a dramatic change arises due to new interband transitions from the in-plane $d_{x^2-y^2}, d_{xy}$ states to orbitals with more out-of-plane character. The changes in both $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_1$ are dramatic. However, with no noticeable change in superconductivity in this region of doping $x$, we conclude there is no impact of this change on superconductivity. Doping does not make any significant change in the spectrum above 3 eV as shown in Fig. \[eps\]: the changes at higher energy are more regular and understandable from the different level of band filling.
[*Perpendicular polarization.*]{} The strong anisotropy – difference between $\epsilon_{xx}$ and $\epsilon_{zz}$ – reflects the strong dependence on the momentum matrix elements on the orbitals that are involved. In $\epsilon_{2,zz}$ a peak at 1 eV for $x$=0.16 shifts towards higher energies with increasing $x$. At $x$=0.50 additional strong weight appears in the 2-3 eV range. There is an accompanying change in the structures observed in $\epsilon_{1,zz}$. These alter somewhat the crossings $\epsilon_{1,zz} = 0$ and affect the loss function, which we return to below. The region above 3 eV is altered from its behavior at $x$=0 but without any evident importance.
Reflectivity spectrum
---------------------
Iwasa *et al.* reported optical reflectivity measurements on Li$_x$ZrNCl,[@iwasa_optic] for $x$ = 0 and 0.37 with the polarization parallel to the ZrN planes. We have evaluated the reflectivity from the surface boundary condition expression and compared it with the available experimental results. $$\label{ref}
R_{\alpha\alpha}=\left| {\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon_{\alpha\alpha}}-1}
{\sqrt{\epsilon_{\alpha\alpha}}+1}} \right| ^2$$
In experiments, for the insulating compound, the reflectivity decreases slowly with decreasing photon energy in the energy region 0.1-3 eV reflecting its band insulator nature. Prominent peaks appear above 3 eV due to N $2p$ – Zr $4d$ interband transitions with characteristic structures at 3.7, 5.0 and 5.7 eV. In the infrared region below 0.1 eV three peak structures due to the optical phonon modes appear. According to lattice dynamics calculations[@lattice_dynamics] four IR-active phonon modes have been proposed (20, 33, and 65 meV) – two A modes (displacements along the c-axis) and two E modes (along the ab plane). Fig.\[reflectivity\] shows the optical reflectivity spectra (for both in plane and perpendicular component) of Li$_x$ZrNCl calculated for our chosen doping level.
![Doping evolution of the in plane and out of plane components of the optical reflectivity for Li$_x$ZrNCl ($x= 0.16, 0.25$ and $0.50$). The curve for the pristine compound is also shown.[]{data-label="reflectivity"}](FIG20.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Doping evolution of the in plane and out of plane components of the optical reflectivity for Li$_x$ZrNCl ($x= 0.16, 0.25$ and $0.50$). The curve for the pristine compound is also shown.[]{data-label="reflectivity"}](FIG21.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
The behavior for $xx$ polarization is in agreement with the experiment reported by Iwasa *et al.* for the undoped and doped compounds.[@iwasa_optic] For the insulating compound, the reflectivity shows the similar behavior for both polarizations, with interband transitions appearing in $R_{zz}$ at higher energy ($\sim$4 eV) than in $R_{xx}$ ($\sim$3 eV) due to matrix element effects, consistent with the description of $\epsilon$($\omega$).
For the doped compounds the Drude-like plasma edge appears upon doping (Fig. \[reflectivity\]) as expected for a metal. Metallic reflection already appears below 1 eV for x= 0.16. As the Li doping level is increased, the plasma edge in the reflectivity spectrum shifts towards higher energies for the $xx$ component. The reflectivity edge is sharpened for lower doping levels and the reflectivity below the edge rapidly increases. The behavior is again different at the higher doping level studied due to the above mentioned additional interband transitions from the in-plane to the out of plane orbitals.
For $R_{zz}$ another plasma edge appears at around 0.2 eV being independent of doping level (in this range). We discuss in the following subsection that this invariance is because this edge is purely intraband-derived (whereas that in $xx$ polarization is affected by interband transitions) and the corresponding Drude plasma energies do not vary with doping level. $R_{zz}$ contains similar structure in the 1-2 eV range but it is much sharper and also shifted towards higher energies as the doping level is increased.
The behavior found for Li$_x$ZrNCl can be contrasted with what is observed in systems such as cuprates or Fe-pnictides where also the accumulated data on the normal-state properties seem anomalous in many aspects suggesting an unconventional metallic state is developed. The proximity to a magnetic ground state Fe-pnictides and cuprates makes difficult the direct comparison with non-magnetic $A_x{\cal T}$NCl superconductors in any case.
For undoped insulating La$_2$CuO$_4$[@uchida; @timusk], with a charge-transfer energy gap of about 2 eV, the spectrum at low energies is very anisotropic and dominated by excitations in the CuO$_2$ plane with an edge in the $xx$ spectrum appearing at 1 eV indicating the metallic state along CuO${2}$ planes. In the $zz$ reflectivity no structure corresponding to the 1 eV edge is found. In Li$_x$ZrNCl this is not the case as we have seen in the previous description. When substituting La by Sr (La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$), the spectrum for the polarization perpendicular to the planes does not change substantially in contrast Li$_x$ZrNCl: it is still featureless (typical of an insulator) in the low energy region with the optical phonons dominating even for superconducting compositions. However, drastic changes happen in the spectrum with polarization parallel to the planes where an edge in the reflectivity appears. It is not of the usual Drude type but composed of two contributions: a Drude-like narrow one peaked at $\omega$=0 and a broad continuum centered in the mid-infrared region. The plasma edge in the reflectivity spectrum stays at almost the same position owing to the formation of an in-gap state in the charge transfer gap with doping and is not shifted as the doping level varies as happens in Li$_x$ZrNCl.[@uchida; @kim; @timusk]
Infrared reflectivity measurements on several 122 Fe-pnictides [@wu] also revealed complex features in the $xx$ component of the reflectivity with two electronic subsystems existing. The one gapped due to the spin-density-wave transition in the parent materials such as Eu(Fe)$_2$As$_2$ is responsible for superconductivity in the doped compounds such as Ba(Fe$_{0.92}$Co$_{0.08}$)$_2$As$_2$, Ba(Fe$_{0.95}$Ni$_{0.08}$)$_2$As$_2$. The second subsystem gives rise to incoherent background, present in all 122 compounds, which is basically temperature independent but affected by the superconducting transition.
Energy loss spectrum
--------------------
![Doping evolution of the in plane (above) and out of plane (below) components of the energy loss function of Li$_x$ZrNCl ($x= 0.16, 0.25$ and $0.50$). Note the decrease in intensity (smaller and narrower peaks) of the plasmon for out of plane polarization.[]{data-label="eps_0_25"}](FIG22.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Doping evolution of the in plane (above) and out of plane (below) components of the energy loss function of Li$_x$ZrNCl ($x= 0.16, 0.25$ and $0.50$). Note the decrease in intensity (smaller and narrower peaks) of the plasmon for out of plane polarization.[]{data-label="eps_0_25"}](FIG23.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
The energy loss function $$L_{\alpha\alpha}(\omega)=-\rm{Im} \epsilon^{-1}_{\alpha\alpha}(\omega)=
\frac{\epsilon_{2, \alpha\alpha}(\omega)}{\epsilon_{2,\alpha\alpha}^2(\omega)+\epsilon_{1, \alpha\alpha}^2(\omega)}$$ is a characteristic response function that can be measured directly, and provides the spectrum energy loss processes. A primary interest is in the collective plasmon peaks and how much they are broadened by interband processes, and the interband losses themselves. Peaks occur where $\epsilon_2$ is small and $\epsilon_1$ passes through zero. Or returning to the reflectivity spectra, the appearance of a reflectivity edge indicates the presence of a peak in the loss function.
In an ideal 2D interacting electron gas, the plasmon behaves as $\omega_p(q) \propto
\sqrt{q}$, hence giving no contribution at $q$=0. Doped ZrNCl however comprises a periodic superlattice of 2D layers, and in such multilayer systems the long range of the Coulomb interaction (across layers, independent of any electronic hopping) pushes the $q$=0 plasmon to finite frequency[@jain] followed by a spectrum at higher frequencies.
The RPA results for $L(\omega)$ for Li$_x$ZrNCl are displayed in Fig. \[eps\_0\_25\]. The in-plane ($xx$) spectrum is dominated by rather well defined plasmon peaks centered at 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 eV for $x$=0.16, 0.25, 0.50 respectively. The $x$=0.50 spectrum is again not quite as simple as those for smaller $x$, containing a small peak at 0.7 eV and continuing energy loss out to the main peak, and a further structure around 4 eV.
The perpendicular ($zz$) loss function is different, partly reflecting the large impact of matrix elements that depend strongly on the directionality of the orbitals that are involved in the transition, and also representing different physics. The main plasmon peaks lie at 1.2, 1.5, and 1.8 eV respectively, all lying at roughly the same energy as for $xx$ polarization. They are however much narrower, with full widths at half maximum of 0.1 eV or less. In addition, for each level of doping there is a low energy loss peak around 0.2 eV with larger width. This peak arises from the plasma edge linked to intraband transitions appearing at the same energy in $R_{zz}$. The highest doping level $x$=0.5 shows additional interband losses in the 2-3 eV region arising from occupation of the narrower 2nd and 3rd Zr $4d$ bands.
Discussion
==========
We have studied the $q$=0 dielectric response of insulating and doped ZrNCl in connection with its impressive superconductivity of uncertain origin. Screening in a layered electron gas as a possible origin of pairing has considerable history. The work by Bill [*et al.*]{} was discussed in the Introduction, and Pashitskii and Pentegov[@pashitskii] have elaborated on some aspects of the plasmon mechanism of pairing. For the layered homogeneous electron gas, the plasmon at $\vec q\rightarrow$0 lies at $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_p^2&=&4\pi e^2 \frac{n/c}{m^* \epsilon_{\infty}}\\ \nonumber
\omega_p &\approx& 2.7 \sqrt{x}~ eV\end{aligned}$$ for parameters appropriate to ZrNCl: $m^*$=0.6, $\epsilon_{\infty}$=5, $c$=10Å. Here $n$ is the 2D density of carriers per unit area. The values are 1.1 eV, 1.4 eV, and 1.9 eV for $x$=0.16, 0.25, 0.50 respectively, which are very similar to our computed values 1.2 eV, 1.5 eV, and 2.0 eV that can be seen in Fig. \[eps\_0\_25\]. Note that if the cell spacing $c$ is doubled $\omega_p$ decreases by 2$^{1/2}$; such an increase is observed to result in an increase T$_c$ by 30%. At this spacing and at the critical concentration $x_{cr}$=0.06, $\omega_p \sim$ 0.5 eV.
Formulation of a realistic superconducting gap equation and hence T$_c$ is a daunting task. Atwal and Ashcroft built a model appropriate for polarization waves of semicore electrons and estimated that T$_c$ of a few tens of kelvins could result.[@atwal] The model of Bill *et al.*[@bill] was adapted to doped HfNCl, concluding that T$_c$ = 25K could readily be obtained with realistic parameters. With their version of approximating the plasmon pairing kernel, Pashitskii and Pentegov[@pashitskii] found a very strong dependence on carrier concentration (unlike observations in the metal nitridochloride system) and could reach T$_c \sim$ 150K.
Without building specific models and in the context of increasing T$_c$ in several classes of one-, two-, and three-layered cuprates, Leggett focused on the Coulomb interaction energy, first within an isolated two-dimensional electron gas, and then on the interaction between such layers. He argued[@leggett] that the gain in Coulomb interaction energy upon entering the superconducting state is greater for several layers versus a single layer. His approach also predicted a majority of the effect to be from small-$q$ screening (long distance interaction).
What remains in the dynamics of these doped metal nitridochlorides (beyond the full $q$-dependence of $\epsilon(q,\omega)$) is the background of vibrating, highly charged ions in materials like lightly doped ZrNCl. This dynamics is implicated in the very bad metal behavior of resistivity discussed in the Introduction. Born effective charges have been reported for ZrNCl,[@bohnen] with the Zr$^{4+}$ having a BEC of +2.7 in-plane, N$^{3-}$ of -2.0 and Cl$^{1-}$ of -0.7. A significant anisotropy is found (the out of plane BEC are 1.1, -0.7 and -0.5 for Zr$^{4+}$, N$^{3-}$, and Cl${1-}$, respectively) due to the layered structure of the system. For a similar layered ionic insulator BaHfN$_2$, the Hf$^{4+}$ ion has a BEC of +4.5 in-plane, with N$^{3-}$ values up to -4.5 and Ba$^{2+}$ a BEC around +3.[@kaur]
There will be strong Coulomb coupling between these vibrating ions and the low density two dimensional electron gas, possibly giving rise to polaronic behavior near or below the critical doping level of 0.06. There is a large literature on modeling polarons and on bipolaronic mechanisms of pairing. However, specific treatments are needed: there are many cases of doped layered ionic insulators, but only this one class of excellent superconductors with T$_c \sim$ 15-26K.
summary
=======
We have studied the $q$=0 dielectric response of insulating and Li-doped ZrNCl in connection with its impressive superconductivity of unknown origin. We have revisited the electronic structure of Li$_x$ZrNCl, establishing that the differences between rigid band modeling and virtual crystal treatment are small, and comparing the results also with actual lithium doping using supercells. We have analyzed the dependence of the dielectric response with frequency and doping level, reproducing the experimental static dielectric constant $\epsilon_{\infty}$=5 extremely well. In the reflectivity spectra the appearance of a Drude plasma edge demonstrates the transition from a band insulator to a metal upon Li-intercalation. In the energy loss function, the main plasmon peaks appear where the electron gas model suggests they should, in the range 1.2-2.0 eV for $x$ varying from 0.16 to 0.50. The variations upon changing the doping level found in our calculations of the reflectivity and energy loss function are not correlated with the observed experimental (non)variation of T$_c(x)$, providing useful data in the search for the pairing mechanism in this class of superconductors. Specifically, pairing based on straightforward electronic overscreening is not supported by our results.
acknowledgments
===============
The authors have benefited from discussions with F. Gygi, D. J. Scalapino, M. L. Cohen, P. C. Canfield, and M. Calandra. This project was supported by the NSF Grant DMR-1207622.
[60]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , **, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The extraordinary transition which occurs in the two-dimensional $O(n)$ model for $n<1$ at sufficiently enhanced surface couplings is studied by conformal perturbation theory about infinite coupling and by finite-size scaling of the spectrum of the transfer matrix of a simple lattice model. Unlike the case of $n\geq1$ in higher dimensions, the surface critical behaviour differs from that occurring when fixed boundary conditions are imposed. In fact, all the surface scaling dimensions are equal to those already found for the ordinary transition, with, however, an interesting reshuffling of the corresponding eigenvalues between different sectors of the transfer matrix.'
---
[H]{} \#1[:\#1:]{} \#1\#2 \#1, \#2, \#3, 1\#4\#5\#6[[*\#1 *]{}[**\#2**]{}, \#3, 1\#4\#5\#6]{}
NSF-ITP-97-056\
ANU-MRR-015-97\
cond-mat/9705238
[**Extraordinary transition in the\
two-dimensional $O(n)$ model\
**]{}
Introduction
============
The behaviour of linear polymers interacting with a surface has been studied extensively [@DL93; @E93; @C96]. In the dilute limit they are modelled on the lattice by self-avoiding walks, which are themselves related to the $n\to0$ limit of an $O(n)$ spin model. In two dimensions, in particular, it has been possible, using methods of conformal field theory and integrable models, to obtain much exact information concerning the critical behaviour.
An explicit example is provided by the loop model on the honeycomb lattice, defined as follows. The partition function is a sum over all configurations of closed oriented loops on the lattice. A given site of coordination number 3 is therefore unoccupied (with weight $x$) or has just one oriented bond entering and leaving the site. There are 6 such configurations for a site, each occurring with weight 1. The parameter $x$ is thus the fugacity for empty sites, which controls the overall monomer density in the polymer language. There is also a fugacity $y$ for empty sites on the boundary, which have coordination number 2. In addition, each oriented closed loop carries a factor $n/2$ (so that on summing over both orientations the factor is $n$). This nonlocal weight is equivalent to inserting local weights $e^{\pm i\chi}$ at each occupied site, with the sign chosen according to whether the walk turns left or right as it passes through the site, as long as $n=2\cos6\chi$. These oriented loop configurations then correspond to the diagrams of the high temperature expansion in powers of $1/x$ of a complex $O(n/2)$ ($\equiv$ real $O(n)$) model, with complex spins $S_a$ ($a=1,\ldots,n/2$) at each lattice site.
The schematic phase diagram of this model is shown in Fig. \[pd\].
=3.5in
Only the details depend on the specific model. There is a bulk critical point at $x=x_c$, where [@N82; @B86] x\_c = , which controls the behaviour of long walks of fixed length $N$ in the bulk. This is because the relation between fixed fugacity and fixed length ensembles is through a discrete Laplace transform: for example the generating function $\sum_Nc_Nx^{N}$ for the number of $N$-step walks per site is given by the susceptibility of the $O(n)$ model, which diverges as $x\to
x_c$ from above. When $y>y_s$, quantities near the surface become singular at $x=x_c$, but with exponents which differ from those in the bulk. This is the line $SO$ of ordinary transitions. It terminates at the point $S$ where $y=y_s$, the special transition. When $y<y_s$ surface quantities actually become singular at a value of $x=x'_c(y)>x_c$, while the bulk remains nonsingular. This is termed the surface transition, and is in the universality class of the $(d-1)$-dimensional $O(n)$ model. However, for $y<y_s$, surface quantities then undergo a second transition on the line $x=x_c$, since they are coupled to the bulk critical behaviour. This is the extraordinary transition. The phase diagram in Fig. \[pd\] is believed to be generic to short-range $O(n)$ models, both in three dimensions, and in two dimensions when $n<1$. (For $n\geq1$ in $d=2$ the surface and ordinary transitions disappear since the surface cannot order independently of the bulk, being one-dimensional.) This picture is confirmed by exact results on the specfic model described above, which turns out to be solvable by Bethe ansatz methods at $x=x_c$ and for two values of $y$: $y=x_c$ [@BS93; @YB95a; @YB95b] which yields values for the surface exponents in agreement with those expected for the ordinary transition on the basis of conformal field theory arguments [@C84a; @DS86]; and $y=y_s$, where [@BY95a; @YB95a; @YB95b] y\_s = [ ]{}, at which the exponents are different. This latter point is therefore identified with the special transition.
Note that the extraordinary transition is irrelevant for the fixed $N$ ensemble of dilute polymers, since its large $N$ behaviour is controlled by the largest singularity in $x$, which in this case is the surface transition. Physically this is because for $y<y_s$ a finite length polymer will bind to the surface and therefore be governed by $(d-1)$-dimensional exponents. Conversely, for $y>y_s$ it will explore the bulk and have an effective repulsion from the surface. The special transition at $y=y_s$ is therefore important in that it describes the absorption transition for a large but finite length polymer at the boundary.
Nevertheless, within the fixed fugacity ensemble, which is certainly realisable at least in simulations and transfer matrix calculations, the extraordinary transition is accessible, and one may enquire as to its universal properties. For conventional spin models, including the $O(n)$ model with $n\geq1$ in $d>2$, it may be argued that the extraordinary transition is identical to that which occurs in the presence of a surface ordering field. This is because for temperatures below that of the surface transition the surface is expected to be ordered, which means that the $O(n)$ symmetry is spontaneously broken. However, once it is broken, it should not matter whether this breaking was the result of an explicit surface symmetry-breaking field. For Ising-like systems, there is ample evidence that these two problems are indeed in the same universality class. The limit of infinite surface ordering field is equivalent to the case of fixed boundary conditions.
An analogous line of argument has led the authors of Refs. [@BEG89; @BE94] to analyse the extraordinary transition of the $O(n)$ model in the limit $n\to0$ in terms of the same model with *fixed *boundary conditions. However, this is not correct, because in the absence of explicit symmetry breaking fields the $O(n)$ model cannot exhibit surface order for $n<1$, even when $x<x_c'$. For, if the spins near the boundary were to be aligned in some fixed direction, walks in the vicinity of the boundary would be counted with weight 1, rather than $n$. The situation is very analogous to the case when $x<x_c$ in the bulk: in that case, the $O(n)$ spins do not order and the symmetry is not broken. Rather this corresponds to the so-called dense phase, when a single polymer occupies a finite fraction of the sites in a finite volume. Similarly, $x<x_c'$ corresponds to the ‘dense’ phase on the surface (which, being one-dimensional, is rather trivial.) There is, nevertheless, an extraordinary transition in this dense phase when the bulk goes critical.**
The critical properties of this transition are in fact identical to those of the ordinary transition. To see this, consider the special point $y=0$ at the end of the line. Then there are no vacant sites on the boundary, and if there is just one polymer in the system, it will be rigidly bound to the surface. However this will mean that other polymers are in fact repelled from the surface. In the explicit model introduced above, it may be seen that sites one lattice constant into the bulk from the boundary will have an effective surface fugacity precisely $y=x_c$, which is the integrable ordinary point! This is illustrated in Fig. \[tef\].
For this reason, one may refer to the point $y=0$ as the ‘teflon’ point: one polymer coats the boundary and makes it effectively repulsive to other polymers.
The properties at $y=0$ are therefore very simple: they are those of a lattice with one layer of sites removed, at the ordinary point $y=x_c$. This leaves the remainder of the line $0<y<y_s$ to be discussed, and this forms the bulk of this paper. We shall argue that all the universal properties along this line are the same as those at $y=0$, by using two sets of arguments. In Sec. \[sec2\] we use perturbation theory in $y$, coupled with various arguments from conformal field theory, to show that the variable $y$ is irrelevant in the sense of the , so that all the universal properties are the same, at least for sufficiently small $y$. In order to perform perturbation theory about such a critical point it is necessary to impose an infrared cutoff, and this is most easily realised by considering the system in an infinitely long strip of width $L$. The universal properties are then encoded in the finite-size scaling behaviour of the spectrum of the transfer matrix of this model. This may be studied within conformal perturbation theory about the teflon point. We find indeed that the scaling part of the spectrum is unaffected by the perturbation. However, there are additional degeneracies at $y=0$ compared to those along the line of the ordinary transition. Some of these are resolved by the perturbation, but not in the scaling part of the spectrum, where the degeneracies persist. We show how this comes about and derive the qualitative nature of the splitting.
This analytic work near $y=0$ is then supplemented in Sec. \[sec3\] by a study of the numerical diagonalisation of the transfer matrix for small widths but for all values of $0<y<y_s$. This confirms the analytic results but also shows how the eigenstates cross in a complicated manner as $y$ is decreased. In particular, the low-lying states occur in different sectors for $y\ll y_s$ and $y_s-y\ll y_s$. However, as $L$ is increased all these crossings move towards $y=y_s$, indicating that in the limit the scaling theory at all points $y<y_s$ is the same as at $y=0$, and different from that at the special transition $y=y_s$. These numerical results are limited by the small values of $L$ we use, and the fact that, at $y=0$, a layer of sites is effectively removed at each boundary.
Perturbation theory about the teflon point {#sec2}
==========================================
We first consider the spectrum of the transfer matrix at the point $y=0$ and how it differs from that at the integrable ordinary point $y=x_c$. The transfer matrix is constructed from the ensemble of *oriented *self-avoiding loops. The number of up arrows minus the number of down arrows crossing any given ‘time’ slice is therefore conserved. This total ‘charge’ $Q$ therefore commutes with the transfer matrix, and the eigenstates of the latter may be organised into sectors of a given $Q$. All the way along the ordinary line $OS$ and at the special point $S$, the largest eigenvalue $\Lambda_0$ of the transfer matrix is nondegenerate and lies in the $Q=0$ sector,[^1] and the corresponding quantity $E_0\equiv-\ln\Lambda_0$ has the finite-size scaling form [@BCN86; @A86] E\_0=f\_bL+2f\_s-[c(n)24L]{}+o(L\^[-1]{}). Here $\zeta = 2/\sqrt3$ is a lattice dependent scale factor, inserted since $L$ counts the number of sites, rather than the linear dimension, across the strip. The bulk and surface free energies $f_b$ and $f_s$ are also nonuniversal. In particular $f_s$ depends on the surface fugacity $y$. However the central charge $c$ is universal, with [@BS93; @BY95a; @YB95b] c(n)=1 - 6(g-1)\^2/g, \[c\] where $n=-2\cos\pi g$. Similarly the excited state eigenvalues $E_m\equiv-\ln\Lambda_m$ scale according to [@C84b] E\_m-E\_0=[x\_mL]{}+o(L\^[-1]{}), where $x_m$ is one of the scaling dimensions of the allowed surface operators. The terms in the $E_m$ which scale like $1/L$ may therefore be referred to as the universal, scaling, part of the spectrum. There is always an excited state in the $Q=0$ sector corresponding to the energy operator of the $O(n)$ model. In the spin language this is the operator $\no{S^*_aS_a}$, and it measures the local density of monomers, that is, the probability that a given site is occupied. Along the ordinary line $OS$, it has been argued that this operator has surface scaling dimension $x_e=2$, and is in fact not an independent primary operator but is proportional to the component $T_{\parallel\perp}$ of the stress tensor. This has been verified by the exact solution at $y=x_c$. However, at the special point $S$, this is not true, and it is found that $x_e^{(s)}=2/g-1$. There is another excited state in the $Q=0$ sector, degenerate with the ground state in the $Q=2$ sector. The former corresponds to the operator $\no{S^*_aS_b}$ (with $a\not=b$) while the latter corresponds to $\no{S^*_aS^*_b}$ (or $\no{S_aS_b}$) which acts as a source (or a sink) for a pair of oriented walks. These have the same eigenvalue (and hence the same scaling dimension because they are related by an $O(n)$ rotation (the full symmetry group of the problem.) In fact, at $n=0$ these states are also degenerate with that corresponding to the energy operator, as may be seen by a study of the form of the transfer matrix. In general the ground state in the charge $Q$ sector corresponds to the operator $\no{S^*_{a_1}S^*_{a_2}\ldots S^*_{a_Q}}$, which acts as a source for $Q$ oriented walks. It has scaling dimension [@BS93; @YB95b] x\_Q= g Q\^2 + (g-1) Q \[xord\] at the ordinary transition and [@BY95a; @YB95b] x\_Q\^[(s)]{}= g (Q+1)\^2 - (Q+1) + at the special point. In general, these states will be degenerate with states in the sectors $Q-2,Q-4,\ldots$ corresponding to reversing some of the arrows.**
Now let us consider how this picture changes at the teflon point $y=0$. Then all the boundary states must be occupied, and so there must be a polymer lying along each boundary. However, these may have either orientation. Once these are in place, the remaining problem is that of a strip of width $L-2$ at the integrable ordinary point. Apart from the boundary polymers, therefore, the spectrum is exactly that described above. However, when these are included we now see that the ground states in the $Q=0$ and $Q=\pm2$ sectors are identical. Moreover, that in the $Q=0$ sector is doubly degenerate. This is illustrated in Fig. \[gs\].
=4.5in
The first excited state, with finite-size scaling behaviour controlled by the scaling dimension $x_e=2$, now occurs in all the even sectors with $|Q|\leq4$, with different degeneracies, as shown in Fig. \[1s\].
=1.5in
When $y\not=0$, the first effect to $O(y)$ is to allow a single boundary site to be vacant. This immediately allows one of the boundary polymers to wander away from the surface at this point, as illustrated in Fig. \[gsOy\].
=1.5in
Since the bulk is critical, it may in fact wander all the way across to the other side and therefore modify the finite-size scaling spectrum. This may be quantified by observing that if we now ignore the two boundary layers, the effect is of a long polymer loop attached at one point to the boundary. Such configurations are generated by inserting the energy operator $S^*_aS_a$ near the boundary. Since this has scaling dimension $x_e=2$, the $O(y)$ change in the free energy per unit length will therefore scale like $L^{-2}$. The universal scaling part of the spectrum is therefore unaffected, the change in $E_0$ being $O(y/L^2)$. This also indicates that from the point of view $y$ is irrelevant, with eigenvalue $-1$. Thus flows from the vicinity of $y=0$ go into the teflon fixed point, and all universal quantities like the scaling part of the eigenvalue spectrum should be identical. Note also that the $O(y)$ corrections will be identical in the $|Q|=2$ and $Q=0$ sectors, so they remain exactly degenerate to this order. The higher order corrections are more interesting, however. They correspond to the configurations shown in Figs. (\[gsOy2a\],\[gsOy2b\]).
=3.0in
=4.5in
Those in Fig. \[gsOy2a\] are diagonal in the basis of unperturbed ground states, and therefore produce shifts which, since the matrix elements are independent of the orientation, are equal in all three sectors. However some of the diagrams in Fig. \[gsOy2b\] produce mixing between the two $Q=0$ states. Because of the extra $e^{\pm i\chi}$ factors introduced in some of these configurations, the mixing matrix is proportional to $$\pmatrix{e^{6i\chi}&1\cr
1&e^{-6i\chi}\cr}$$ with eigenvalues $0$ and $2\cos6\chi=n$. The two states in the $Q=0$ sector are therefore split at $O(y^2)$, but one remains degenerate with those in the $|Q|=2$ sectors. At $n=0$ this splitting should vanish. The order of magnitude of these second order shifts is expected on the basis of the to be $O(L^{-3})$. However, if they are computed explicitly in terms of integrals over two-point functions in the unperturbed theory, those corresponding to the first diagram in Fig. \[gsOy2a\] diverge at short distances and must be regulated by a cut-off of the order of the lattice spacing, giving rise to contributions $O(y^2/L^2)$. Such non-universal corrections to finite-size scaling from higher order effects of an irrelevant operator are standard. However, they do not affect the splitting coming from the diagrams in Fig. \[gsOy2b\], where the two insertions are on opposite sides of the strip.
Next we study the excited states in perturbation theory in $y$. These effects are easiest to see in the odd $Q$ sectors. At $y=0$ the lowest states in the $Q=\pm1,\pm3$ sectors are all degenerate, corresponding to the configurations shown in Fig. \[Qodd\].
=4.5in
To $O(y)$, there are two distinct types of configurations which enter, shown in Fig. \[QoddOy\].
=4.5in
The first two are diagonal and therefore shift all states equally, by an amount $O(y/L^2)$. The second pair induce mixing in between the 3 degenerate states in the $|Q|=1$ sectors, however. As above, the various $e^{\pm i\chi}$ factors must be taken into account, and when this is done the mixing matrix in the $Q=1$ sector, for example, is proportional to $$\pmatrix{e^{6i\chi}+e^{-6i\chi}&1&1\cr
1&e^{6i\chi}&0\cr
1&0&e^{-6i\chi}\cr}$$ with eigenvalues $(n-1,0,n+1)$. Therefore, to $O(y/L^2)$, we expect to find a single state in the $Q=1$ sector remaining degenerate with that in the $|Q|=3$ sectors, while the remaining two split away. At $n=0$ this splitting is equidistant.
Numerical evidence {#sec3}
==================
In order to supplement the conformal perturbation theory results we have numerically diagonalised the double-row transfer matrix of the vertex model. The detailed investigation of degeneracies and splitting of the eigenvalues as a function of the boundary weight $y$ necessitates calculating many eigenvalues of the transfer matrix. We have thus restricted ourselves to calculating the complete eigenspectrum for small widths of up to $L=8$. This is sufficient to confirm both the order in $y$ and the finite-size dependence of a given splitting. Our numerical results are suggestive that the corrections to the finite-size scaling spectrum away from the teflon point are $O(y/L^2)$ and thus do not effect the scaling dimensions.
Consider first the teflon point, with $y=0$ on each side of the strip. We confirm for finite $L$ that, apart from the shuffling of eigenvalues, the eigenspectrum is equivalent to that on a strip of width $L-2$ with $y=x_c$ at the boundaries, i.e. at the integrable ordinary point. The eigenvalues at $y=x_c$ appear with a higher degeneracy at $y=0$ (there are $3^L$ eigenvalues at $y=0$ compared to $3^{L-2}$ at $y=x_c$). The known exact results at the ordinary point can thus be used to infer exact results at the teflon point. In contrast with the points $I$ and $S$, the largest eigenvalue in the $Q=0$ sector is seen to be 2-fold degenerate. It is also degenerate with the largest eigenvalue in the $Q=2$ sector. At $n=0$ the largest eigenvalue is given by $\Lambda_0 = (2 + \sqrt 2)^{L-2}$ and thus $c=0$. For general $n$ the central charge is given by (\[c\]), as calculated for the integrable ordinary point. The leading thermal excitation in the $Q=0$ sector at $y=0$ corresponds to the thermal excitation at the integrable ordinary point, and thus $x_e = 2$, independent of $n$. More generally the scaling dimensions (\[xord\]) also appear at $y=0$. In particular, the magnetic scaling dimension is given by $x_h = x_1$.
Consider the largest eigenvalue in the $Q=0$ sector along the line $SO$ ($y \ge y_s$) at $n=0$. At $n=0$, this corresponds to the state with no arrows, which, for this value of $n$, is an exact eigenstate. Its eigenvalue is given exactly by $\Lambda_0 = (2 + \sqrt 2)^L a^2$, where $a=y/\sqrt{2 + \sqrt 2}$ is the surface free energy contribution. There are no further correction terms in either $y$ or $L$. Clearly for finite $L$, $\Lambda_0 \to 0$ as $y \to 0$. Thus, for finite $L$, there is a point at which this eigenvalue crosses the continuation of the 2-fold degenerate ground state for $0 < y < y_s$. For increasing $L$, the successive crossing points $y_{cr}(L)$ are expected to approach $y_s$ at a rate determined by the crossover exponent $y'$ at the special point: y\_s - y\_[cr]{} \~L\^[-y’]{}, \[cross\] where $y'=1-x_e^{(s)}=\frac23$ at $n=0$. A log-log plot of the above estimates, exhibited in Fig. \[loglog\] reveals the value $y' \simeq 0.67$, in excellent agreement.
=4.0in
The 2-fold degeneracy is seen to be broken away from $n=0$, with one of the eigenvalues remaining degenerate with the largest eigenvalue in the $Q=2$ sector. According to the conformal perturbation theory, there should be a uniform shift $O(y/L^2)$ while the splitting should be $O(y^2/L^2)$. Examination of these eigenvalues for small $y$ indicates that the $O(y)$ term tends to a constant as $L$ increases, being a surface energy contribution in $y$. For fixed $y$ the finite-size convergence to this value is consistent with $O(1/L^2)$, however the available data is insufficient to unambiguously determine the exponent. Nevertheless this term cancels in the finite-size estimates of the scaling dimensions. The more important term for the scaling spectra is the $O(y^2)$ term governing the splitting of the degeneracy. The splitting is absent at $n=0$ and clearly seen to be $O(y^2)$ away from $n=0$. For finite $y$, the splitting term is seen to vanish at least as fast as $O(1/L^2)$.
The splitting of the 3-fold degenerate largest eigenvalue in the $Q=1$ sector is clearly seen to be $O(y)$. Moreover, the splitting is precisely proportional to the eigenvalues $(n-1,0,n+1)$ derived from the mixing matrix. Denote the three split eigenvalues by $\Lambda_1^{(1)} < \Lambda_1^{(2)} < \Lambda_1^{(3)}$ and define their differences by $a=\Lambda_1^{(1)}-\Lambda_1^{(2)}$ and $b=\Lambda_1^{(2)} - \Lambda_1^{(3)}$. We observe the equal splitting at $n=0$ with $b=0$ at $n=1$. Finite-size estimates of $a/b$ for the particular value $n=0.445\ldots$ ($g=\ffrac{10}{7}$) are shown in Table \[tab\]. They are seen to be in good agreement with the expected value $a/b = - (n+1)/(n-1) = 2.60388$. The middle eigenvalue $\Lambda_1^{(2)}$ remains degenerate with the largest eigenvalue in the $Q=3$ sector.
$L$ $y=0.0001$ $y=0.001$ $y=0.01$
----- ------------ ----------- ----------
3 2.60369 2.60202 2.58003
4 2.60360 2.60107 2.57390
5 2.60362 2.60133 2.57734
6 2.60365 2.60163 2.58059
7 2.60368 2.60187 2.58320
8 2.60370 2.60207 2.58529
: Finite-size estimates of the splitting ratio $a/b$ for the largest eigenvalue in the $Q=1$ sector. The expected value derived from the mixing matrix is $a/b = 2.60388$.\[tab\]
At fixed $y$ the amplitude of the $O(y)$ splitting is seen to decrease with increasing $L$. Consider, for example, $n=0$ where the splitting is equidistant, with E\_1(y) - E\_0(y) = E\_1(y=0) - E\_0(y=0) + A y + {
[c]{} B\
0\
-B
} y + o(y\^[-1]{}). \[AB\] The amplitudes $A$ and $B$ are constant for given $L$. However, they vanish as $O(1/L^2)$, as can be seen in the log-log plot of Fig. \[amp\].
=4.0in
The corresponding finite-size estimates of the magnetic scaling dimension $x_1$ are shown as a function of $1/L$ in Fig. \[xest\] for increasing values of $y$. In each case the observed trend is again consistent with $O(y/L^2)$ convergence in the eigenvalues, i.e. the scaling dimensions being independent of $y$. We have observed similar behaviour in the estimates of the thermal dimension $x_e=2$.
=4.5in
Conclusion
==========
We have studied the extraordinary transition in the two-dimensional $O(n)$ model for $n<1$ by conformal perturbation theory and by finite-size scaling of the transfer matrix eigenspectrum of a simple model on the honeycomb lattice. We argued that the universal properties along the line $0<y<y_s$ in the phase diagram shown in Fig. \[pd\] are independent of $y$, being those at the teflon point $y=0$. The surface scaling dimensions at $y=0$ are equal to those for the ordinary transition. There are, however, additional eigenspectra degeneracies at $y=0$ compared to those along the line of the ordinary transition. The result for the magnetic scaling dimension at the extraordinary transition differs from the value $x_h=x_e=2$ obtained previously with fixed boundary conditions [@BEG89; @BE94]. As we have explained, this is because the $O(n)$ model does not order in the absence of a symmetry-breaking field when $n<1$.
Although the extraordinary transition we have discussed in this paper is not relevant to the statistics of a single self-avoiding walk, or linear polymer, of fixed finite length, it may be realised within the fixed fugacity ensemble. In this case a *single *polymer will simply bind to the wall and not exhibit any interesting scaling behaviour. The exponents we have discussed in the body of this paper, and which are observed in the finite-size scaling spectrum, refer to the behaviour of a *second *polymer in the vicinity of the surface. Thus our results are relevant to the semi-dilute regime rather than the statistics of a single polymer.****
It is also possible to consider mixed boundary conditions, when one side of the strip has $0<y<y_s$ and the other is either at the ordinary or the special point. In that case, at the teflon point, the finite-size spectrum will be that of a strip of width $L-1$ with either ordinary exponents or mixed ordinary-special exponents [@BY95b; @YB95b; @BO96]. The degeneracy of these states will be different, however, and may be discussed in the manner as in Sec. \[sec2\], as may be the splittings which should occur away from $y=0$.
The authors thank A. Owczarek for useful comments. This work was begun while JC was a visitor at ANU under the Mathematical Sciences Research Visitors Program. It was continued while MB was a visitor at Oxford under the Australian Academy of Science/ Royal Society Exchange Scheme, and completed while JC was a visitor at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara. The work of MB has also been supported by the Australian Research Council, and of JC by the EPSRC through Grant GR/J78327, and the NSF through Grant PHY94-07194.
[99]{}
K. De’Bell and T. Lookman, 65 (1993) 87. E. Eisenriegler, Polymers Near Surfaces, (World Scientific, 1993). J. Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
B. Nienhuis, 49 (1982) 1062. R.J. Baxter, 19 (1986) 2821.
M.T. Batchelor and J. Suzuki, 26 (1993) L729. C.M. Yung and M.T. Batchelor, 435 (1995) 430. C.M. Yung and M.T. Batchelor, 453 (1995) 552.
J.L. Cardy, 240 (1984) 514. B. Duplantier and H. Saleur, 57 (1986) 3179.
M.T. Batchelor and C.M. Yung, 74 (1995) 2026.
T.W. Burkhardt, E. Eisenriegler and I. Guim, 316 (1989) 559. T.W. Burkhardt and E. Eisenriegler, 424 (1994) 487.
H.W.J. Blöte, J.L. Cardy and M.P. Nightingale, 56 (1986) 742. I. Affleck, 56 (1986) 746. J.L. Cardy, 17 (1984) L385.
M.T. Batchelor and C.M. Yung, 28 (1995) L421.
D. Bennet-Wood and A.L. Owczarek, 29 (1996) 4755.
[^1]: Actually at the point $S$ the largest eigenvalues in the $Q=0$ and $Q=1$ sectors are equal when $n=1$, with $x_1^{(s)} < 0$ for $n < 1$. Thus for $n < 1$ there is a point on the line $OS$ (below point $I$) where the two eigenvalues cross. The central charge is still measured from the largest eigenvalue in the $Q=0$ sector.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Three transiting exoplanet candidate stars were discovered in a ground-based photometric survey prior to the launch of NASA’s [*Kepler*]{} mission. [*Kepler*]{} observations of them were obtained during Quarter 1 of the [*Kepler*]{} mission. All three stars are faint by radial velocity follow-up standards, so we have examined these candidates with regard to eliminating false positives and providing high confidence exoplanet selection. We present a first attempt to exclude false positives for this set of faint stars without high resolution radial velocity analysis. This method of exoplanet confirmation will form a large part of the [*Kepler*]{} mission follow-up for Jupiter-sized exoplanet candidates orbiting faint stars. Using the [*Kepler*]{} light curves and pixel data, as well as medium resolution reconnaissance spectroscopy and speckle imaging, we find that two of our candidates are binary stars. One consists of a late-F star with an early M companion while the other is a K0 star plus a late M-dwarf/brown dwarf in a 19-day elliptical orbit. The third candidate (BOKS-1) is a $r$=15 G8V star hosting a newly discovered exoplanet with a radius of 1.12 R$_{Jupiter}$ in a 3.9 day orbit.'
author:
- |
Steve B. Howell Jason F. Rowe William Sherry Kaspar von Braun\
David R. Ciardi Stephen T. Bryson John J. Feldmeier Elliott Horch Gerard T. van Belle
title: ' [*Kepler*]{} Observations of Three Pre-Launch Exoplanet Candidates: Discovery of Two Eclipsing Binaries and a New Exoplanet '
---
Introduction
============
Slightly more than two years before the launch of the NASA [*Kepler*]{} mission (Borucki et al., 2010a), a 40 night photometric variability study was undertaken in the [*Kepler*]{} field of view (Howell 2008). The Burrell Schmidt Optical Kepler Survey (BOKS) consisted of imaging a 1.25 square degree patch of sky centered on the open cluster NGC 6811 and was aimed at the detection of variable stars and exoplanet transits. Data were obtained using 3 minute SDSS r band exposures with a few V band exposures to provide color information and relate sources to other existing catalogues of stars in the field. The BOKS survey magnitude range is r=14 to 20 with over 35,000 point sources being measured and having light curves produced. Full details of the BOKS survey and our exoplanet transit candidate detection procedures are presented in Feldmeier et al. (2010).
This paper describes [*Kepler*]{} observations of three exoplanet candidate stars initially identified in the BOKS survey as having light curves suggestive of transit events. The three candidates had their discovery light curves and initial vetting described in Feldmeier et al. (2010). Since that time, ground-based reconnaissance spectra and high resolution imaging have been obtained and the sources were observed by [*Kepler*]{} during Quarter 1 (Q1) operation. The transit events (initially discovered in the ground-based survey) were confirmed in the [*Kepler*]{} data. The near-continuous observations and high photometric precision of [*Kepler*]{} have enabled us to quantify the observed events and to understand the candidate systems. While our analyses presented herein do not provide, by themselves, complete solutions for the non-exoplanet systems, they are nevertheless easily characterized as false positives. Additional ground-based spectroscopy, in the future, could be used to fully describe the non-exoplanet systems.
Our goal in this paper is to use the powerful constraints available from the analysis of the [*Kepler*]{} light curves and image data coupled with high quality medium resolution spectroscopy and high resolution images to eliminate false positives and provide high confidence identification. This type of analysis and confirmation will be used in general for [*Kepler*]{} exoplanet candidates that are large (Jupiter-like planets of which $>$100 are currently known; Borucki et al., 2010b) and have SDSS r magnitudes fainter than $\sim$13.5. The large number of candidates and the relative faintness of their host stars essentially eliminates the ability to obtain enough large aperture high-resolution spectra to use for planet mass determination. Thus, the statistical value of [*Kepler*]{} results for large planets orbiting faint stars will rely on high levels of false positive elimination, and not on radial velocity measurements of the planet masses.
False positive elimination begins with a number of steps involving [*Kepler*]{} data itself. Using pipeline produced light curves (Jenkins et al. 2010a), and image data products (Bryson et al. 2010), candidates with at least three consistent events have transit models fit to their phase folding light curves. Additionally, detailed analysis of a number of aspects of the light curves, using difference imaging, and searching for centroid position shifts in the [*Kepler*]{} pixel data during transit are also conducted. The details of the torturous false positive elimination path the Kepler data follows prior to ground-based observations is discussed in Batalha et al. (2010) and Borucki et al. (2010b). Only after these steps have been passed are ground-based observations brought into play, especially spectroscopy and high resolution imaging.
The three stars are referred to herein by their [*Kepler*]{} identification number (KID) as given in the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC; Batalha et al. 2010). We present finding charts for each object in Figure 1 and coordinates and photometric information for them in Table 1. From our detailed analysis of the [*Kepler*]{} light curves and ancillary data and additional ground-based observations described below, we find that two of the original exoplanet candidates identified in the BOKS survey are eclipsing binaries while the third is found to be a true exoplanet system.
Sections 2-4 deal with our observations using [*Kepler*]{}, ground-based spectroscopy, and high resolution speckle imaging. Section 5 presents conclusions for each candidate based on the observations and data analysis while Section 6 concludes the paper.
[*Kepler*]{} Photometric Observations
=====================================
The [*Kepler*]{} mission and its photometric performance since launch are described in Borucki et al. (2010) while the CCD imager on-board [*Kepler*]{} is described in Koch et al. (2010) and Van Cleve (2008). The observations used herein consist of data covering a time period of 32 days, obtained during [*Kepler’s*]{} Quarter 1 of operation (May-June 2009 corresponding to HJD 2454964 to 2454998). The [*Kepler*]{} photometry of our three stars are presented in Figures 2-4. The photometric observations were reduced using the [*Kepler*]{} mission data pipeline (Jenkins et al., 2010) and then passed through various consistency checks and exoplanet transit detection software as described in Van Cleve (2009). Normalized and phase-folded light curves were then produced for each of the three BOKS exoplanet candidates. The transit events in the phased light curves were modeled in an effort to understand the transiting companion, both from the primary transit event and the secondary eclipse, if observed. Two of the candidates (KIC 9838975 and KIC 9597095) show clear evidence for a secondary eclipse and are consistent with being eclipsing binaries. The remaining candidate (KIC 9838975) is revealed to be a bona fide exoplanet.
Transit Fits
------------
The [*Kepler*]{} photometric time series are initially fit to a transit (when the companion moves in front of the star) model to determine the scaled radius ($R_p$/[$R_\star$]{}), scaled semi-major axis (a/[$R_\star$]{}), impact parameter (b) and the period (P) and epoch (T0) of the companion. Our transit model uses the analytic formulae of Mandel & Agol (2002) for a non-linear limb-darkening law and best fits are found using a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (Press et al., 1992). Limb-darkening coefficients where adopted from fits to Atlas 9 spectra (Sbordone et al. 2004) convolved with the Kepler bandpass (Prsa 2010). We model the occultation (when the companion moves behind the star) by computing the fraction of the companion occulted by the star as a function of the star-planet projected distance and fitting for the brightness of the companion relative to the star. We assume the planet is a uniformly illuminated disc during occultation. In cases where we detect a significant occultation we allow for eccentric orbits and appropriately adjust the depth of the transit model to account for dilution. Uncertainties for the model parameters were derived from a Markov-Chain-Monte-Carlo (MCMC) analysis (Ford 2005). We refer the reader to Koch et al. (2010) for a full description of the transit modeling procedure.
We also compute an odd-even transit depth and occultation depth statistic that provide useful diagnostics in the identification of stellar binaries. The odd-even statistic determines the significance of a change of depth of odd and even numbered transits. If the transit depths are found to be changing in such a fashion, then we have strong evidence that we are seeing a stellar binary where the two components have slightly different surface flux densities and the true orbital period is twice as long. The odd-even effects where measured at 0.7, 1.6 and 0.5 sigma confidence levels for KIC 9595827, KIC 9838975 and KIC 9597095 respectively. No significant odd-even effect was found for the three candidates described in this paper.
The occultation depth statistic attempts to measure the significance of an occultation of the companion. The search is done by first removing photometric measurements during transit and then phasing the remaining data at the orbital period and computing the maximum displacement of a segment of phased data with a length equal to the transit duration. No displacements are found for KIC 9595827 (the largest displacement had a 0.7 sigma significance) level while strong displacements were identified for KIC 9597095 and KIC 9838975.
The scaled semi-major axis is related to the mean density of the primary star and companion by, $$\label{eq:rhostar}
\left(\frac{a}{R_\star}\right)^3 \frac{\pi}{3 G P^2} =
\frac{(M_\star+M_p)}{\frac{4 \pi}{3}R_\star^3}.$$ If $M_\star >> M_p$, then it is a simple matter to estimate the mean stellar density ([$\bar{\rho_\star}$]{}) of the primary star and deduce its stellar parameters by matching to a set of theoretical stellar evolution models with an independent measurement of the stars effective temperature (Sozzetti et al. 2007). For KIC 9838975 and KIC 9597095, the depth of the occultation is used to estimate the temperature of the companion, by assuming the companion radiates as a blackbody and correcting for the Kepler bandpass. We estimate temperatures for the companion of $\sim$ 2700 K and $\sim$ 4000 K respectively. Such temperatures suggest companions is with masses of $\sim$0.1 $M_\sun$ and $\sim$0.5 $M_\sun$. For a Jupiter-mass companion an error of 0.02% will be incurred on the measurement of [$\bar{\rho_\star}$]{}, a $0.1 M_\sun$ companion would skew our estimate of [$\bar{\rho_\star}$]{} by $\sim$ 2% and a 0.5 $M_\sun$ companion would induce a systematic error of 41% on [$\bar{\rho_\star}$]{}. It should also be noted that we have assumed a circular orbit for KIC 9595827. Should the companion exist in an eccentric orbit, our estimate of the scaled semi-major axis could exhibit large systematic errors (c.f., Tingley, Bonomo and Deeg, 2010).
We adopt of estimates for the masses of the companions listed above and calculate [$\bar{\rho_\star}$]{}. For KIC 9597095 we also carry through an error of 10% to account for our uncertainty in the mass of the companion. We then proceed to determine the stellar parameters of the primary stars by matching [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} (see Table 2) with an adopted error of 150 K with the mean stellar density to the Yonsei-Yale stellar evolution tracks (Demarque 2004) to calculate the range of stellar parameters consistent with the observation (e.g. Borucki et al. 2010b). This calculation produces a Markov-Chain of 100 000 samples of $M_\star$, $R_\star$ pairs. These values are then used to determine new fits for T0, P, $R_p$, orbital inclination (i) and occultation depth as well as uncertainties in our model fits to light curves as listed in Table 3.
Image Analysis
--------------
Examination of the Kepler pixel images within the aperture of an exoplanet candidate star provides powerful extra constraints that can eliminate false positives. The stars KIC 9597095 and KIC 9838975 have already been eliminated as false positives for exoplanet candidates by virtue of their [*Kepler*]{} light curves alone. However, the exoplanet candidate KIC 9595827, [*not shown*]{} to be a false positive event based on the folded light curves and transit models discussed above, can be subjected to additional testing by making use of the downloaded image pixel data. The use of [*Kepler*]{} image pixel data for false positive elimination is described in Batalha et al. (2010). Details of initial image centroiding and difference image use are discussed by Jenkins et al. (2010b) and make for additional methods by which false positives can be identified. We have improved on those techniques as discussed below.
The pixel image aperture containing KIC 9595827 is shown in Figure 5 (top two panels) and is seen to contain 24 pixels in a 6X4 arrangement. Formation of these two images is done by first detrending then folding the pixel time series and finally averaging over several in-transit (5 in this case) and out-of-transit (20) points. This improvement from the original analysis provides more robust images. The small change in flux of the target star between in and out of transit is too small to be noted here given the image stretch and the fact that a [*Kepler*]{} star is purposely slightly out of focus with a FWHM value near 4 arcsec (see Bryson et al. 2010). Since each pixel is 3.98 arcsec in size (Koch et al. 2010), the total aperture used here is 24 by 16 arcsec and is seen to contain our target star and a piece of a close companion. This brighter neighbor star can also be seen in Figure 1. The central source seen in Figure 5 is our target, KIC 9595827, while the other source, only partially in the aperture (at 1090, 552) is KIC 9595844 with r$\sim$13. This star has its own [*Kepler*]{} light curve and shows no variation consistent with the transit observed in KIC 9595827. Its constant third light contribution to the total aperture flux is responsible for, and consistent with, the observed very small centroid shift seen in KIC 9595827 during transit (-0.43$\pm$0.06, -0.99$\pm$0.09 millipixels).
Making use of [*Kepler*]{} pixel images for KIC 9595827 when in and out of transit, we can form a difference image and check to see if the target star is indeed the one changing in flux during the transit. We note in Figure 1 an additional close, faint companion to KIC 9595827 that will be well blended with the target star in the Kepler aperture. This star is 2.5-3 magnitudes fainter than the primary object and would, if an eclipsing binary, have to have an eclipse depth of 14% in order to mimic the observed transit. This change in light would easily be observed in the difference image but is not seen. The bottom left panel of Figure 5 shows the difference image and reveals that indeed only KIC 9595827 varies during the transit.
A final and very informative use we can make from the pixel data is to produce individual pixel time series light curves. These are shown in Figure 6 in the same pixel arrangement as that of the [*Kepler*]{} pixel images in Figure 5. The transit event is clearly see in the pixels containing KIC 9595827 but not observed in the brighter companion star partially in the aperture.
Spectroscopic Observations
==========================
Optical spectroscopy for our three candidate exoplanet stars was obtained using the Kitt Peak 2.1-m telescope and GCAM spectrograph and using the Kitt Peak 4-m telescope and RCSpec instrument. Spectra were obtained in June 2008 on both telescopes as well as in May 2010 on the 4-m to search for evidence of binarity and any spectral changes due to eclipsing binary motion, lines shapes, and/or RV variations. The 2-m GCAM setup used a 300 l/mm grating (\#32) with a 1 arcsec slit to provide a mean spectral resolution of 2.4Å per resolution element across the full wavelength range. Both 4-m RCSpec setups used a 632 l/mm grating (KPC-22b in second order) with a 1 arcsec slit to provide a mean spectral resolution of 1.6Å per resolution element across the full wavelength range. The spectra were reduced in the normal manner with observations of calibration lamps and spectrophotometric stars (obtained before and after each sequence) and bias and flat frames collected each afternoon.
The resulting spectra were compared with MK standard stars digitally available in the “Jacoby Atlas" (Jacoby et al. 1984) and spectral types and luminosity classes were estimated by comparison to all stars in the atlas (O to M and of luminosity classes I, III, IV, and V) via a standard $\chi^2$ fitting technique. Gaussian line fits to the strong spectral features were used to determine line centers, providing a velocity resolution of approximately one-tenth of a pixel across the full wavelength range in the 4-m spectra, or about 7 km/sec. Example spectra for each object are shown in Figure 7. Table 2 presents our spectral type and effective temperature estimates based on the Kitt Peak observations, as well as other KIC derived intrinsic properties for the candidate stars.
Speckle Observations
====================
One of the most probable and devious false positive scenarios for photometric transit exoplanet surveys is the presence of a nearby companion star, either a real companion or a line-of-sight eclipsing binary. For a Jupiter depth transit event ($\sim$1%), a companion leading to a false positive must be within a few magnitudes of the target star as well as within about one arcsecond. If a background star is fainter or further away, it cannot produce such a deep transit. The [*Kepler*]{} photometry alone eliminates much of the phase space here via centroiding measures of the pixel data in and out of the transit event. Typical direct imaging can identify companions as close as about 1-1.5 arcsec and to perhaps 6-8 magnitudes fainter. Medium resolution spectroscopy can identify both orbital motion due to a stellar companion or direct evidence for two stars via a composite spectrum. However, for companions closer than 1 arcsecond and to about 5-6 magnitudes fainter, optical speckle observations are generally required to fully eliminate possible confounding sources. Techniques as deblending the images and fitting triple star scenarios are very powerful as well and have been successfully applied to exoplanet transit systems (DECPHOT (Weldrake et al. 2008); BLENDER (Torres et al. 2010)).
Speckle observations form a major part of the [*Kepler*]{} mission false positive elimination strategy and are fully described in Horch, et al., (2009) and Howell et al. (2010). We make use here of the Differential Speckle Survey Instrument, a recently upgraded speckle camera described in Horch et al. (2010) that provides simultaneous observations in two filters. The speckle instrument uses two identical EMCCDs and generally observes in “V” and “R” bandpasses where “V” has a central wavelength of 5620Å and a FWHM=400Å and “R” has a central wavelength of 6920Å and a FWHM=400Å. Our speckle observations of KID 9595827 reported here were obtained on 21 & 22 June 2010 UT with the WIYN 3.5-m telescope located on Kitt Peak. On both nights we obtained 8 sets of 1000 simultaneous “V” and “R” images each using 40 msec and 80 msec frame times respectively. KID 9595827, at Kepmag=15.1, is a fairly faint and challenging speckle target as well as being far too faint for high-resolution spectroscopic observations. The sets of speckle images were, as usual, co-added in Fourier space and re-projected into real space to produce the final reconstructed images (see Tokovinin et al. 2010).
Figure 8 shows the final reconstructed “R” speckle image of KID 9595827 from 22 June 2010 UT. The two images at the bottom of the plot are identical but presented with different image stretch values for ease of use and visual identification of any possible companions. The “cross” pattern in each image is an artifact of the reconstruction process.
Discussion
==========
The three [*Kepler*]{} light curves presented in Figures 2-4 and their model fits tell us most of the story. The additional ground-based observations provide confirmation and some additional constraints for our three systems but the [*Kepler*]{} light curves alone get us about 90% of the way to a robust solution. The parameters from our model fits are listed in Table 3.
Table 1 provides KIC catalog information for the three stars[^1]. Table 2 has the derived stellar parameters for the three stars based on the catalog KIC colors and model fitting with the spectral type being determined from our spectra. The observed spectral type are in very good agreement with the temperatures determined in the KIC. Table 3 summarizes the orbital elements for the companions. Since our ground-based survey field was centered near the open cluster NGC 6811, we were interested to see if any of the stars under study here were likely cluster members. None of the stars are at the cluster distance ($\sim$1200 pc) and, in addition, they all lie well outside the cluster core radius. Thus, we do not believe that these three stars are cluster members.
KID-9597095 {#EB}
-----------
The BOKS survey discovered this source as a r=16 variable showing a few percent exoplanet like transit with a period near 2.7 days. The star, designated BOKS-r.45069, is revealed through optical spectroscopy (Figure 7) to be a F8-F9 main sequence star with an effective temperature near 6400K and a distance estimate of 2500 pc. There is no evidence in our spectrum of a secondary star suggesting a large luminosity ratio. The [*Kepler*]{} light curve (Fig. 2) shows an easily noted V shaped primary eclipse and a clear secondary eclipse providing a deterministic diagnostic that this star is an grazing eclipsing binary. Knowing the primary star parameters, the eclipses allow the companion star and its orbit to be modeled. The secondary star has a radius of 5.9 R$_{Jupiter}$ with an effective temperature near 4100K, consistent with a late K or early M-dwarf, having 0.83% of the luminosity of the F star primary. The orbital inclination is 79 degrees and the companion is likely heated by its close proximity to the F star. We note that the secondary eclipse depth in this system is $\sim$1% a level which is challenging but doable from the ground (c.f., Weldrake et al., 2008). The low mass companion star will be greatly out-shined by the F star in the optical and near-IR and a radial velocity solution for the binary will be required to fully determine the secondary star mass.
There is variability related to the orbital period of the companion that has a peak-to-peak amplitude of $\sim$1.8 mmag. Measuring the first two harmonics at 2.75 d and 1.37 d gives amplitudes of 0.7 and 1.8 mmag respectively. The second harmonic shows amplitude modulation over the timescale of the [*Kepler*]{} Q1 observations. If we interpret the cause of these interactions as ellipsoid distortions and Doppler boosting (Rowe et al. 2010 & van Kerkwijk et al. 2010) then we can estimate a mass of approximately 0.4 $M_\sun$.
KID-9838975 {#koi218}
-----------
Discovered in the BOKS survey, this r=16 star showed an exoplanet transit-like event in its light curve but with only one transit observed, its orbital period was unknown. Spectroscopy (Figure 7) determines the star, designated as BOKS-r.45069, to be a K0V($\pm$one subclass in spectral type) with an effective temperature near 5000K and a distance of $\sim$1 kpc. The [*Kepler*]{} light curve (Fig. 3) shows a U-shaped transit event as well as a clearly off centered secondary eclipse suggestive of an elliptical orbit. The secondary eclipse in this system would be extremely difficult to observe from the ground as it has a depth near one-half of one percent. Thus, this object would be extremely difficult to eliminate as an exoplanet using ground-based photometry alone. The companion causing the transit event has a radius of 1.4 R$_{Jupiter}$ and a modeled effective temperature of 2760K. The orbital eccentricity is $\sim$0.1, making the difference between aphelion and perihelion change by approximately 20%. Thus, at an average distance from the K0V star of $\sim$0.13 A.U., the companion is not close enough for irradiation to account for the observed temperature. At this low effective temperature, a low mass red or brown dwarf is the most likely companion star in a near 90 degree elliptical orbit with a period of 18.7 days. Additional [*Kepler*]{} observations and a radial velocity study should be able to easily confirm the elliptical nature of the orbit as well as provide a good mass estimate for the companion star.
KID-9595827 (BOKS-1) {#koi217}
--------------------
The best exoplanet candidate from the BOKS survey, BOKS-1, is a r=15 variable showing an exoplanet transit-like event with a period near 4 days. Ground-based spectroscopy (Figure 7) shows the host star to be a G8V($\pm$one subclass) with an effective temperature of 5500K at a distance of $\sim$800 pc. Spectroscopic observations of this target obtained on two consecutive nights in June 2008 (roughly 0.5 apart in phase) and three nights in May 2010, reveal no statistically significant radial velocity trends at the $\sim$7 km/sec level or larger. This limit rules out a companion star with a mass greater than 0.1M$_{\odot}$ i.e., virtually all dwarf stars.
Our speckle imaging was aimed at a search for background (or real) companions which may be the cause of the transit signal. To robustly estimate the background limit we reach in each reconstructed speckle image, we use the metrics derived from the top plot in Figure 8. If a companion is present, it will appear in the reconstructed image as a “point” like source, similar to the central source. As in a normal image, the value of pixels in the target and any companion star images will lie above the local “sky” background. If a nearby source appears and is approximately 3-5 sigma above the background (the line in the top plot is a 5 sigma limit from the mean of the distribution of background points) we will easily see it and can robustly measure its properties. If, however, a source is barely detected (say at 1.5 sigma), then we will just be able to note its presence, but would derive only approximate information for it. Local minima are also plotted mainly as a check to see if the minimum and maximum points are normally distributed (as would be the case for a well produced reconstructed “sky”). If there were too many minima or they were too large a value (+ or -) that could indicate a problem in the reconstruction.
Using our simultaneous 2-color speckle camera we can detect companions, for bright targets, below the diffraction limit (0.035 arc second at 5000Å) by detection of a single fringe in both cameras that provides the same solution. For fainter targets (R$\ga$13.5-14.5) and good observing conditions, our inner detection limit ranges from 0.05-0.15" depending on the magnitude difference of the companion. Thus, for multi-fringe images, a very conservative inner limit for robust detections is near 0.2 arc seconds. Our high resolution ground-based speckle observations allow us to eliminate any possible companion stars to 4.2 magnitudes in R and 5.0 magnitudes in V fainter and from i$\sim$0.05 to 1.8 arcsecond of KID-9595827. Thus the observed transit depth of 1.2% can not be mimicked by a variable or eclipsing binary background star even if it showed a 50% dimming. Taken together with the [*Kepler*]{} light curve model results, no companion star is present that can be the cause of the observed exoplanet transit event.
Image analysis of the [*Kepler*]{} pixel data for KIC 9595827 reveals that it is the source of variation within its aperture during the transit event and that its small centroid motion is consistent with the star itself dimming in the presence of a near by constant light neighbor. Additionally, pixel time series light curves clearly reveal that the transit event in centered on our target star. No evidence from the image data suggests any explanation for the observed variation except as that of an exoplanet transit.
The [*Kepler*]{} light curve observations (Figure 4) show the typical U-shaped exoplanet transit and reveal no evidence for a secondary eclipse. The transiting body has a radius of 1.12 R$_{Jupiter}$ orbiting every 3.9 days at nearly 90 degrees to the plane of the sky. If this exoplanet is similar to other “hot Jupiters", it is likely to have a mass near one to a few Jupiter masses. The raw [*Kepler*]{} light curve shows evidence for a rotational modulation of the host star with a period near 17-18 days and we note possible evidence of star-spots seen as slight wiggles at the bottom of the exoplanet transit.
We tested the possibility of hierarchical triples, by adding a dilution factor to our models. The dilution factor accounts for inclusion of third light from unseen stellar companion in the system. The effect is that the observed transit can be much shallowed than reality. For example, if two stars of equal brightness are found within the Kepler aperture, the measured transit would need to be made twice as deep. We modeled the transit of KID 9595827 with dilution factors ranging from 0 to 0.7, in increments of 0.05, where 0.7 means 70% of the observed flux comes from an additional star within the photometric aperture. Comparing chi-squared values we find models with dilution factors greater than 0.1 are ruled out at the 99.97% confidence level. In particular the egress and ingress of the models are incompatible with the size of the companion inferred from the depth of the transit. While, there may be third light contamination due to a hierarchical triple scenario, the unseen companion must contribute less that 10% of the light in the photometric aperture. At such dilution factors the planet radius would increase by 5% but still be compatible with being a bone-fide planet.
In addition, the [*Kepler*]{} pixel data are not consistent with a nearly perfectly aligned (within $\sim$0.05 arcsec) background eclipsing binary (BGEB) being the cause of the transit. To estimate the possibility of a chance alignment, we can take the mean local star density observed near KIC 9595827 (0.0122 stars/arcsec$^2$ to r$\sim$20) times the likelihood that a background star would be an eclipsing binary (1.2% of stars are eclipsing binaries; Torres et al. 2010). The product of these values yields a probability of only 0.015% that a BGEB could be the cause of the transit event. If we assume a near circular orbit for the stars in any BGEB, we can estimate this probability another way. The observed transit time restricts the background population of confounding EBs to only G8 stars or earlier. Using the Besancon Galactic model we calculate a stellar density of possible (G8 and earlier) pollutants to be 2e-4 stars/arcsec$^2$. Taking the same likelihood as above that a background star could be an EB, this approach suggests only a 0.00024% chance that the transit could be caused by a BGEB. Given that these conservative estimates of a chance alignment of a BGEB or a hierarchical triple can be the cause of the observed transit event are essentially zero, we again conclude that KIC 9595827 (BOKS-1) does indeed harbor an exoplanet.
[*Kepler*]{} is still monitoring this source and revealing continuous transits leaving no doubt as to its periodic nature and constant transit shape and depth. Phase folding of all the data to date reveals no secondary eclipse eliminating essentially all possible binary star configurations. Future [*Kepler*]{} observations will hopefully detect the occultation allowing one to determine the companions orbit. At r=15, it is unlikely that high precision radial velocities will soon be forthcoming for this system.
Conclusions
===========
[*Kepler*]{} observations have provided unprecedented light curves for three pre-launch exoplanet candidate stars. Two of them, KID-9838975 and KID-9597095 are shown to be main sequence plus late-type dwarf/brown dwarf binaries, one harboring its companion in a 19-day elliptical orbit. We note that [*Kepler*]{} photometry was likely necessary in order to observe the secondary eclipse in KID9838975 and may ultimately detect the occultation in KID9595827 (BOKS-1). Such small dips would unlikely be distinguishable from the ground due to the necessary precision required over their duration and covering a number of occultations. This type of binary star light curve suggests a word of caution for ground-based exoplanet candidates, even those with well determine light curves, as very small secondary eclipses or occultations would easily be missed. The two binary stars discovered here are ripe for radial velocity follow-up in order to determine a better mass and orbital characteristics for the low mass companions.
We have presented a first attempt to fully utilize [*Kepler*]{} light curves and [*Kepler*]{} image analysis combined with ground-based follow-up observations to exclude false positive exoplanet candidates without high-resolution spectroscopic radial velocity measurements. The best pre-launch BOKS survey exoplanet transit candidate (BOKS-1) has been confirmed by this methodology to be a true exoplanet; a “hot jupiter" having a radius of 1.12 R$_{Jupiter}$ and an orbital period near 3.9 days. The [*Kepler*]{} light curves and pixel data analysis alone can provide a very robust method to eliminate false positives and confirm, at a high confidence level, Jupiter-size planets. However, ground-based follow-up observations provide additional information and confirmation of the [*Kepler*]{} results as well as placing hard constraints on the possible companions. This system at r=15, will likely need to await the next generation of larger telescope and/or a more sensitive radial velocity instrument before its exoplanet mass can be precisely determined.
We wish to thank Brandon Tingley for his timely review and very helpful comments on our original manuscript. The authors would like to thank the [*Kepler*]{} Science Office and the Science Operations Center personal, particularly Natalie Batalha Jon Jenkins, and Tim Brown, for their dedicated effort to the mission and for providing us access to the science office data products. The ground-based observations reported on herein were obtained at Kitt Peak National Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. The Kepler Science Team is thanked for their help and support of the mission and its scientific output. [*Kepler*]{} was selected as the 10th mission of the Discovery Program. Funding for this mission is provided by NASA.
[cccccccccc]{}
9597095 & 19 41 18.86 & +46 16 06.2 & 15.90 & 16.53 & 15.69 & & 14.91$\pm$0.04 & 14.69$\pm$0.06 & 14.69$\pm$0.11\
9838975 & 19 40 08.04 & +46 36 00.5 & 16.10 & 16.83 & 15.86 & 15.69 & 14.65$\pm$0.03 & 14.17$\pm$0.04 & 13.96$\pm$0.05\
9595827 & 19 39 27.72 & +46 17 09.1 & 15.06 & 15.69 & 14.89 & 14.80 & 13.93$\pm$0.03 & 13.55$\pm$0.02 & 13.47$\pm$0.04\
[ccccc]{}
9597095 & 6400 & & & F8V-F9V\
9838975 & 4967 & 4.802 & -0.511 & K0V\
9595827 & 5545 & 4.724 & 0.22 & G8V\
[lccc]{} Period (d) & 2.74560$\pm$0.00003 & 18.6929$\pm$0.00005 & 3.90512$\pm$0.00005\
T$_0$ (HJD-2454900) & 64.7080$\pm$0.0002 & 76.8324$\pm$0.0004 & 66.4140$\pm$0.0002\
M$_\star$ (M$_\odot$) & $1.21\pm0.03$ & $0.79^{+0.03}_{-0.05}$ & $0.95^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$\
R$_\star$ (R$_\odot$) & $1.43\pm0.01$ & $0.72\pm 0.01$ & $0.86\pm 0.02$\
R$_p$ ([$R_{\rm J}$]{}) & $5.9\pm 0.5$ & $1.43^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & $1.11\pm 0.02$\
i (deg) & $79.4\pm 0.5$ & $89.7^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ & $89.8^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$\
e & 0 (fixed) & $0.15\pm0.02$ & 0 (fixed)\
a (AU) & $0.0411\pm0.0003$ & $0.128\pm0.002$ & $0.0477\pm0.0007$\
$R_p/R_\star$ & $0.41\pm0.04$ & $0.2026^{+0.0006}_{-0.0011}$ & $0.1325^{+0.0003}_{-0.0005}$\
[$\log{g}$]{}$_\star$ & $4.21\pm0.01$ & $4.61\pm0.01$ & $4.54\pm0.01$\
Secondary Depth (ppm)& $21033\pm3084$ & $1173\pm 228$ & $-33\pm 65$\
[$T_{\rm eff}$]{}$_p$ (K) & $4050\pm 355$ & $2760\pm 186$ & $< 2200$\
[99]{}
Batalha, N., et al., 2010, , 713, L103
Borucki, W., et al., 2010a, Science, 327, 977
Borucki, W., et al., 2010b, , 713, L126
Bryson, S. T., et al., 2010, , 713, L97
Deleuil, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 491, 889
Demarque, Woo, Kim, & Yi 2004, , 155, 667
Feldmeier, J., et al., 2010, , in press
Ford, E., 2005, , 129, 1706
Horch, E. P. et al., 2009, , 137, 5057
Horch, E. P. et al., 2010, , in press
Howell, S. B., 2008, AN, 329, 259
Howell, S. B., et al., 2010, , submitted
Jacoby, G. H., Hunter, D., and Christian, C., 1984, ApJ Suppl., 56, 257
Jenkins, J. M., et al., 2010a, , 713, L87
Jenkins, J. M., et al., 2010b, astroph/1001.0416
Koch, D., et al., 2010, , 713, L131
Mandel, K. & Agol, E., 2002, , 580, 171
Press, W.H. Teukolsky, S.A. Vetterling, W.T. Flannery, B.P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77 Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 678
Prsa, A. Personal Communication
Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L., 2004, MSAIS, 5, 93
Sozzetti, A. et al., 2007, , 664, 1190
Tingley, B., Bonomo, A. S., & Deeg, H. J., 2010, , submitted
Tokovinin, Mason, & Hartkopf, 2010, ,139, 743
Torres, G., et al., 2010, , in press
Van Cleve, J., 2008, [*Kepler Instrument Handbook*]{} (available at http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/)
Van Cleve, J., 2009, editor, [*Kepler Data Release Notes*]{} (available at http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/)
Weldrake, D. T. F., et al., 2008, , 675, L37
[^1]: Note that the KIC is available at the MAST archives (http://archive.stsci.edu/)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The most studied doubly-special-relativity scenarios, theories with both the speed-of-light scale and a length/inverse-momentum scale as non-trivial relativistic invariants, have concerned the possibility of enforcing relativistically some nonlinear laws on momentum space. For the “relative-locality framework" recently proposed in arXiv:1101.0931 a central role is played by nonlinear laws on momentum space, with the guiding principle that they should provide a characterization of the geometry of momentum space. Building on previous doubly-special-relativity results I here identify a criterion for establishing whether or not a given geometry of the relative-locality momentum space is “DSR compatible", [*i.e.*]{} compatible with an observer-independent formulation of theories on that momentum space. I find that given some chosen parametrization of momentum-space geometry the criterion takes the form of an elementary algorithm. I show that relative-locality momentum spaces that fail my criterion definitely “break" Lorentz invariance, [*i.e.*]{} theories on such momentum spaces necessarily are observer-dependent “ether" theories. By working out a few examples I provide evidence that when the criterion is instead satisfied one does manage to produce a relativistic formulation. The examples I use to illustrate the applicability of my criterion also have some intrinsic interest, including two particularly noteworthy cases of $\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired momentum spaces.'
author:
- 'Giovanni Amelino-Camelia'
title: 'On the fate of Lorentz symmetry in relative-locality momentum spaces'
---
-0.95cm
Introduction
============
Freidel, Kowalski-Glikman, Smolin and I recently proposed [@prl; @grf2nd] a class of theories which are most primitively formulated on momentum space, and whose main characteristics are codified in the geometry of momentum space. In that framework the momentum-space metric would primarily govern the form of the on-shell (“dispersion") relation, whereas the momentum-space affine connection governs the law of composition of momenta (and ultimately the law of conservation of “total" momentum in processes). The class of theories one might consider from this perspective is evidently very wide, especially since it appears legitimate [@prl; @grf2nd] to consider choices of affine connection on momentum space which are not Levi-Civita connections (allowing for non-metricity and/or torsion on momentum space). Exploring these possibilities is motivated in part by the fact that several arguments in the quantum-gravity literature could be viewed [@prl; @grf2nd] as pointing toward a role for momentum-space geometry. This was already remarkably emphasized in Born’s 1938 proposal [@born1938] of a role for momentum-space curvature in the study of the quantum-gravity problem, and has more recently resurfaced through several independent arguments (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@majidCURVATURE; @girelliCURVATURE; @schullerCURVATURE]). Moreover, even setting aside the possible role in the study of the quantum-gravity problem, it appears that this novel framework deserves some interest because it provides an opportunity for studying systematically, including a description of interactions among particles, the possibility of a “relativity of spacetime locality", which had been previously confined [@bob; @leeINERTIALlimit; @arzkowaRelLoc] (also see the more recent Refs. [@kappabob; @transverse]) to the narrow scopes of simple theories of free particles.
In the investigation of this “relative-locality framework" of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd] it appears likely that, both conceptually [@prl; @grf2nd] and from the viewpoint of phenomenology [@leelaurentGRB; @anatomy], an important role will be played by the understanding of the fate of Lorentz symmetry in theories formulated on the relative-locality momentum spaces. And this is the main focus of the study I am here reporting. I take as starting point the bulk of results on “doubly-special-relativity (DSR) theories" (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@dsr1Edsr2; @jurekdsr1; @dsrPOLAND2001; @leeDSRprd; @jurekDSR2; @leeDSRrainbow; @gacdsrrev2010]). These are relativistic theories with both the speed-of-light scale and a length/inverse-momentum scale as non-trivial relativistic invariants, and their most studied formulations [@dsr1Edsr2; @jurekdsr1; @dsrPOLAND2001; @leeDSRprd; @jurekDSR2; @leeDSRrainbow; @gacdsrrev2010] concern indeed achieving a (deformed-)relativistic formulation of physical laws introducing novel nonlinearities in momentum space. In particular, the most studied such DSR scenarios allow for novel nonlinearities, governed by the additional (length/inverse-momentum) relativistically-invariant scale, in the on-shell relation and in the law of conservation of “total" momentum, so they provide a very close starting point for the investigation of the fate of Lorentz symmetry in relative-locality momentum spaces, where the conjectured non-trivial geometry of momentum space indeed primarily results [@prl; @grf2nd] in modifications of the on-shell relation and of the law of momentum conservation.
The most significant result I am here reporting is contained in Section \[goldenrulesec\]. I introduce two requirements that must be satisfied by the metric and the affine connection on momentum space in order for that momentum-space to be possibly “DSR compatible", [*i.e.*]{} such that the introduction of a characteristic scale of the geometry of momentum space still allows the formulation of observer-independent laws of physics. I observe that for any given parametrization of momentum-space geometry my two requirements can be expressed in terms of a simple algorithm, which in turn proves useful for assessing very easily whether a given choice of momentum-space geometry (a given choice of the parameters) can be DSR-compatible. I show that when the geometry of a relative-locality momentum space does not satisfy my two requirements then necessarily theories formulated on that momentum space will require the introduction of a preferred “ether" frame, a preferred class of inertial observers. I am unable to offer definite assurance that in all cases when instead the requirements are satisfied it will be possible to achieve a DSR-compatible formulation of theories on that momentum space: the requirements are evidently necessary but not so evidently sufficient. Still by working out (in Secs. \[dsr1sec\] and \[torsionsec\]) a few specific illustrative examples I provide some evidence that my requirements might also be sufficient: the illustrative examples I consider are such that the requirements are satisfied and for them I do manage to work out explicitly a formulation of relativistic kinematics which does not require a preferred frame.
Before this main part of the manuscript contained in Secs. \[goldenrulesec\], \[dsr1sec\] and \[torsionsec\], I offer in Sec. \[dsrgeneral\] a brief review of the general structure of the connection that DSR compatibility establishes between the form of the on-shell relation and the form of the law of energy-momentum conservation.\
Sec. \[newmetric\] contains a few remarks on how these results might affect the development of the relative-locality framework.\
Sec. \[theoremsec\] looks back at the criteria for DSR compatibility introduced in Sec. \[goldenrulesec\] and frames them within a simple relativistic theorem.\
The closing Sec. \[closingsec\] summarizes the main results here obtained and attempts to identify some priorities for the next steps that could be taken in this research area.
I denote the momentum-space relative-locality scale with $\ell$ (an inverse-momentum scale) and I work at leading order in $\ell$. I am assuming that $|\ell|^{-1}$ is roughly of the order of the huge Planck scale, so that a leading-order analysis might be all we need for comparison to data we could realistically imagine to gather over the next few decades.
On-shellness, momentum conservation and deformations of Lorentz symmetry {#dsrgeneral}
========================================================================
Before proceeding with the main part of the analysis, let me pause briefly, in this section, for summarizing the mains points originally made in Ref. [@dsr1Edsr2] concerning the consistency requirements that the relativity of inertial frames imposes on the relationship between the form of the on-shell(/dispersion) relation and the form of the law of energy-momentum conservation.\
This is one of the most used DSR (“deformed special" , or “doubly special", relativity) results, and plays a pivotal role in the analysis I report in the following sections.
I start this section by revisiting the transition from Galilean Relativity to Special Relativity since this can be of guidance for following then the logical structure of the transition from Special Relativity to DSR.
Aside on the transition from Galilean Relativity to Special relativity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Galilean Relativity enforced the relativity of rest (and the associated relativity of velocities). This is a notion that can be formulated without using a reference scale, so in turn the transformation laws from a Galilean-inertial observer to another do not involve any such reference scale.\
This is manifest in all laws, and in particular in the on-shell relation $$E= \frac{{\bf p}^2}{2m} (+m)~,$$ in the law of composition of velocities $${\bf u} \oplus {\bf v} = {\bf u} + {\bf v}~,$$ which we use in particular when connecting the description of a velocity ${\bf v}$ for a given observer Alice to the one of an observer Bob, when the relative Alice-Bob velocity is ${\bf u}$, and in the law of composition of energy-momentum $$p_\mu \oplus p^\prime_\mu = p_\mu + p^\prime_\mu ~,$$ which we use in particular to enforce energy-momentum conservation when processes involving momentum exchange occur.
The transition from Galilean Relativity to Special Relativity enforces the relativity of simultaneity and the associated law of absoluteness of the speed of light. This does not challenge in any way the Galilean law of energy-momentum composition, which is indeed maintained $p_\mu \oplus p^\prime_\mu = p_\mu + p^\prime_\mu$. But the role of the speed of light as a relativistic invariant impose a change of on-shell relation $$E= \sqrt{c^2{\bf p}^2+c^4 m^2}~,$$ and a change in the law of composition of velocities $${\bf u} \oplus {\bf v} = \frac{1}{1+\frac{{\bf u} \cdot {\bf v}}{c^2}}
\left({\bf u} + \frac{1}{\gamma_u} {\bf v}
+ \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\gamma_u}{1+\gamma_u} ({\bf u} \cdot {\bf v}){\bf u} \right)~,
\label{ungarVEL}$$ where as usual $\gamma_u \equiv 1/\sqrt{1- {\bf u} \cdot {\bf u}/c^2}$.\
Textbooks for undergraduates often choose to spare students the complexity of the composition law (\[ungarVEL\]), limiting the discussion to the special case of (\[ungarVEL\]) which occurs when ${\bf u}$ and ${\bf v}$ are collinear: $${\bf u} \oplus {\bf v} \Big|_{collinear}
= \frac{{\bf u} + {\bf v}}{1+\frac{{\bf u} \cdot {\bf v}}{c^2}}~.$$ But the complexity of (\[ungarVEL\]), which is non-commutative and non-associative, is well understood [@ungar; @ungarFOLLOWER; @florianeteraUNGAR] as playing a central role in the logical consistency of Special Relativity. The special-relativistic prescription (\[ungarVEL\]) renders the law of composition of velocities compatible with the principle of relativistic invariance of the speed of light $c$. Evidently insisting on the Galilean law ${\bf u} \oplus {\bf v} = {\bf u} + {\bf v}$ would have been inconsistent with the presence of an invariant velocity scale: boost transformations of velocity such that they saturate at $c$ could not possibly admit ${\bf u} \oplus {\bf v} = {\bf u} + {\bf v}$ as an observer-independent prescription. And of course the composition law (\[ungarVEL\]) encodes all the richness of special-relativistic boosts, including the Thomas-Wigner rotations (essentially the fact that in the Lorentz algebra the commutator of non-parallel boosts produces a spatial rotation).
DSR-compatibility between on-shellness and momentum conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of DSR-deformed Lorentz transformations was put forward [@dsr1Edsr2] as a possible description of certain theory results suggesting that there be violations of some special-relativistic laws in certain approaches to the quantum-gravity problem, most notably the ones based on spacetime noncommutativity and loop quantum gravity. The part of the quantum-gravity community interested in those results was interpreting them as a manifestation of a full breakdown of Lorentz symmetry, with the emergence of a preferred class of observers (an “ether"). But it was argued in [@dsr1Edsr2] that departures from Special Relativity governed by a high-energy/short-distance scale may well be compatible with the Relativity Principle, the principle of relativity of inertial observers, at the cost of allowing some consistent modifications of the Poincaré transformations, and particularly of the Lorentz-boost transformations.
The main area of investigation of the DSR proposal has been for the last decade the possibility of introducing relativistically some deformed on-shell relations. The DSR proposal was put forward [@dsr1Edsr2] as a conceptual path for pursuing a broader class of scenarios of interest for fundamental physics, and in particular for quantum-gravity research, including the possibility of introducing the second observer-independent scale primitively in spacetime structure or primitively at the level of the (deformed) de Broglie relation between wavelength and momentum. However, the bulk of the preliminary results from quantum-gravity research concern departures from the special-relativistic on-shell relation, and this in turn became the main focus of DSR research.
My objective in this section is to remind my readers about the line of analysis, originally discussed in Ref. [@dsr1Edsr2], which allows us to conclude that the on-shell relation involves a relativistically-invariant energy scale $M_* \equiv \ell^{-1}$ the relativity of inertial frames is to be preserved, the scale $\ell$ must also intervene to modify the law of composition of momenta. For my purposes here it indeed suffices to work in leading order in $\ell$ (the scale $c$ from now on is set to $1$), focusing for simplicity on the case of a 1+1-dimensional momentum space, and considering for definiteness only . So let me consider the specific example of the on-shell relation[^1] $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_1^2 - \ell^2 p_0^2 p_1^2 ~.
\label{dsr1quad}$$ Evidently this law is not Lorentz invariant. If we insist on this law and on the validity of classical (undeformed) Lorentz transformations between inertial observers we clearly end up with a preferred-frame picture, and the Principle of Relativity of inertial frames must be abandoned: the scale $\ell$ cannot be observer independent, and actually the whole form of (\[dsr1quad\]) is subject to vary from one class of inertial observers to another.\
The other option [@dsr1Edsr2] in such cases is the DSR option of enforcing the relativistic invariance of (\[dsr1quad\]), preserving the relativity of inertial frames, at the cost of modifying the action of boosts on momenta. Then in such theories both the velocity scale $c$ (here mute only because of the choice of dimensions) and the inverse-energy scale $\ell$ play the same role [@dsr1Edsr2] of invariant scales of the relativistic theory which govern the form of boost transformations.\
Evidently the action of boosts on momenta is non-linearly deformed so that (\[dsr1quad\]) is invariant . In order to exhibit some formulas that illustrate this obvious fact, let me introduce the following deformed boost action $$[N, p_0] = p_1 + \frac{3}{2} \ell^2 p_0^2 p_1 + \ell^2 p_1^3~,~~~
[N, p_1] = p_0 + \frac{\ell^2}{2} p_0^3
\label{boostsquad}$$ which evidently is such to leave invariant the deformed on-shell relation (\[dsr1quad\]): $$[N, p_0^2 - p_1^2 - \ell^2 p_0^2 p_1^2] = 0 ~.$$ Equally evident is the fact that these deformed boosts are relativistically incompatible with the standard linear law of composition of momenta. Let us consider for example the case of a process with two incoming and two outgoing particles $a +b \rightarrow c+d$. For this case one easily finds that $$[N, (p^{(a)}+ p^{(b)})_\mu - (p^{(c)}+ p^{(d)})_\mu] \neq 0~,$$ even when $(p^{(a)}+ p^{(b)})_\mu = (p^{(c)}+ p^{(d)})_\mu$ is enforced.\
Following the lessons of what turned out to be necessary for the composition of velocities in going form Galilean Relativity to Special Relativity, we can still look for laws of composition of momenta, $p \oplus p^\prime$, that would be relativistically compatible with the deformed boosts. A particular example (actually a particularly simple example, see later parts of this manuscript for other strategies of construction of the composition law) is the following $$\begin{aligned}
(p \oplus p^\prime)_0 &=&
p_0 + p^\prime_0 + \ell^2 p^{\prime}_0 p^{2}_1 +\ell^2 p_0 p^{\prime 2}_1
+ 2 \ell^2 p_1 p^{\prime}_1 (p_0 + p^{\prime}_0)
\label{dsr1econsquad}\\
(p \oplus p^\prime)_1 &=&
p_1 + p^\prime_1 + \frac{\ell^2}{2} p_1 p^{\prime 2}_0
+ \frac{\ell^2}{2} p^{\prime}_1 p^{2}_0
+ \ell^2 p_0 p^{\prime}_0 (p_1 + p^{\prime}_1) ~.
\label{dsr1pconsquad}\end{aligned}$$ With this prescription for the composition law the relativistic invariance is restored; indeed one can easily verify that when $ (p^{(a)} \oplus p^{(b)})_\mu= (p^{(c)} \oplus p^{(d)})_\mu$ one does have that $$[N, (p^{(a)} \oplus p^{(b)})_\mu - (p^{(c)} \oplus p^{(d)})_\mu ] = 0~$$ (working again in leading order in $\ell^2$, consistently with the approximations made above).
This completes my brief summary of the relativistic consistency between modified on-shell relation and modified energy-momentum composition law first observed in Ref. [@dsr1Edsr2].\
This brief summary will suffice to prepare the intuition of the reader for the results reported in the following.\
I shall not dwell here on other aspects of DSR research, which however I want to briefly bring to the attention of the reader before closing this section.\
It was recently realized that in at least some DSR frameworks the counterpart of the acquired absoluteness of the energy scale $\ell^{-1}$ is an acquired relativity of spacetime locality [@bob; @leeINERTIALlimit; @arzkowaRelLoc; @kappabob; @transverse]. This fits naturally with the observation that in Special Relativity the counterpart of the acquired absoluteness of the velocity scale $c$ is an acquired relativity of simultaneity (colloquially “relative time"). From the DSR perspective the “relative-locality framework" adopted in the next sections is a particularly promising candidate for organizing logically, in terms of the geometry of momentum space, this relativity-locality features preliminarily characterized in Refs. [@bob; @leeINERTIALlimit; @arzkowaRelLoc; @kappabob; @transverse], but of course the relative-locality framework may be considered even without DSR-compatibility, as a powerful formalism that can be applied also to cases where a preferred frame does arise.\
Another framework that has been much considered from the DSR perspective if the one of Hopf-algebra symmetries (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@lukieIW; @majidruegg; @kpoinap]) which in particular naturally accommodates nonlinear actions of the type here shown in Eq. (\[boostsquad\]).\
Another area of active research concerns the DSR description of the properties of macroscopic bodies, composites of a large number of microscopic particles, as discussed in particular in Ref. [@dsrPOLAND2001] (also see Ref. [@soccerball] for the relative-locality-framework perspective).
A “relativistic golden rule" for the geometry of momentum space {#goldenrulesec}
===============================================================
In this section I propose two criteria which can be used to establish whether or not a given relative-locality momentum space is “DSR compatible", [*i.e.*]{} whether or not it is possible to formulate relativistic theories (observer-independent laws) on that momentum space. The two criteria are labeled, for reasons that shall soon be evident, “no-photon-decay-switch-on constraint" and “no-pair-production-switch-off constraint". It will be clear for the careful reader that these criteria are applicable to any parametrization of the geometry of momentum space, but for definiteness and simplicity my explicit derivations are focused on a parametrization of the geometry of momentum space which is not completely general. For the momentum space metric I assume that it is such that (in the sense of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd]) the on-shell (“dispersion") relation takes the form $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_j^2 + \alpha_1 p_0 p_j^2 + \alpha_2 p_0^3 ~.
\label{metricMASTER}$$ While for momentum-space affine connection I assume that it is such that (again in the sense of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd]) the deformed law of composition of momenta takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
(k \oplus p)_0 &=& k_0 + p_0 + \beta_1 {\vec k} \cdot {\vec p}
+ \beta_2 k_0 p_0
~, \label{connectionMASTER0}\\
(k \oplus p)_j &=& k_j + p_j + \gamma_1 k_0 p_j + \gamma_2 p_0 k_j ~.
\label{connectionMASTERj}\end{aligned}$$ This is a 6-parameter family of (leading-order) momentum-space geometries, with $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2,\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ all assumed to be either of order $\ell$ or completely negligible with respect to $\ell$.
The only other (however very weak) assumption needed for the derivation of my “golden rule" is that the relevant momentum-space theories involve a “vertex/interaction term" [@prl] potentially eligible for photon decay $\gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ $$p_\gamma = p_+ \oplus p_-
\label{vertexgamma}$$ and a “vertex term" eligible for electron-positron pair production from photon-photon collisions $\gamma \, \Gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ $$p_{{\!\!~}_\Gamma} \oplus
p_\gamma = p_+ \oplus p_-
\label{vertexgammagamma}$$
No-photon-decay-switch-on constraint
------------------------------------
The first ingredient of my proposed ‘golden rule" is a “no-photon-decay-switch-on constraint", essentially amounting to the request that massless particles should not decay[^2]. The photon-decay process $\gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ is forbidden when the geometry of momentum space is Minkowski/flat. Relative-locality momentum spaces must be such that [@prl; @grf2nd] for low-energy particles the geometry of momentum space is indistinguishable from the Minkowski/flat case, so in any relative-locality momentum space low-energy photons will be stable. Since in a relativistic theory a photon which is low-energy for one (local) observer Alice has different higher energy for another relatively-boosted observer Bob (also local to the photon) it must then be the case that photons of any energy are stable if the relative-locality momentum space is “DSR compatible", since then evidently the laws that establish whether or not a photon can decay must be observer independent.
A key point for my argument is played by the concept of “decay threshold". If photons were stable at low energies but could decay at higher energies there should be a threshold value of the photon energy above which the decay is allowed. But photons which are below a threshold energy value for one observer will be above that threshold energy value for other boosted observers. A threshold for photon decay could only be the scale $|\ell|^{-1}$ of the relative-locality framework, which can be an invariant characteristic of the momentum-space geometry. But if one wants a relative-locality momentum space compatible with the implementation of any form of (possibly deformed) Lorentz invariance there cannot be a threshold for photon decay which is lower than $|\ell|^{-1}$.
Of course, these requirements are perfectly enforced when momentum space is trivially Minkowski/flat (special relativity), and indeed there the process $\gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ is strictly forbidden. One way to see this technically is to derive the formula that links the opening angle $\theta$ of the (hypothetical) outgoing electron-positron and the energies $E_+$ and $E_-$ respectively of the positron and electron. One finds that the process would require $cos \theta >1$ for any $E_+ , E_-$ combination. In particular, this classic special-relativistic result takes the following form (involving also the electron mass $m$) $$cos \theta \simeq \frac{2 E_+ E_- + m^2}{2 E_+ E_-
+ m^2 \left( \frac{E_+}{E_-} + \frac{E_-}{E_+} \right) }
\label{pairproductionSR}$$ in the limit of ultrarelativistic outgoing particles.
Our stated purpose for this subsection evidently requires us to reconsider this classic derivation when the momentum-space is characterized by (\[metricMASTER\]), (\[connectionMASTER0\]), (\[connectionMASTERj\]), rather than being trivially Minkowki/flat.
So I start from $$\begin{aligned}
E_\gamma &=& E_+ + E_- + \beta_1 {\vec{p}}_+ \cdot {\vec{p}}_-
+ \beta_2 E_+ E_-
\label{phodecay1a}\\
{\vec{p}}_\gamma &=& {\vec{p}}_+ + {\vec{p}}_-
+ \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+ {\vec{p}}_- + \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_- {\vec{p}}_+
\label{phodecay1b}\end{aligned}$$
From (\[phodecay1b\]) it follows that $$p_\gamma^2 = p_+^2 + p_-^2 + 2 p_+ p_- cos \theta +
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+ E_-^2
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+^2 E_- cos\theta
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_- E_+^2
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_-^2 E_+ cos \theta ~.
\label{phodecay2}$$ Here on the right-hand side I already used the restriction to ultrarelativistic outgoing electron and positron (but only in terms with factors of $\ell$). It should be clear that this is where one can look for pathologies since the deformation of geometry of momentum space is negligible at small momenta and I am therefore evidently looking for a possible ultrarelativistic threshold for photon decay into an electron-positron pair.
From (\[phodecay2\]), using (\[metricMASTER\]), one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
E_\gamma^2 + (\alpha_1+\alpha_2) E_\gamma^3
&=& E_+^2 + E_-^2 - 2 m^2
+ \left[ 2 E_+ E_-
+ m^2 \left( \frac{E_+}{E_-} + \frac{E_-}{E_+} \right) \right]
\cos \theta + (\alpha_1+\alpha_2) (E_+^3+E_-^3) + \label{phodecay3}\\
&&+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+ E_-^2
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_- E_+^2
+ \left[(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)(E_+ + E_-) + 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_-\right] E_+ E_- \cos \theta
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For the left-hand side of this result one can use (\[phodecay1a\]), which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&&E_+^2 + E_-^2 + 2 E_+ E_-
+ 2 (\beta_2 + \beta_1 \cos \theta)(E_+ + E_-) E_+ E_-
+ (\alpha_1+\alpha_2) (E_+ + E_-)^3 =\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ = E_+^2 + E_-^2 - 2 m^2
+ \left[ 2 E_+ E_-
+ m^2 \left( \frac{E_+}{E_-} + \frac{E_-}{E_+} \right) \right]
\cos \theta + (\alpha_1+\alpha_2) (E_+^3+E_-^3) + \label{phodecay4}\\
&&
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+ E_-^2
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_- E_+^2
+ \left[(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)(E_+ + E_-) + 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+
+ 2 \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_-\right] E_+ E_- \cos \theta
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Then taking into account that I am working at leading order in $\ell$, and assuming again that the outgoing particles are ultrarelativistic (so that $\ell E_{+} \neq 0$ and $\ell E_{-} \neq 0$ but $\ell m \simeq 0$ and $\ell^2 E_{+}^2 \simeq 0 \simeq \ell^2 E_{+}^2$) one gets $$cos \theta \simeq \frac{2 E_+ E_- + m^2+ 2
(\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} )
(E_+ + E_-) E_+ E_- }{2 E_+ E_-
+ m^2 \left( \frac{E_+}{E_-} + \frac{E_-}{E_+} \right) }
\label{pairproductionPRL}$$
So I have established that the “no-photon-decay-switch-on constraint" is $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} \geq 0
\label{goldenrulepart1}\end{aligned}$$
If instead $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} < 0$ then there would be some high values of $E_+,E_-$ (and correspondingly $E_\gamma$) for which a real $\theta$ could solve (\[pairproductionPRL\]) ([*i.e.*]{} such that $|\cos \theta| \leq 1$), and this in turn would mean that photon decay is allowed at those high energies.\
It must be noticed that the energies needed for this are ultra-high but below-Planckian: assume for example $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} = - \ell$ then photon decay starts to be allowed already at scales roughly of order $(m^2 |\ell|^{-1})^{1/3}$ (which indeed, for $m$ the electron mass and $|\ell|^{-1}$ roughly of order the Planck scale, is $\ll |\ell|^{-1}$).
No-pair-production-switch-off constraint
----------------------------------------
For the second requirement, the “no-pair-production-switch-off constraint", the process I use is electron-positron pair production in photon-photon collisions: $\gamma + \Gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ (I adopt a convention such that the energy $\epsilon$ of the photon $\gamma$ is lower than the energy $E$ of the photon $\Gamma$).
This process if evidently allowed in ordinary special relativity, and it has been established to actually occur in countless experiments, of course in a limited range of so-far-experimentally-accessible values of the energies of the two incoming photons. What could “go wrong" with this pair-production process in absence of (not even some deformation of) Lorentz symmetry? To see this let us gradually lower the value of the energy $\epsilon$ of the “soft" photon, and ask if there are correspondingly high hard-photon energies compatible with pair production. In special relativity of course the answer is always yes: for given low energy $\epsilon$ of the photon $\gamma$ one has that pair production is always allowed if the other photon $\Gamma$ has energy $E \geq m^2/\epsilon$. The question “can a photon of energy $\epsilon$ interact with another photon to produce an electron-positron pair?" always has positive answer, for all values of $\epsilon$. This is also a necessary consequence of the fact that two relatively boosted observers attribute different energy to a given photon: a relativistic description of such a pair of relatively boosted observers evidently excludes the possibility of a threshold for “pair-production switch-off".\
And it is also evident that such a threshold for pair-production switch-off must not be present in any theory providing a relativistic description of pairs of relatively-boosted observers. So in order for a chosen geometry of momentum space to be DSR-compatible it must always be possible for a photon of any energy $\epsilon$ to produce electron-positron pairs in interactions with at least some sufficiently high-energy photons. I shall now show that this imposes another nontrivial requirement on our parameters $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2,\gamma_1,\gamma_2$.
The process $\gamma + \Gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ involves one more particle than the photon-decay process considered in the previous subsection, but the analysis is simplified by the fact that the constraint I am looking for can be established focusing on collinear processes. In fact, the energy $E$ of photons eligible to produce pairs with a photon of given energy $\epsilon$ is inevitably going to be greater than a certain minimum value of $E$, which I shall denote with $E_{min}$, for which the process is collinear. So I start from $$\begin{aligned}
E_{min} +\epsilon &=& E_+ + E_- + \beta_1 p_+ p_-
+ \beta_2 E_+ E_-
\label{pairprod1a}\\
p_{min} - \epsilon &=& p_+ + p_- + \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} E_+ p_- + \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} E_- p_+
\label{pairprod1b}\end{aligned}$$ where I chose to focus on cases where $\epsilon \ll E_{min}$ so that $\ell \epsilon \simeq 0$ even though $\ell E_{min} \neq 0$. Then one can easily combine (\[pairprod1b\]) and (\[metricMASTER\]), also relying on some of the approximations already exploited in the previous subsection, to establish that $$\begin{aligned}
E_{min} + \frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}{2} E_{min}^2
- \epsilon =
E_+ + E_- -\frac{m^2}{2 E_+}-\frac{m^2}{2 E_-}
+ \frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}{2} (E_+^2 + E_-^2)
+ (\gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} + \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2}) E_+ E_- ~.
\label{pairprod2}\end{aligned}$$
A further simplification is obtained by noticing that the zero-th order ($\ell \rightarrow 0$) solution is such that $E_+ = E_- =E_{min}/2$, and that this zero-th order property can be safely assumed, consistently with the approximations I am adopting, to still hold within terms with already small prefactors of $m^2$ ($\ll E_{min}^2$) or $\ell$ ($\ll 1/E_{min}$). So from (\[pairprod2\]) one has $$\begin{aligned}
E_{min} + \frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}{2} E_{min}^2
- \epsilon =
E_+ + E_- - 2 \frac{m^2}{E_{min}}
+ \frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}{4} E_{min}^2
+ (\gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} + \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2}) \frac{E_{min}^2}{4}
\label{pairprod3}\end{aligned}$$ and from (\[pairprod1a\]) one has $$\begin{aligned}
E_{min} +\epsilon &=& E_+ + E_- + (\beta_1 + \beta_2) \frac{E_{min}^2}{4}
\label{pairprod4}\end{aligned}$$
Combining (\[pairprod3\]) and (\[pairprod4\]) one finds $$\begin{aligned}
2 \epsilon =
2 \frac{m^2}{E_{min}}
+ (\alpha_1 + \alpha_2) \frac{E_{min}^2}{4}
+ (\beta_1 + \beta_2) \frac{E_{min}^2}{4}
- (\gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} + \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2}) \frac{E_{min}^2}{4}
\label{pairprod5}\end{aligned}$$ So in summary $E_{min}$ must satisfy the condition $$\begin{aligned}
E_{min} - (\alpha_1 + \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2 - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2}) \frac{E_{min}^3}{4\epsilon}
= \frac{m^2}{\epsilon}
\label{pairprod5}\end{aligned}$$ This allows us to conclude that in order to avoid the “pair-production switch-off" one must enforce $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} \leq 0
\label{goldenrulepart2}\end{aligned}$$ If instead $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} > 0$ then one could find values of $\epsilon$ small enough (values of $m^2/\epsilon$ large enough) that (\[pairprod5\]) would admit no solution, so that indeed pair-production would be switched off.\
And once again it turns out that the issue is not confined to the “Planckian regime": for example if $\epsilon$ is $\sim 10^{-5}eV$ in standard special relativity (flat/Minkowski momentum-space geometry) pair production can occur whenever the other photon has energy $\geq 3 \cdot 10^{17}eV$, whereas with the deformation scheme I am considering, if for example $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} \simeq \ell$, for $\epsilon \sim 10^{-5}eV$ the pair-production process is already switched off: if $\epsilon \sim 10^{-5}eV$ then according to (\[pairprod5\]) pair production cannot occur for any value of $E$, if $m$ is the electron mass, $|\ell|^{-1}$ is roughly of order the Planck scale, and $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} \simeq \ell$.
A golden rule
-------------
Combining the results derived in the previous two subsections, summarized in Eq. (\[goldenrulepart1\]) and Eq. (\[goldenrulepart2\]), I obtain the following constraint on the deformation parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} = 0
\label{goldenrule}\end{aligned}$$ Following the logical line of the observations I reported in this section one concludes that for such geometries of relative-locality momentum spaces\
IF the geometry of the momentum space violates this constraint ([*i.e.*]{} IF $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} \neq 0$)\
THEN theories on such relative-locality momentum spaces require the introduction of a preferred “ether" frame (the laws of physics on such relative-locality momentum spaces are observer-dependent).\
The condition (\[goldenrule\]) is for a relative-locality momentum space to be DSR-compatible. But is (\[goldenrule\]) also a condition for a relative-locality momentum space to be DSR-compatible?\
That is, rewriting more explicitly, are we assured that on relative-locality momentum spaces that satisfy (\[goldenrule\]) it will be possible to introduce laws that involve the scale $\ell$ characteristic of the momentum-space geometry and yet are observer-independent laws?\
The derivations I have offered so far only establish (\[goldenrule\]) as a condition for DSR-compatibility, but in the following sections, by investigating a few examples of relative-locality momentum spaces, I provide evidence that when (\[goldenrule\]) is satisfied one does manage to base on such relative-locality momentum spaces laws of physics which are observer independent.\
So I that (\[goldenrule\]) is also sufficient for DSR-compatibility.\
If there are any counter-examples to my conjecture of sufficiency of (\[goldenrule\]) for DSR compatibility I expect them to be somewhat “pathological" in one way or another: [*a posteriori*]{} I can recognize in Eq. (\[goldenrule\]) a compact summary, a sort of “golden rule", reflecting a significant part of my experience working for more than a decade with scenarios of Lorentz-symmetry deformation. And even just the established necessity for DSR compatibility of (\[goldenrule\]) qualifies it as a “golden rule" for the phenomenology of deformations of Lorentz symmetry centered on momentum space: (\[goldenrule\]) allows one to quickly conclude that a certain geometry of momentum space does not admit observer-independent laws of physics, whereas reaching the same conclusion using more formal tools of investigation can be an endless task.
For the illustrative example of parametrization of momentum space on which I focused my “criteria" (necessary conditions) for DSR compatibility took the shape of the simple algorithmic requirement (\[goldenrule\]). I expect that for most other parametrizations of the momentum-space geometry my criteria will again produce simple algorithmic recipes. An exception to this expectation of simple algorithmic implementation of the criteria may perhaps be found in scenarios such as the one in Ref. [@dsrgzk], where the deformation is not structured simply as a power series in the components of momentum (in particular Ref. [@dsrgzk] tentatively contemplates deformations involving powers of components of momentum divided by powers of the mass of the particle): in such cases the region of energy scales of interest in physics applications can be outside the region of applicability of the leading-order approximation and, while my criteria would still apply, the algorithmic formulation of my criteria might be unavailable.
Some examples with torsion-free momentum space {#dsr1sec}
==============================================
The remainder of this manuscript has two goals:\
(i) test the reliability of the “golden rule" derived in the previous section, adopted tentatively as a (not only necessary but also) sufficient condition for DSR-compatibility, by looking at momentum spaces where the golden rule is satisfied and checking explicitly that some formulation of deformed Lorentz symmetry is available;\
(ii) illustrate some of the peculiarities that can characterize deformed Lorentz symmetry on a relative-locality momentum space.
The examples of relative-locality momentum spaces I consider in this section and the next section are characterized by being setups which were already of interest during the earliest stages of DSR research[^3]. Specifically in this section I start with two examples of torsionless momentum spaces, with in particular one example matching exactly the form of nonlinear laws in momentum space that were considered already in Ref. [@dsr1Edsr2], as an attempt to illustrate the idea that one might try to have a relativistic theory with an observer-independent length/inverse-momentum scale, while preserving the observer-independence of the laws of physics and the overall relativistic nature of the theory. Since relative-locality momentum spaces are always flat in leading order [@prl; @grf2nd] (the lowest-order contribution to curvature of the metric on a relative-locality momentum space is of order $\ell^2$), and these are also torsionless cases, these are evidently not the most interesting scenarios from the novel relative-locality perspective, but I find nonetheless somewhat reassuring that indeed the golden rule does perform well in my two examples of this sort.\
Then in the next section I consider two other examples of a traditional type in the DSR literature, examples largely inspired by properties of the $\kappa$-Poincaré Hopf algebra [@lukieIW; @majidruegg; @kpoinap]. The $\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired nonlinearities for momentum-space laws appeared immediately [@dsr1Edsr2] as a natural candidate for obtaining a DSR-compatible framework. But this $\kappa$-Poincaré opportunity for DSR research has remained in a “sub judice status" mainly as a result that, as already noticed in Ref. [@dsr1Edsr2], some of the attempts to build quantum field theories with $\kappa$-Poincaré structures appeared not to enforce the observer independence of the laws of physics.\
The observations I here report in the next section on the $\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired relative-locality momentum space (actually two versions of it) go some way in the direction of establishing more firmly the case for DSR compatibility, and do so while providing further evidence of robustness of the use of my “golden rule" as a sufficient condition for DSR-compatibility.\
Within the relative-locality framework these $\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired relative-locality momentum spaces are representatives of the case of torsionful momentum spaces, and are therefore rather nontrivial.
As announced, here and in the next section I work again exclusively in leading order in $\ell$. And I work in $1+1$ momentum-space dimensions, so that the formulas take their simplest possible form and it will be easier to highlight the conceptual steps.
Brief summary of previous results on the “DSR1"
------------------------------------------------
As announced, the first definite example I consider of relative-locality momentum space is actually a setup that was already considered in the DSR literature, and there known as “DSR1", often used (already in Ref. [@dsr1Edsr2]) as a way to illustrate some of the ingredients that could be used when attempting to produce a DSR framework, with special-relativistic laws deformed by a length/invere-momentum scale which are however relativistic/observer-independent laws. A key issue of interest in the DSR literature is indeed the compatibility of a given choice of on-shell relation and a given choice of momentum-conservation laws with (possibly deformed) Lorentz invariance.
In this DSR1 setup the on-shell relation takes the form [@dsr1Edsr2] $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_1^2 + \ell p_0 p_1^2 ~.
\label{metricdsr1}$$ which is invariant under the DSR1-deformed boost action [@dsr1Edsr2] $$[N, p_0] = p_1 ~,~~~
[N, p_1] = p_0 + \ell p_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_1^2
\label{boosts}$$ And an example of DSR1-deformed law of conservation of momentum that would be compatible with the boost action (\[boosts\]) is [@dsr1Edsr2]: $$\begin{aligned}
p^{(a)}_0 + p^{(b)}_0 + \ell p^{(a)}_1 p^{(b)}_1 &=&
p^{(c)}_0 + p^{(d)}_0 + \ell p^{(c)}_1 p^{(d)}_1
\label{dsr1econs}\\
p^{(a)}_1 + p^{(b)}_1 + \ell p^{(a)}_0 p^{(b)}_1 + \ell p^{(a)}_1 p^{(b)}_0 &=&
p^{(c)}_1 + p^{(d)}_1 + \ell p^{(c)}_0 p^{(d)}_1 + \ell p^{(c)}_1 p^{(d)}_0
\label{dsr1pcons}\end{aligned}$$ for an event $a + b \rightarrow c+d$.
The on-shell relation of this DSR1 model, (\[metricdsr1\]), is evidently of a type that can emerge from a choice of metric on momentum space. But I must still comment on the law of composition of momenta, which according to Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd] codifies the affine connection on momentum space. It is nearly self-evident that the conservation laws (\[dsr1econs\])-(\[dsr1pcons\]) implicitly use the composition law $$(k \oplus p)_0 = k_0 + p_0 + \ell k_1 p_1~,~~~(k \oplus p)_1 = k_1 + p_1
+ \ell k_0 p_1 + \ell p_0 k_1~,
\label{connectiondsr1}$$ which is commutative and therefore, according to the criteria introduced in Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd], corresponds to a torsionless connection[^4].\
In order to verify explicitly that the composition law (\[connectiondsr1\]) corresponds to the conservation law (\[dsr1econs\])-(\[dsr1pcons\]) I must check that (\[dsr1econs\])-(\[dsr1pcons\]) is equivalent to $$(((p^{(a)} \oplus p^{(b)} ) \oplus p^{(c)}) \oplus p^{(d)})_\mu = 0~,$$ which in light of (\[connectiondsr1\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
p^{(a)}_0 + p^{(b)}_0 + p^{(c)}_0 + p^{(d)}_0
+\ell p^{(a)}_1 p^{(b)}_1
+\ell p^{(a)}_1 p^{(c)}_1
+\ell p^{(a)}_1 p^{(d)}_1
+\ell p^{(b)}_1 p^{(c)}_1
+\ell p^{(b)}_1 p^{(d)}_1
+ \ell p^{(c)}_1 p^{(d)}_1
=0~,
\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
p^{(a)}_1 \! + \! p^{(b)}_1 \! + \! p^{(c)}_1 \! + \! p^{(d)}_1
\! + \! \ell [p^{(a)}_0 p^{(b)}_1 \!\! + \! p^{(a)}_1 p^{(b)}_0
\!\! + \! p^{(a)}_0 p^{(c)}_1 \!\! + \! p^{(a)}_1 p^{(c)}_0 \! +
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber\\
\!\! + \! p^{(a)}_0 p^{(d)}_1 \!\! + \! p^{(a)}_1 p^{(d)}_0
\!\! + \! p^{(b)}_0 p^{(c)}_1 \!\! + \! p^{(b)}_1 p^{(c)}_0
\!\! + \! p^{(b)}_0 p^{(d)}_1 \!\! + \! p^{(b)}_1 p^{(d)}_0
\!\! + \! p^{(c)}_0 p^{(d)}_1 \!\! + \! p^{(c)}_1 p^{(d)}_0
=0
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The specific case of (\[dsr1econs\])-(\[dsr1pcons\]) is actually obtained for $$(((p^{(a)} \oplus p^{(b)} ) \oplus
[\ominus p^{(c)})] \oplus [\ominus p^{(d)}])_\mu = 0~,$$ which may be viewed as the case of two incoming and two outgoing momenta [@prl], where $\ominus$ is the antipode of the $\oplus$ in (\[connectiondsr1\]) $$(\ominus p)_0 = - p_0 + \ell p_1 p_1~,~~~
(\ominus p)_1 = - p_1 + 2 \ell p_0 p_1 ~.
\label{antipode}$$ Indeed one easily checks that $p \oplus (\ominus p) =0$, as required for the antipode.
This observation finds confirmation in the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
(((p^{(a)} \oplus p^{(b)} ) \oplus
[\ominus p^{(c)})] \oplus [\ominus p^{(d)}])_0 = 0
& \Longleftrightarrow & p^{(a)}_0 + p^{(b)}_0 + \ell p^{(a)}_1 p^{(b)}_1 =
p^{(c)}_0 + p^{(d)}_0 + \ell p^{(c)}_1 p^{(d)}_1
\nonumber\\
(((p^{(a)} \oplus p^{(b)} ) \oplus
[\ominus p^{(c)})] \oplus [\ominus p^{(d)}])_1 = 0
& \Longleftrightarrow &
p^{(a)}_1 + p^{(b)}_1 + \ell p^{(a)}_0 p^{(b)}_1 + \ell p^{(a)}_1 p^{(b)}_0 =
p^{(c)}_1 + p^{(d)}_1 + \ell p^{(c)}_0 p^{(d)}_1 + \ell p^{(c)}_1 p^{(d)}_0
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the equivalences are established of course dropping terms which vanish when the conservation laws are enforced (and taking into account that I am working in leading order in $\ell$).
So it is at this point fully established that the geometry of momentum space that matches the prescriptions of the DSR1 model is characterized in terms of the on-shell relation (\[metricdsr1\]) and the composition law (\[connectiondsr1\]).
With this observation we are ready to check that the DSR1 setup is consistent with the “golden rule". For that purpose let me observe that, using the parametrization of the previous section, the DSR1 on-shell relation and composition law correspond to the choice of parameters $\alpha_1 = \ell$, $\alpha_2 = 0$, $\beta_1 = \ell$, $\beta_2 = 0$, $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \ell$, so that the golden rule is satisfied: $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} = 0$. And indeed it is easy to verify [@dsr1Edsr2] that when the conservation laws (\[dsr1econs\])-(\[dsr1pcons\]) hold for one observer, say Alice, they also hold for any observer boosted according to Eq. (\[boosts\]) with respect to Alice.\
We can therefore recognize in the DSR1 model a first success for the possibility of viewing the “golden rule" as a sufficient condition for DSR-compatibility.
Another torsionless example, with abelian energy composition
------------------------------------------------------------
Let me now consider a slightly different setup, which was not previously discussed in the literature: a setup similar to the one of the previous subsection (in particular with torsionless momentum space) and with the added “simplicity bonus" of undeformed additivity[^5] of energy (but not of spatial momenta).
For this second example of torsionless momentum space I take a metric such that the one-shell condition is $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_1^2 + 2 \ell p_0 p_1^2
\label{metric}$$ and for the affine connection I take one such that $$(k \oplus p)_1 = k_1 + p_1 + \ell k_0 p_1 + \ell p_0 k_1 ~,~~~
(k \oplus p)_0 = k_0 + p_0~,
\label{connection}$$ which is indeed commutative, as required for a torsionless momentum space in the sense of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd].
I note down the antipode that follows from (\[connection\]) $$(\ominus p)_1 = - p_1 + 2 \ell p_0 p_1 ~,~~~
(\ominus p)_0 = - p_0
\label{antipode}$$ And I also observe that from (\[connection\]) it follows that $$[(k \oplus p) \oplus q]_1 = k_1 + p_1 + q_1 + \ell k_0 (p_1 + q_1)
+ \ell p_0 (k_1 + q_1) + \ell q_0 (k_1 + p_1) ~,~~~
[(k \oplus p) \oplus q]_0 = k_0 + p_0 + q_0
\label{tribody}$$ For this other torsionless momentum space that I want to consider I have already laid out the ingredients needed for applying my “golden rule". From the on-shell relation (\[metric\]) and the composition law (\[connection\]) we see that, using the parametrization of the previous section, this is a case with $\alpha_1 = 2 \ell$, $\alpha_2 = 0$, $\beta_1 = 0$, $\beta_2 = 0$, $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \ell$, and therefore we have here another case in which the golden rule is satisfied: $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} = 0$.\
So there is no [*a priori*]{} reason to expect that such a setup would require a “preferred-frame formulation" (since the necessary condition for DSR-compatibility is satisfied), and if one assumes that the “golden rule" is also a sufficient condition for DSR-compatibility one must expect that it will be possible to introduce in this setup a satisfactory notion of deformed Lorentz symmetry. Indeed this is the case, as I shall now easily show.\
Specifically I shall verify that a satisfactory description of deformed Lorentz symmetry of this torsionless momentum space is obtained in terms of the following boost generator $$[N, p_0] = p_1 - \ell p_0 p_1 ~,~~~
[N, p_1] = p_0 + \ell p_0^2 + \ell p_1^2~.
\label{boostsnew}$$ I start by observing that the on-shell relation is invariant: $$[N, p_0^2 - p_1^2 + 2 \ell p_0 p_1^2 ] = 0~.
\label{invariantshell}$$ And it is only slightly more tedious to check that the boost (\[boostsnew\]) ensures the covariance of the laws of conservation of momentum based on the composition law (\[connection\]). I start checking this covariance for the conservation law $$(k \oplus p) = 0
\label{twobodyzero}$$ Acting with the boost $N$ one finds that $$[N, (k \oplus p)_0]=[N, (k_0 + p_0)]= k_1 - \ell k_0 k_1 +p_1 - \ell p_0 p_1 =
k_1 + p_1 + \ell p_0 k_1 + \ell k_0 p_1 - \ell (p_0 + k_0) ( p_1 + k_1)= 0
\label{covatwotime}$$ where on the right-hand side I of course used the conservation law itself (and took into account that I am working in leading order in $\ell$). And similarly one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
[N, (k \oplus p)_1]=[N, (k_1 + p_1 + \ell k_0 p_1 + \ell p_0 k_1)]=
k_0+p_0 +\ell p_0^2 +\ell k_0^2 + \ell p_1^2 + \ell k_1^2 +
2 \ell k_1 p_1 + 2 \ell k_0 p_0 \nonumber\\
~~~~~~~~
= k_0+p_0 +\ell (p_0 + k_0)^2 + \ell (p_1 + k_1)^2 = 0
~~~~~~~~
\label{covatwospace}\end{aligned}$$ where again on the right-hand side I used the conservation law itself.\
The covariance of the conservation law $(k \oplus p) = 0$ under the boost (\[boostsnew\]) is evidently confirmed by (\[covatwotime\]) and (\[covatwospace\]).
Let me also check explicitly the covariance of the conservation law $$(k \oplus p) \oplus q = 0
\label{tribodyzero}$$ \[The covariance of the 4-particle conservation, $[(k \oplus p) \oplus q] \oplus r = 0$, and of the general $N$-particle conservation is easily checked analogously.\]
Acting with the boost $N$ on the $0$-component of (\[tribodyzero\]) one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\! [N, [(k \oplus p) \oplus q]_0]=[N, (k_0 + p_0 + q_0)]=
k_1 - \ell k_0 k_1 +p_1 - \ell p_0 p_1 +q_1 - \ell q_0 q_1 = \nonumber\\
&& ~~~~~~~~ k_1 + p_1 +q_1 + \ell p_0 k_1 + \ell k_0 p_1
+ \ell q_0 k_1 + \ell k_0 q_1
+ \ell p_0 q_1 + \ell q_0 p_1
- \ell (p_0 + k_0 + q_0 ) ( p_1 + k_1 + q_1)= 0
\label{covatritime}\end{aligned}$$ And similarly for the $1$-component one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
[N, ((k \oplus p) \oplus q)_1]=[N,
(k_1 + p_1 + q_1 + \ell k_0 (p_1 + q_1)
+ \ell p_0 (k_1 + q_1) + \ell q_0 (k_1 + p_1))]=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber\\
~~~~~~ = k_0+p_0 +q_0 +\ell p_0^2 +\ell k_0^2 +\ell q_0^2 + \ell p_1^2 + \ell k_1^2
+\ell q_1^2 + 2 \ell k_1 p_1 + 2 \ell k_0 p_0
+ 2 \ell k_1 q_1 + 2 \ell k_0 q_0
+ 2 \ell p_1 q_1 + 2 \ell p_0 q_0\nonumber\\
= k_0+p_0 +q_0 +\ell (p_0 + k_0 + q_0)^2 + \ell (p_1 + k_1 +q_1)^2 = 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\label{covatrispace}\end{aligned}$$ The covariance of the conservation law $(k \oplus p) \oplus q = 0$ under the boost (\[boostsnew\]) is evidently confirmed by (\[covatritime\]) and (\[covatrispace\]).
So the assumption that golden rule should be a sufficient condition for DSR-compatibility was again successful: also for the momentum space considered in this subsection the golden rule is satisfied and a satisfactory description of deformed Lorentz symmetry was found.
Deformed Lorentz symmetry on momentum spaces with torsion {#torsionsec}
=========================================================
As announced, my next task is to verify the efficacy of the golden rule (and give explicit examples of boost transformations that implement deformed Lorentz symmetry) in cases in which the momentum space has torsion, and specifically for some cases of $\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired momentum spaces. The associated nonlinear laws on momentum space are cases that were immediately perceived [@dsr1Edsr2; @jurekdsr1] as promising candidates for the construction of a DSR-compatible framework, even though, as mentioned, they have remained to some extent “sub judice". Some of the observations I here report, besides providing additional tests of the robustness of my “golden rule", could be relevant for building a more robust case for considering $\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired nonlinearities on momentum space as a viable candidate for the construction of a DSR framework.
Deformed Lorentz symmetry on a momentum space with torsion and modified dispersion {#kappauno}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My first example of momentum space with torsion is the “$\kappa$-momentum space", which, as stressed in Ref. [@anatomy], may deserve special interest from the relative-locality perspective of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd] since it is inspired by some properties of the much-studied $\kappa$-Poincaré Hopf algebra [@lukieIW; @majidruegg; @kpoinap].
From the viewpoint of contributing to the development of the relative-locality framework of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd], the study of deformed boost transformations on this momentum space is particularly significant since this is the only relative-locality momentum space for which a solid relativistic description of distant observers at rest was explicitly obtained [@anatomy].
Following Ref. [@anatomy] I characterize $\kappa$-momentum space through a momentum-space metric such that the on-shell (“dispersion") relation is $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_j^2 + \ell p_0 p_j^2
\label{metrictorsy}$$ and the torsionful momentum-space affine connection is such that $$(k \oplus p)_j = k_j + p_j + \ell k_0 p_j ~,~~~
(k \oplus p)_0 = k_0 + p_0~.
\label{connectiontorsy}$$ This composition law can be qualified as “Majid-Ruegg composition law" [@anatomy] (with the associated “Majid-Ruegg connection" on momentum space) since it is primarily inspired by an approach to the description of the $\kappa$-Poincaré Hopf algebra first introduced by Majid and Ruegg in Ref. [@majidruegg]. I shall compactly refer to it as the “MR composition law".
I note down the antipode for the MR composition law: $$(\ominus p)_j = - p_j + \ell p_0 p_j ~,~~~
(\ominus p)_0 = - p_0~,
\label{antipodetorsy}$$ which indeed, as verified by direct application of (\[connectiontorsy\]), is such that $p \oplus (\ominus p) = 0$.\
And I also observe that from (\[connectiontorsy\]) it follows that $$[(k \oplus p) \oplus q]_1 = k_1 + p_1 + q_1 + \ell k_0 p_1
+ \ell k_0 q_1 + \ell p_0 q_1 ~,~~~
[(k \oplus p) \oplus q]_0 = k_0 + p_0 + q_0
\label{tribodytorsy}$$
It is easy to verify that also this $\kappa$-momentum space fits the demands of the “golden rule". In fact, from the on-shell relation (\[metrictorsy\]) and the composition law (\[connectiontorsy\]) we see that, using the parametrization of the Sec. \[goldenrulesec\], this is a case with $\alpha_1 = \ell$, $\alpha_2 = 0$, $\beta_1 = 0$, $\beta_2 = 0$, $\gamma_1 = \ell$, $\gamma_2 = 0$, and therefore indeed the golden rule is satisfied: $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} = 0$.\
One must therefore expect that also on the $\kappa$-momentum space a satisfactory notion of deformed Lorentz symmetry is available, which indeed is what I shall now describe.\
With respect to the torsionless cases considered in the previous section, our torsionful $\kappa$-momentum space is going to require a somewhat more sophisticated type of description of the action of boosts. Let me start by introducing the action of a boost on the momentum of a particle: $$[N, p_0] = p_1 ~,~~~
[N, p_1] = p_0 + \ell p_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_1^2
\label{booststorsy}$$ This prescription indeed ensures the invariance of the on-shell relation on the $\kappa$-momentum space: $$[N, p_0^2 - p_1^2 + \ell p_0 p_1^2] =
2 p_0 p_1 - 2 p_1 (p_0 + \ell p_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_1^2)
+\ell p_1^3 +2 \ell p_0^2 p_1 = 0
\label{invariantshelltorsy}$$ Evidently the torsion of the $\kappa$-momentum space poses no particular challenge for the description of boosts on the momentum of a single particle: the torsion characterizes composition of momenta and is therefore not felt when boosts act on the momentum of a single particle. The simplicity of the check of invariance of the on-shell relation, (\[invariantshelltorsy\]), confirms this point.\
However, torsion inevitably affects how boosts act on momenta obtained composing two or more single-particle momenta. Previously, when I examined in Sec. \[dsr1sec\] some torsionless cases, I found that it was possible to simply impose that the boost of a two-particle event $e_{k \oplus p}$ would be governed by $$[N_{torsionless},p \oplus k]
= [N_{torsionless}^{(p)}+N_{torsionless}^{(k)},p \oplus k]$$ where on the left-hand side I kept the notation of a generic boost action, while on the right-hand side I decomposed the boost into two pieces, each given in terms of a boost acting exclusively on a certain momentum in the event. Essentially this means that for the torsionless cases that I considered in the previous section I found that one could keep the standard concept of a “total boost" generator obtained by combining trivially the boost generators acting on each individual particle. One can easily retrace the availability of this option to the fact that in the cases I considered in the previous section the law of composition of momenta was symmetric under exchange of the particles.\
With torsion in momentum space this simplicity is lost: the lack of symmetry under exchange of particles of the composition law (\[connectiontorsy\]) precludes, as one can easily verify, the possibility of adopting a “total boost generator" given by a trivial sum of single-particle boost generators. There is no choice of $N^{(p)}$ capable of ensuring that $[N^{(p)}+N^{(k)}+N^{(q)},((k \oplus p) \oplus q)_\mu] $ vanishes whenever $((k \oplus p) \oplus q)_\mu =0$.
What does work on the torsionful $\kappa$-momentum space, as I shall show, is adopting $$N^{(k \oplus p)} =N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}$$ and accordingly $$N^{((k \oplus p) \oplus q)}
=N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)}$$
Let us verify that indeed these boost actions ensure compatibility with the conservation laws obtained from the MR composition law. For the $0$-th component of $k \oplus p = 0$ one finds $$[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, (k \oplus p)_0]=
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, k_0 + p_0]= k_1+p_1 + \ell k_0 p_1= 0
\label{covatwotimetorsy}$$ where on the right-hand side I of course used the conservation law itself.\
Similarly for the $1$-component of $k \oplus p = 0$ it turns out that $$\begin{aligned}
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, (k \oplus p)_1]
&=& [N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, k_1 + p_1 + \ell k_0 p_1]=\nonumber\\
&= & k_0+\ell k_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} k_1^2+ p_0+\ell p_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_1^2
+ \ell k_1 p_1 + 2 \ell k_0 p_0 \nonumber\\
&= & k_0+p_0 +\ell (p_0 + k_0)^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} (p_1 + k_1)^2 = 0
~~~~~~~~
\label{covatwospacetorsy}\end{aligned}$$ where again on the right-hand side I used the conservation law $(k \oplus p)_\mu = 0$ itself (and took again into account that I am working at leading order in $\ell$).
So the description of boosts given by $N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}$ does ensure the relativistic covariance of the conservation law $k \oplus p = 0$.\
Let me also check that the corresponding description of boosts on momenta composed of 3 single-particle momenta, $N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}
+ \ell k_0 N^{(q)} +\ell p_0 N^{(q)}$, ensures the relativistic covariance of the torsionful conservation law $(k \oplus p) \oplus q = 0$. For what concerns the $0$-th component one easily finds that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)}, ((k \oplus p) \oplus q)_0]
=
\nonumber\\
&& = [N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)}, k_0 + p_0 + q_0 ]=\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!
& & = k_1+ p_1 +q_1+
\ell k_0 p_1 + \ell k_0 q_1 + \ell p_0 q_1 =0
\label{covatritimetorsy}\end{aligned}$$ And similarly for the $1$-component one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)}, ((k \oplus p) \oplus q)_1]
= \nonumber\\
&& = [N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)},
k_1 + p_1 + q_1 + \ell k_0 p_1
+ \ell k_0 q_1 + \ell p_0 q_1 ]=\nonumber\\
& &
= k_0+\ell k_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} k_1^2+ p_0+\ell p_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_1^2 +
q_0+\ell q_0^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} q_1^2
+ 2 \ell k_0 p_0 + 2 \ell k_0 q_0 + 2 \ell p_0 q_0
+ \ell k_1 p_1 + \ell k_1 q_1
+\ell p_1 q_1 = \nonumber\\
&&= k_0+p_0 +q_0 +\ell (p_0 + k_0 + q_0)^2 + \frac{\ell}{2} (p_1 + k_1 +q_1)^2 = 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\label{covatrispacetorsy}\end{aligned}$$
So I have exposed a description of boosts that provides a satisfactory notion of deformed Lorentz symmetry on the $\kappa$-momentum space. And this again should be listed among the successes of the “golden rule", since, as shown above, the $\kappa$-momentum space does fit the demands of the golden rule.
Deformed Lorentz symmetry on a momentum space with torsion and unmodified dispersion {#kappadue}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a second torsionful example of doubly-special-relativity type deformation of Lorentz symmetry on momentum space, suitable also for testing the “golden rule", I take another variant of the$\kappa$-momentum space. As mentioned the $\kappa$-momentum space of the previous subsection is inspired by studies of the $\kappa$-Poincaré Hopf algebra, and specifically the work of Majid and Ruegg on the so-called “Majid-Ruegg basis of $\kappa$-Poincaré", and indeed we ended up with adopting in the previous subsection the MR connection/composition law. The second version of $\kappa$-momentum space which I now intend to consider is inspired by a different choice of generators for the $\kappa$-Poincaré Hopf algebra, a choice of generators proposed in Ref. [@gacAlessandraFrancesco] which is obtained from the Majid-Ruegg generators by acting with a “change of basis" [@kpoinap; @gacAlessandraFrancesco].
The Majid-Ruegg basis has been most frequently adopted in the $\kappa$-Poincaré literature, mostly because some of the Hopf-algebraic manipulations one is interested in doing turn out to be particularly simple when using the Majid-Ruegg basis. All this however is of little interest for my purposes here, and instead I shall notice that the basis proposed by Agostini, D’Andrea and myself in Ref. [@gacAlessandraFrancesco] provides inspiration for a description of the geometry of momentum space with several intriguing features. Reasoning just as done in Ref. [@anatomy] for deriving $\kappa$-momentum space from the Majid-Ruegg basis one can easily obtain from the basis proposed in Ref. [@gacAlessandraFrancesco] a formulation of $\kappa$-momentum space which (in leading order) is ultimately characterized by the undeformed on-shell relation $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_1^2
\label{metrictorsyBBB}$$ and a torsionful momentum-space affine connection such that $$(k \oplus p)_1 = k_1 + p_1 + \frac{\ell}{2} k_0 p_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 k_1 ~,~~~
(k \oplus p)_0 = k_0 + p_0~,
\label{connectiontorsyBBB}$$ which in the following I shall label as the “AAD composition law" as a quick pointer to Ref. [@gacAlessandraFrancesco].
It is interesting to note that[^6] the antipode that follows from this AAD composition law is trivial $$(\ominus p)_\mu = - p_\mu ~,
\label{antipodetorsyBBB}$$ which, especially when combined with the fact that the on-shell relation is undeformed, renders this formalization of a $\kappa$-momentum space particularly simple to handle, while preserving all the elements of complexity of a torsionful momentum space. The simple structure of the AAD composition law is also manifest to some extent when several different momenta are combined, as in the case of the composition of 3 momenta, which is given by $$[(k \oplus p) \oplus q]_1 = k_1 + p_1 + q_1
+ \frac{\ell}{2} k_0 p_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 k_1
+ \frac{\ell}{2} k_0 q_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} q_0 k_1
+ \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 q_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} q_0 p_1 ~,~~~
[(k \oplus p) \oplus q]_0 = k_0 + p_0 + q_0
\label{tribodytorsyBBB}$$
Before discussing the deformed-Lorentz-symmetry relativistic issues, let me again pause for looking at this scenario with undeformed on-shell relation and AAD composition law from the viewpoint of the “golden rule" derived in Sec. \[goldenrulesec\]. It is easy to verify that also the combination of undeformed on-shell relation and AAD composition law fits the demands of the “golden rule". In fact, using again the parametrization introduced in Sec. \[goldenrulesec\], one sees that undeformed on-shell relation and AAD composition law give $\alpha_1 = 0$, $\alpha_2 = 0$, $\beta_1 = 0$, $\beta_2 = 0$, $\gamma_1 = \ell/2$, $\gamma_2 = -\ell/2$, and therefore indeed the golden rule is satisfied: $\alpha_1
+ \alpha_2 + \beta_1 + \beta_2
- \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_1} - \gamma_{{\!\!\!~}_2} = 0$.\
Once again, if we trust the “golden rule" as (not only a necessary but also) a sufficient condition for DSR-compatibility we must then expect that this scenario with undeformed on-shell relation and AAD composition law should admit a satisfactory notion of deformed Lorentz symmetry. And indeed this is what I shall now show.
As explained in the previous subsection, even for such torsionful momentum spaces the description of doubly-special-relativity-type deformed boosts on momenta of a single particle is not challenging. For this case with undeformed on-shell relation and AAD composition law I propose $$[N, p_0] = p_1 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 p_1 ~,~~~
[N, p_1] = p_0 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_0^2~,
\label{booststorsyBBB}$$ which evidently ensures the invariance of the on-shell relation: $$[N, p_0^2 - p_1^2] =
2 p_0 (p_1 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 p_1) - 2 p_1 (p_0 + \frac{\ell}{2} p_0^2) = 0
\label{invariantshelltorsyBBB}$$ Next I must deal again with the fact that torsion inevitably affects how boosts act on momenta obtained composing two or more single-particle momenta.\
It is noteworthy that I find that the same prescription used for the other $\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired torsionful case considered in the previous subsection, $$N^{(k \oplus p)} =N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}~,$$ also works for the the case I am considering in this subsection.
Let me start verifying this on $k \oplus p = 0$. For what concerns the $0$-th component one easily finds $$\begin{aligned}
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, (k \oplus p)_0]=
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, k_0 + p_0] &=& k_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} k_0 k_1
+p_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} p_0 p_1
+\ell k_0 p_1 \label{covatwotimetorsyBBB}\\
&=& k_1 +p_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} k_0 p_1
-\frac{\ell}{2} p_0 k_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} (k_0 + p_0) (k_1 + p_1)
= 0 ~,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where on the right-hand side I of course used the conservation law itself.\
Similarly for the $1$-component of $k \oplus p = 0$ it turns out that $$\begin{aligned}
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, (k \oplus p)_1]
&=& [N^{(k)}+N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)}, k_1 + p_1
+ \frac{\ell}{2} k_0 p_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 k_1 ]=\nonumber\\
&= & k_0+ \frac{\ell}{2} k_0^2
+ p_0+ \frac{\ell}{2} p_0^2
+ \ell k_0 p_0 \nonumber\\
&= & k_0+p_0 + \frac{\ell}{2} (k_0 + p_0)^2 = 0
~~~~~~~~
\label{covatwospacetorsyBBB}\end{aligned}$$ where again on the right-hand side I used the conservation law $(k \oplus p)_\mu = 0$ itself (and took again into account that I am working at leading order in $\ell$).
Consistently with the style of analysis I adopted throughout this manuscript let me double-check this consistency between my proposal for boosts and the choice of undeformed on-shell relation and AAD composition law by also considering the case of a 3-particle conservation law, of the form $(k \oplus p) \oplus q = 0$. For what concerns the $0$-th component one easily finds that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)}, ((k \oplus p) \oplus q)_0]
=
\nonumber\\
&& = [N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)}, k_0 + p_0 + q_0 ]=\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!
& & =
k_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} k_0 k_1
+p_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} p_0 p_1
+q_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} q_0 q_1
+\ell k_0 p_1+\ell k_0 q_1+\ell p_0 q_1 \nonumber\\
&=& k_1 +p_1 +q_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} k_0 p_1
-\frac{\ell}{2} p_0 k_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} k_0 q_1
-\frac{\ell}{2} q_0 k_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} p_0 q_1
-\frac{\ell}{2} q_0 p_1
+\frac{\ell}{2} (k_0 + p_0 + q_0) (k_1 + p_1 + q_1)
= 0 ~.
\label{covatritimetorsyBBB}\end{aligned}$$ And similarly for the $1$-component one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
[N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)}, ((k \oplus p) \oplus q)_1]
= \nonumber\\
&& = [N^{(k)}+N^{(p)}+N^{(q)} + \ell k_0 N^{(p)} + \ell k_0 N^{(q)}
+\ell p_0 N^{(q)},
k_1 + p_1 + q_1
+ \frac{\ell}{2} k_0 p_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 k_1
+ \frac{\ell}{2} k_0 q_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} q_0 k_1
+ \frac{\ell}{2} p_0 q_1 - \frac{\ell}{2} q_0 p_1]=\nonumber\\
& &
= k_0+ \frac{\ell}{2} k_0^2+ p_0+ \frac{\ell}{2} p_0^2 +
q_0+ \frac{\ell}{2} q_0^2
+ \ell k_0 p_0 + \ell k_0 q_0 + \ell p_0 q_0
= \nonumber\\
&&= k_0+p_0 +q_0 +\frac{\ell}{2} (p_0 + k_0 + q_0)^2
= 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\label{covatrispacetorsyBBB}\end{aligned}$$
So once again the golden rule was successfully tested: for the choice of undeformed on-shell relation and AAD composition law the golden rule is satisfied and indeed I managed to expose a description of doubly-special-relativity-type deformed boosts that ensures the invariance of the undeformed on-shell relation and the covariance of the conservation laws obtained from the AAD composition law.
On the momentum-space metric {#newmetric}
============================
I have here set the stage for analyzing whether a given geometry of momentum space, as codified in an on-shell (dispersion) relation and in a law of conservation of momenta at interactions, may or may not be DSR-compatible, [*i.e.*]{} compatible with a relativistic formulation of theories on that momentum space.\
I found that the availability of a relativistic picture requires enforcing the “golden rule", [*i.e.*]{} a certain consistency between the on-shell relation and the conservation laws ([*e.g.*]{} between the parameters $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ and the parameters $\beta_1,\beta_2,\gamma_1,\gamma_2$).\
An attractive result of such an analysis would have been to find that this relativistic consistency of combined choices of on-shell relation and conservation laws could have a simple geometric meaning: for example, a case such that given a certain metric on momentum space (used to codify the on-shell relation) the type of affine connections on momentum space (used to codify the conservation laws) that would allow a relativistic picture would have been, say, metric connections or perhaps non-metric connections of a certain specific type. However, I have not managed to find a way to use the notion of metric and affine connection on momentum space introduced in Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd] for providing such a simple characterization.
There may well be such a characterization which I still did not notice, and in any case the availability of such a characterization can at best be viewed as desirable, but not necessarily available. It is interesting however to speculate about possible alternative geometric pictures, other ways to associate a metric to the on-shell relation and/or to associate an affine connection to the conservation laws. A suitable alternative geometric picture might even lead to a very intuitive geometric characterization of what it takes for a momentum space to be DSR-compatible.\
I do not have any particularly compelling proposal at present, but let me illustrate the type of alternative “geometric picture of momentum space" that I have in mind by motivating a possibility in which the affine connection is still associated with the conservation laws exactly as prescribed in Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd], but one would link the metric to the on-shell relation in a way that differs from the one used in Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd]. This alternative proposal finds part of its inspiration in a field-theory argument which I am now going to propose.
Let me start by reminding the reader about the known fact that classical field theories in Minkowski spacetime can be easily formulated as classical field theories on a momentum space with Minkowski metric. For example, a free massless scalar field is described by the momentum-space action $$- \int d^4 k \int d^4 p~ {\widetilde \phi}(k) \eta^{\mu \nu} k_\mu p_\nu
~ {\widetilde \phi}(p) \delta(k+p)$$ where $\eta^{\mu \nu}$ is to be viewed here as a Minkowski metric on momentum space, and from the viewpoint of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd] the ordinary linear sum of momenta, $k+p$, codifies the trivial Levi-Civita connection of the Minkowski metric.\
Taking as “spacetime field" the $\phi(x)$ obtained from the momentum-space field ${\widetilde \phi}(p)$ by anti-Fourier transform, ${\widetilde \phi}(p) = \int d^4 x
\phi(x) e^{-ikx}$, one indeed obtains with few steps of simple derivation the standard spacetime description of a free massless scalar field: $$\int d^4x ~\int d^4y ~~ \eta^{\mu \nu} ~\left(\partial_\mu \phi(x)\right)
~ \left( \partial_\nu \phi(y) \right)~ \delta^4(x-y)~.$$
In light of this it appears natural to assume that on a momentum space which does not have Minkowski geometry a free massless scalar field should be described in terms of the Lagrangian density $$- {\widetilde \phi}(k) ~ g^{\mu \nu}(p) \, k_\mu p_\nu
~ {\widetilde \phi}(p) \delta(k \oplus p)
\label{preDalambert}$$ where $g^{\mu \nu}$ is the momentum-space metric and $\oplus$ is the composition law obtained from the momentum-space affine connection following the corresponding prescription of Refs. [@prl; @grf2nd].\
For my purposes it is valuable to notice that in particular this should allow one to integrate over $k$ finding $$- {\widetilde \phi}(\ominus p)
~ g^{\mu \nu}(p) \, (\ominus p)_\mu p_\nu
~ {\widetilde \phi}(p)~,$$ where $\ominus$ denotes again the antipode of the composition law. And evidently this is suggesting that the on-shell relation (for massless particles) could be viewed as involving the metric on momentum space together with a momentum and its antipode: $$0 = - g^{\mu \nu}(p) \, (\ominus p)_\mu p_\nu
\label{newmaster}$$ So following this particular line of analysis (but several other possibilities should perhaps be considered) I was led to contemplating a role for the momentum-space metric in the form of the on-shell relation which is alternative to the one of Ref. [@prl].
At present I do not see any particularly compelling argument to prefer one or another way to link momentum-space metric and on-shell relation. One little observation which could be viewed as favoring the alternative (\[newmaster\]) can be based on the two examples of “$\kappa$-Poincaré-inspired momentum spaces" which I considered in Subsections \[kappauno\] and \[kappadue\]. To see this let us start with the “MR $\kappa$-momentum space" of Subsection \[kappauno\]: there the on-shell relation is $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_j^2 + \ell p_0 p_j^2
\label{onshellkappauno}$$ and the antipode is given by $$(\ominus p)_j = - p_j + \ell p_0 p_j ~,~~~
(\ominus p)_0 = - p_0~,
\label{antipodekappauno}$$ and intriguingly one can obtain the on-shell relation from the antipode by using the Minkowski metric: $$0 = - \eta^{\mu \nu} (\ominus p)_\mu p_\nu=
-(-p_0) p_0
+(-p_j + \ell p_0 p_j) p_j
=
p_0^2 - p_j^2 + \ell p_0 p_j^2$$ And the same observation also applies to the “AAD $\kappa$-momentum space" of Subsection \[kappadue\], since there the (leading-order) on-shell relation is undeformed $$m^2 = p_0^2 - p_j^2$$ and also the antipode is trivial (in spite of the nontriviality of the AAD composition law (\[connectiontorsyBBB\])), $$(\ominus p)_\mu = - p_\mu~,$$ so that evidently one obtains the undeformed on-shell relation from a trivial antipode using the prescription (\[newmaster\]) with a Minkowski metric on momentum space: $$- \eta^{\mu \nu} (\ominus p)_\mu p_\nu=
-(-p_0) p_0
+(-p_j ) p_j
=
p_0^2 - p_j^2~.$$
It is still not clear to me whether this observation should tell us something about the proper notion of how to connect the on-shell relation with momentum-space metric and/or tell us something that specifically holds for the $\kappa$-Poincaré framework. It may even turn out to be ultimately meaningless, but it appeared to be sufficiently intriguing to be worth bringing it to the attention of readers of this manuscript.
A theorem without formulas {#theoremsec}
==========================
As I am getting close to conclude this study, let me pause for a brief aside, just to show that the criterion I introduced in Sec. II, and the associated “golden rule", must be understood from a broader perspective as a particular application, of significant practical value, of a simple relativistic theorem which I shall here state and provide the elementary (no formulas) proof for.
The compact (uncareful) version of the theorem states that [*in a relativistic theory one cannot have one-particle energy thresholds characterizing whether or not a given process is kinematically allowed*]{}.
The of the theorem are:
$\bullet$ The theory is relativistic, in the sense that there is no preferred-frame description, and reproduces special relativity in the low-energy limit (limit in which all particles have small energies).
$\bullet$ The threshold energy of interest concerns a single specific particle taking part in a process (say, the muon in the out state of $\pi^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ \nu_\mu$) and marks the separation between a kinematical regime where the process is allowed and a kinematical regime where the process is not allowed (say, when the muon has $E_\mu > E_{threshold}$ the process $\pi^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ \nu_\mu$ is/is not allowed, whereas for $E_\mu < E_{threshold}$ the process $\pi^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ \nu_\mu$ is not/is allowed).
$\bullet$ The theory may or may not have an observer-independent energy scale, but if it does the theorem anyway focuses on considering cases where the value of the threshold energy of interest is not an invariant under the boost transformations of the relativistic theory.
$\bullet$ Particle reactions are objective physical processes.
A slightly more careful is:
$\diamond$ It is not possible to have threshold-energy laws of the type described in these hypotheses, in a relativistic theory fulfilling these hypotheses.
I can just show that such a threshold-energy law $E_X > E_{threshold}$ for a particle of type $X$, involved in a process of type $X+A_1+\dots +A_n \rightarrow B_1 + \dots + B_m$ or of type $A_1+\dots +A_n \rightarrow X+ B_1 + \dots + B_m$, is not a relativistic law, within the hypotheses of the theorem. Consider then observer Alice according to which $E_X$ is just above threshold, $E_X^{(Alice)} = E_{threshold} + \epsilon$, so that according to Alice the process is kinematically allowed (respectively kinematically not allowed). Since the hypotheses ensure that $E_X$ is not invariant under boosts (even in cases where there is some energy scale which is invariant under boosts) we can safely assume that under the action of an appropriate boost transformation we can reach from Alice an observer Bob for whom the energy of that same particle of type $X$ is below threshold: $E_X^{(Bob)} = E_{threshold} - \epsilon$, and for whom then, since the hypotheses insist on the case of a relativistic theory, that same process is instead kinematically not allowed (respectively kinematically allowed). All this evidently comes into contradiction with the objectivity of particle reactions.
The careful reader can easily recognize how this applies in particular to the case of a threshold law for the energy of the photon in the process $\gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$, and the associated requirement that one should enforce a “no-photon-decay-switch-on constraint".\
And it is only slightly less immediately obvious that also my “no-pair-production-switch-off constraint" for $\gamma + \Gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ is a particular case of this theorem: if there was a lower threshold for the energy of the soft photon $\gamma$ below which the process $\gamma + \Gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ was no longer allowed kinematically (because hard photons $\Gamma$ of no matter how high energy could still not produce electron-positron pairs in interactions with such soft photons $\gamma$) we would indeed be coming in contradiction with the theorem.
Stating this simple, nearly self-evident, theorem may appear to be a bit of a redundant overkill in light of the discussion here reported, but it was evidently not in the minds of the authors (a few) who have sought “anomalous particle-decay thresholds" in DSR-compatible pictures, since in all such contexts the discussion I gave here of the “no-photon-decay-switch-on constraint" for $\gamma \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ would evidently also apply up to trivial generalization. And it was evidently also not in the minds of the (several) authors who have sought a DSR-compatible photopion-production-switch-off threshold as a way to “explain" the once presumed cosmic-ray GZK-threshold anomaly (for which now there is no longer any evidence [@cosmicrayUPDATE]): such a photopion-production-switch-off threshold is necessarily obstructed in DSR-compatible frameworks for the same reasons which here led me to exclude a pair-production-switch-off threshold.
I myself had put forward the half of the theorem which is essentially codified by the “no-photon-decay-switch-on constraint" already in Ref. [@gacnewjourn] (also see the later study in Ref. [@sethmajor], and the very recent related study in Ref. [@operaDSR], essentially generalizing from photons to neutrinos the no-decay-switch-on constraint), but I put in focus only rather recently the other half of the theorem, the one which is essentially contained in my new “no-pair-production-switch-off constraint".
While the theorem renders obvious the fact that satisfying these two constraints is a condition for DSR-compatibility, it remains of course uncertain whether satisfying these two constraints (enforcing the “golden rule", within a chosen parametrization) can really provide a condition for DSR-compatibility, as the few tests I here reported appear to suggest.
Closing remarks {#closingsec}
===============
The recently-proposed “relative-locality framework" has the potential of producing several new physical pictures and of accommodating, reformulating them accordingly, some previously existing proposals. I have here show that, as for other areas of quantum-gravity-inspired research, the DSR concept and the techniques of analysis that have been developed in order to explore it, prove valuable also for the analysis of this powerful framework.\
I have here established that some relative-locality momentum spaces necessarily require a formulation of theories with a preferred frame, and I provided a robust and technically simple strategy for identifying such momentum-space geometries. The fact that, within a chosen parametrization of momentum space geometry, my criteria produce a simple algorithmic classification of momentum-space geometries that require a preferred-frame description is particularly convenient for future applications of the results here reported.\
The conjecture that my criterion (and the associated “golden rule") might be not only necessary but also sufficient for DSR-compatibility found some support in the results here reported in Sections \[dsr1sec\] and \[torsionsec\], but evidently needs to be investigated in greater generality.\
For what concerns specific models, especially the results I here obtained on the DSR-compatibility of “$\kappa$-momentum spaces" may be of particular interest, since these are evidently among the most natural “laboratories" for a first phase of exploration of the implications of the relative-locality framework.
I have here studied DSR-compatibility of theories on a relative-locality momentum space, but focusing exclusively on momentum-space properties. This is the most fundamental level at which to investigate the availability of a deformed-Lorentz-symmetry picture, since in the “relative-locality framework" momentum space is primitive and spacetime is only a derived entity [@prl; @grf2nd]. But of course conceptually the most intriguing questions are to be expected on the side of the actual relativity of spacetime locality, and it will be extremely interesting to investigate the interplay between (deformed-)boost invariance and the relativity of spacetime locality. I have here postponed this task, also assuming that my effort of rendering more robust our understanding of boost transformations on a momentum space with nontrivial geometry would provide solid ground for those further studies.
As I was in the final stages of preparation of this manuscript I became aware of the papers in Refs. [@flagiuKAPPAPRL; @flajosePRL], parts of which were devoted to issues pertaining (deformed) Lorentz transformations with relative locality. None of the points I here made about establishing the general criteria for consistency of the momentum-space geometry with (possibly deformed) Lorentz invariance is found in Refs. [@flagiuKAPPAPRL; @flajosePRL]. Instead Refs. [@flagiuKAPPAPRL; @flajosePRL] each take a specific scenario for momentum space and a specific scenario for boost transformations, attempting to also establish a few starting points for the analysis of the implications for relative spacetime locality. Perhaps the aspect of these two manuscripts which could be most valuable for the future development of the results I here reported is the observation in Ref. [@flagiuKAPPAPRL] suggesting that for a proper description of finite (deformed-)boost transformations in a relative-locality framework it might be necessary to introduce a dependence of the rapidity parameter on the particles momenta. I have here confined my analysis at the complementary level of symmetry generators, setting the stage for describing the case of infinitesimal boost transformations. At least in the $\kappa$-momentum space I here considered in Subsection \[kappauno\], which was the momentum space considered in Ref. [@flagiuKAPPAPRL], it might be fruitful to contrast and perhaps to complement my observations on symmetry generators and the observations reported in Ref. [@flagiuKAPPAPRL] for the rapidity parameters.
Another issue for future studies, perhaps the most significant one, concerns the interplay between deformed Lorentz symmetry and the implications of relative spacetime locality for cases with several causally-connected events. One should achieve a consistent relativistic description applicable to the case of pairs of distant and relatively boosted observers. As shown in Ref. [@anatomy] even just studying distant observers in relative rest is already rather challenging when relative spacetime locality is taken into account for causally-connected events, so the generalization to distant and relatively boosted observers may prove very challenging.
I am grateful to my fellow explorers of the relative-locality momentum space, Laurent Freidel, Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman and Lee Smolin, for the enjoyment of so many wonderful discussions, some of which helped this work considerably. I am similarly grateful to my fellow members of “team what about Bob”, Niccolo’ Loret, Marco Matassa, Flavio Mercati and Giacomo Rosati, who also contributed a great deal to my views on the subject here discussed.
[50]{}
G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman and L. Smolin, [*The principle of relative locality*]{}, arXiv:1101.0931, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 084010
G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman L. Smolin, [*Relative locality: A deepening of the relativity principle*]{}, arXiv:1106.0313, General Relativity and Gravitation 43 (2011) 2547. Max Born, [*A Suggestion for Unifying Quantum Theory and Relativity*]{}, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A165 (1938) 291. S. Majid, hep-th/0006166, Lect. Notes Phys. 541 (2000) 227
F. Girelli and E.R. Livine, gr-qc/0412079, Braz. J. Phys. 35 (2005) 432.
D. Ratzel, S. Rivera and F.P. Schuller, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 044047
G. Amelino-Camelia, M. Matassa, F. Mercati and G. Rosati, arXiv:1006.2126, Phys. Rev. Lett. [106]{} (2011) 071301.
L. Smolin, arXiv:1007.0718. M. Arzano, J. Kowalski-Glikman, arXiv:1008.2962, Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 105009.
G. Amelino-Camelia, N. Loret and G. Rosati, arXiv:1102.4637, Phys. Lett. [B700]{} (2011) 150.
G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Barcaroli and N. Loret, arXiv:1107.3334
L. Freidel and L. Smolin, arXiv:1103.5626.
G. Amelino-Camelia, M. Arzano, J. Kowalski-Glikman, G. Rosati and G. Trevisan, arXiv:1107.1724
G. Amelino-Camelia, gr-qc/0012051, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [D11]{} (2002) 35; hep-th/0012238, Phys. Lett. [B510]{} (2001) 255.
J. Kowalski-Glikman, hep-th/0102098, Phys. Lett. [A286]{} (2001) 391.
G. Amelino-Camelia, gr-qc/0106004, AIP Conf. Proc. 589 (2001) 137. J. Magueijo, L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. [D67]{} (2003) 044017.
J.Kowalski-Glikman, S.Nowak, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [D12]{} (2003) 299
J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, [Class. Quant. Grav.]{} 21 (2004) 1725.
G. Amelino-Camelia, arXiv:1003.3942, Symmetry [2]{} (2010) 230 A.A. Ungar, Found. Phys. 30 (2000) 331; J. Chen and A.A. Ungar, Found. Phys. 31 (2001) 1611.
J.M. Vigoureux, Eur. J. Phys. 22 (2001) 149. F. Girelli and E.R. Livine, gr-qc/0407098.
J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg, A. Nowicki and V.N. Tolstoi, Phys. Lett. [B264]{} (1991) 331; J. Lukierski, A. Nowicki and H. Ruegg, Phys. Lett. [B293]{} (1992) 344.
S. Majid and H. Ruegg: Phys. Lett. B334 (1994) 348.
J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg and W.J. Zakrzewski: Ann. Phys. 243 (1995) 90. G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman and L. Smolin, arXiv:1104.2019, Phys. Rev. D. 84 (2011) 087702
G. Amelino-Camelia, gr-qc/0212002, New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 188
D. Heyman, F. Hinteleitner, and S. Major, gr-qc/0312089, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 105016
G. Amelino-Camelia, G. Gubitosi, N. Loret, F. Mercati, G. Rosati and P. Lipari, arXiv:1109.5172.
G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman and L. Smolin, arXiv:1110.0521.
Amelino-Camelia, G. astro-ph/0209232, [Int. J. Mod. Phys.]{} [D12]{} (2003) 1211.
N. Jafari and A. Shariati, AIP Conf. Proc. 841 (2006) 462. D.V. Ahluwalia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13 (2004) 335. G. Mandanici, arXiv:0707.3700, Mod. Phys. Lett. A24 (2009) 739. A. Agostini, G. Amelino-Camelia, F. D’Andrea, hep-th/0306013, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19 (2004) 5187. D. Veberic \[for the Pierre Auger Collaboration\], arXiv:1110.0615
G. Gubitosi and F. Mercati, arXiv:1106.5710
J.M. Carmona, J.L. Cortes, D. Mazon and F. Mercati, arXiv:1107.0939
[^1]: If $\ell$ is of the order of the inverse of the Planck scale, the effects of DSR-deformed Lorentz symmetry in cases where the leading order is $\ell^2$ suppressed appear to be too soft to be appreciated experimentally, even setting a time scale of a few decades from now. This is the main reason why in the remainder of this manuscript I focus on cases where the leading order is only suppressed linearly by $\ell$. In this section however I am merely setting the stage for what follows by establishing the logical connection between the on-shell relation and the law of composition of momenta in a relativistic theory, so it does no arm to contemplate a deformation as weak as the one shown in Eq. (\[dsr1quad\]).
[^2]: While the second half of my criterion, the requirement discussed in the next subsection (II.B) is completely new, the requirement discussed in this subsection II.A, which is the first half of my criterion, has been used in some previous studies of theories with nonlinearities in momentum space, starting with the analyses reported in Refs. [@gacnewjourn; @sethmajor]. Those previous studies however only used this criterion for addressing specific issues within a given proposal of nonlinearities in momentum space, whereas here I am using this requirement as a way to investigate the fate of Lorentz symmetry on a large class of theories. Another point to be stressed concerns the emphasis on photon decay: focusing on photon decay is sufficient for my purposes, and allows me keeps the discussion very explicit, but everything I observe here for photon decay applies equally well to some other “forbidden decays" (processes forbidden in special relativity, which might become allowed if Lorentz symmetry is broken) of “light", but not necessarily massless, particles, such as neutrinos. An example of recent interest [@whataboutopera] involving neutrinos, specifically the process $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\mu e^+ e^-$, was discussed in Ref. [@operaDSR].
[^3]: The DSR proposal was not exclusively intended [@dsr1Edsr2] for allowing an observer-independence/relativistic description of deformed laws on momentum space. Examples of other options that were and are considered include introducing the second observer-independent scale primitively in spacetime structure or primitively at the level of the (deformed) de Broglie relation between wavelength and momentum [@dsr1Edsr2; @gacdsrrev2010]. However, since I am here focusing on the relative-locality framework, with its assumption that momentum space is primitive [@prl; @grf2nd], the DSR-research tools I shall need all come from previous attempts to construct a DSR framework centered on nonlinear laws on momentum space.
[^4]: Moreover, this DSR1 setup, besides being torsionless, can also be mapped by a diffeomorphism onto the flat momentum space of special relativity. Some authors (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@iranNODSR1; @ahluNODSR1]) have stressed that if the overall theoretical framework introduced on momentum space is diffeomorphism invariant then of course the DSR1 kinematics in such instances would be just reproducing the physical predictions of ordinary special relativity. Not denying the potential appeal of insisting on such a “momentum-space general covariance", I remain interested also in the possibility that the laws of physics on momentum space may not be diffeomorphism invariant, in which case setups such as this DSR1 kinematics and the other setup discussed in the next subsection could be highly nontrivial. Readers who are only interested in setting up theories whose overall structure ensures momentum-space diffeomorphism invariance may well skip this section and proceed to the next Section \[torsionsec\].
[^5]: Since my focus is on relativistic properties, postponing to future studies a more detailed discussion of physics applications, I shall not here dwell on the advantages of having undeformed additivity of energy. This is however an issue that was discussed in some detail already in the doubly-special-relativity literature, as seen for example in Ref. [@gianlucaenergy] and references therein.
[^6]: Another noteworthy property of (\[connectiontorsyBBB\]) is $(p \oplus p)_\mu = 2 p_\mu$ (trivial composition of “parallel momenta").
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In an era of heterogeneous data, novel methods and volunteered geographic information provide opportunities to understand how people interact with a place. However, it is not enough to simply have such heterogeneous data, instead an understanding of its usability and reliability needs to be undertaken. Here, we draw upon the case study of Rakiura, Stewart Island where manifested passenger numbers across the Foveaux Strait are known. We have built a population model to ground truth such novel indicators. In our preliminary study, we find that a number of indicators offer the opportunity to understand fluctuations in populations. Some indicators (such as wastewater volumes) can suggest relative changes in populations in a raw form. While other indicators (such as TripAdvisor reviews or Instagram posts) require further data enrichment to get insights into population fluctuations. This research forms part of a larger research project looking to test and apply such novel indicators to inform disaster risk assessments.
$ $\
[**Keywords:**]{} Population movement, tourism, transient populations, volunteered geographic information, New Zealand, Stewart Island.
author:
- 'Mathew Darling[^1]'
- Benjamin Adams
- Caroline Orchiston
- Thomas Wilson
- Brendon Bradley
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: '**Understanding population fluctuations through volunteered geographic information and novel indicators: The experience of Rakiura, Stewart Island, New Zealand**'
---
Introduction
============
Globally inbound tourism markets are volatile; significant changes can be sensitive to political unrest, natural disasters or other crises, leading to reduced visitor arrivals and slow recovery. New Zealand has a relatively small dispersed population with proportionally high tourist arrivals, and understanding volatility is critical for infrastructure and natural hazard management [@orchiston2012seismi]. The vulnerability of tourism destinations to natural disasters is high, as it “relies so heavily on perceptions of safety, functioning infrastructure and visitor mobility” (p. 59). Moreover, due to the possibility of a negative feedback cycle developing (i.e., following a natural disaster a tourist will not visit a specific country or region [@orchiston2013insurance]) it is important that dynamic nature of transient populations is better understood.
In this study we consider the use of volunteered geographic information (VGI) and novel population movement indicators as predictors of tourist travel patterns to support disaster risk reduction. The potential for VGI and crowdsourced datasets as sources of information to support disaster response is well-studied, yet its quality and usefulness remain debatable for many scenarios [@goodchild2010crowdsourcing; @goodchild2012assuring; @senaratne2017review]. In prior work, a common motivation for using VGI and novel data sources for population mapping has been to understand risk exposure to infectious disease in places without accurate population figures [@deville2014dynamic; @tatem2012mapping]. In our case we consider a different situation where the population numbers are influenced by a large number of transient tourists and thus are highly dynamic.
A case study area, of Rakiura, Stewart Island, New Zealand’s southern-most inhabited island has been selected. Here, confidence in the actual population movement can be derived from passenger manifests on the ferry and air services, visitor levy data collected by the local council, and international cruise ship positioning data (automatic identification system). We compare this population model to VGI and novel indicators on two temporal scales. These methods are tested to see whether such indicators can be adopted as a proxy for population fluxes, and in turn be used to better inform disaster risk assessments.
In summary, the aims of this study are two-fold. Firstly, it is to understand how well VGI and novel indicators represent fluctuations in population. Secondly, it considers opportunities to undertaking data enrichment methods to build confidence in the assessed indicator.
Methodology
===========
Modelling the population of Rakiura, Stewart Island
---------------------------------------------------
Similar to wider New Zealand, Stewart Island (or *Rakiura* in Māori), has experienced significant growth in tourism in recent years. International and domestic tourists alike enjoy visiting the island’s wilderness and natural areas. As such, the population (378, as of 2013) can increase three-fold with a visiting international cruise ship, or during a busy public holiday period. Fluctuations in the island’s populations are largely driven by seasonality, with the busiest periods being between September and March, coinciding with more favourable weather, a number of public holidays, and the cruise ‘season’.
### Building a population model for 2018–2019
To access Rakiura, visitors need to cross Foveaux Strait using either a scheduled ferry or air service, cruise ship or by a charter aircraft, or other vessel. By drawing on the data sources shown in Table 1 below, which represent the majority (in excess of 90%) of passenger movements to the island, a population model for the Island was created. This is for the period from 1 April 2018 until 31 March 2019.
----------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------- -----------------------
Data Source Source Temporal Resolution Coverage
Rakiura Visitor Levy Southland District Council Monthly Visitors arrival only
Ferry Manifest Real Journeys Daily Resident and Visitors
Cruise Ship Movements Maritime NZ Hourly Vessels only
Population Forecasts Statistics NZ - Residents
----------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------- -----------------------
: Population inputs to Rakiura Population Model.
\[first\_table\]
In order to build a population model for Rakiura, the net remaining population has been calculated from the Ferry manifested passengers, and assumed 40% of cruise ship capacity. The later equates to approximately 3,000 cruise ship passengers visiting the Island, which is consistent with historical trends [@StatCruise]. To allow for those arriving by scheduled aircraft or chartered service (where no data is held), the net has been pro-rated to match the actual, monthly visitor levy data.
### Longitudinal temporal analysis for 2016–2019
A levy from every visitor to Rakiura of \$5 is collected by the aircraft or vessel operator on behalf of the local district council (Southland District Council, SDC). This levy is collected for every domestic and international visitor, with the exception of local ratepayers (including holiday home owners), residents, or visitors who stay for longer than 21 days. SDC has provided this for the period of 2016–2019 on a monthly (aggregated) resolution.
A number of the VGI and novel indicators reviewed are also aggregated on a monthly basis. Here, we have compared these to the longitudinal data that has been drawn from the Rakiura Visitor Levy, as a proxy for island population. Given the relative stability of the island resident population, this is assumed to be a suitable proxy for changes in island population.
Novel indicators and Volunteered Geographic Information
-------------------------------------------------------
The concept of using VGI or novel indicators to understand population fluctuation has been considered by many authors (@dobson2000landscan [@nissen2011did; @zealand2011evaluation]), however few have had the opportunity to assess in real terms the accuracy or the inherent bias of these methods. Through this study we investigate a range of indicators to assess their suitability to represent wider fluctuations in populations.
Table 2 below shows the indicators we assessed. Two indicators (wastewater and Instagram posts) were assessed on a more fine-grained temporal resolution (daily). Where aggregated datasets were reviewed (i.e., walking track counters and TripAdvisor), they were assessed against the Visitor Levy to understand longer term stability in trends. The assessment of all of these indicators has been undertaken using the raw datasets and no data enrichment has been undertaken.
-------------------------------------- ------------ ------------------ --------------- --
Indicator Aggregated Type n
Wastewater volume at Treatment Plant Daily Novel Indicators 365 days
Instagram \#StewartIsland uploads Daily VGI 4,027 posts
Walking Track Counter Monthly Novel Indicators 36,590 counts
TripAdvisor Reviews Monthly VGI 194 reviews
-------------------------------------- ------------ ------------------ --------------- --
: Data sources assessed in this review
\[first\_table\]
Results
=======
Presented in Figure 2 below are the key correlations between the daily modelled population for Rakiura and the two daily indicators considered. This clearly shows a strong relationship between daily wastewater volumes and the daily population (Pearson’s Correlation of 0.973). This is consistent with existing empirical relationships developed between population and wastewater produced. The strong relationship is likely a function of the lack of significant industry (and industrial effluent) on Rakiura, and the relative simplicity of the network with limited opportunities for water ingress into the network.
The relationship between the population model and \#StewartIsland tagged posts on Social Media platform Instagram is lower (Figure 2). There are a number of complicating factors in this dataset which include: the ability for a user to post multiple posts with the same ‘tags’, the inability to distinguish individual users to identify ‘individual visits’, likely demographic bias (particular in nations where the platform is unavailable), and the volunteered nature of the geographic data (e.g., some users may confuse Rakiura with the South Island of New Zealand). Noting this, there appears to be moderate correlation (0.719) between the modelled population and Instagram posts, and as such opportunities for data enrichment ought to be considered for this dataset.
Figure 3 adopts the Southland District Council’s visitor levy, as a proxy for population movement. Here on a longer temporal scale (2016–2019) we compare the TripAdvisor reviews for the local ‘South Seas Hotel’ pub and the Department of Conservation (DOC) visitor counter on a local 1hr walking track. In the case of the latter a strong correlation (0.951) is observed between the proxy for the population on Rakiura, and the number of counts on the walking track. This correlation supports the theory, that a large portion of visitors are engaging in nature-based tourism activities.
TripAdvisor reviews also have a moderate correlation (0.763) to the proxy for population movement. Here it is expected that this will be weighted towards visitors as opposed to holiday home owners or residents. In addition, a visitor is only likely to post once about a particular hotel, activity or restaurant. Further multivariate analysis into understanding particular demographic bias is needed to understand the value of this VGI in population modelling.
Next steps in applying volunteered geographic information to predicting populations movements
=============================================================================================
The research aim of this project was to understand how novel flux indicators can better predict population movement and thus exposure of international and domestic tourists to disaster risk. Research undertaken to date shows that the novel indicators, including VGI have the potential to improve population exposure data informing such risk models.
Moving forward, an assessment of whether data enrichment meaningfully improves the predictive powers of VGI social media data sources is needed. Noting the findings of @middleton2013real and the limited metadata available in VGI social media data sources, it is proposed that computer vision will be used to ascertain actual geolocation of publicly shared imagery. Preliminary models built in Google’s TensorFlow are being tested. Options for data enrichment, including understanding effects of seasonality are being considered.
Finally, the goal in using the case study of Rakiura, Stewart Island was because it provides an opportunity to compare a number of different kinds of data against “ground truth” population numbers. Extending the study to other locations that elicit different kinds of tourism behavior will help establish the generalizability of the findings.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to recognise the support of Land Information New Zealand, Resilience to Nature’s Challenges - National Science Challenge, QuakeCoRE, and the New Zealand Police Credit Union for their support in this research. We would also like to thank the data providers who have provided data to undertake this research: Wayfare Group Limited, Southland District Council, Maritime New Zealand and the Department of Conservation.
References
==========
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Maximizing resource utilization by performing an efficient resource provisioning is a key factor for any cloud provider: commercial actors can maximize their revenues, whereas scientific and non-commercial providers can maximize their infrastructure utilization. Traditionally, batch systems have allowed data centers to fill their resources as much as possible by using backfilling and similar techniques. However, in an IaaS cloud, where virtual machines are supposed to live indefinitely, or at least as long as the user is able to pay for them, these policies are not easily implementable. In this work we present a new scheduling algorithm for IaaS providers that is able to support preemptible instances, that can be stopped by higher priority requests without introducing large modifications in the current cloud schedulers. This scheduler enables the implementation of new cloud usage and payment models that allow more efficient usage of the resources and potential new revenue sources for commercial providers. We also study the correctness and the performace overhead of the proposed scheduler agains existing solutions.'
address: |
Institute of Physics of Cantabria, Spanish National Research Council — IFCA (CSIC—UC).\
Avda. los Castros s/n. 39005 Santander, Spain
author:
- '[Á]{}lvaro L[ó]{}pez Garc[í]{}a'
- 'Enol Fern[á]{}ndez del Castillo'
- Isabel Campos Plasencia
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: An efficient cloud scheduler design supporting preemptible instances
---
Cloud computing ,scheduling ,preemptible instances ,Spot Instances ,resource allocation
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) Clouds make possible to provide computing capacity as a utility to the users following a pay-per-use model. This fact allows the deployment of complex execution environments without an upfront infrastructure commitment, fostering the adoption of the cloud by users that could not afford to operate an on-premises infrastructure. In this regard, Clouds are not only present in the industrial ICT ecosystem, and they are being more and more adopted by other stakeholders such as public administrations or research institutions.
Indeed, clouds are nowadays common in the scientific computing field [@Hoffa2008; @Iosup2011; @Vockler2011; @LopezGarcia2017c], due to the fact that they are able to deliver resources that can be configured with the complete software needed for an application [@Juve2008]. Moreover, they also allow the execution of non-transient tasks, making possible to execute virtual laboratories, databases, etc. that could be tightly coupled with the execution environments. This flexibility poses a great advantage against traditional computational models —such as batch systems or even Grid computing— where a fixed operating system is normally imposed and any complimentary tools (such as databases) need to be self-managed outside the infrastructure. This fact is pushing scientific datacenters outside their traditional boundaries, evolving into a mixture of services that deliver more added value to their users, with the Cloud as a prominent actor.
Maximizing resource utilization by performing an efficient resource provisioning is a fundamental aspect for any resource provider, specially for scientific providers. Users accessing these computing resources do not usually pay —or at least they are not charged directly— for their consumption, and normally resources are paid via other indirect methods (like access grants), with users tending to assume that resources are *for free*. Scientific computing facilities tend to work on a fully saturated manner, aiming at the maximum possible resource utilization level.
In this context it is common that compute servers spawned in a cloud infrastructure are not terminated at the end of their lifetime, resulting in idle resources, a state that is are not desirable as long as there is processing that needs to be done [@LopezGarcia2017c]. In a commercial this is not a problem, since users are being charged for their allocated resources, regardless if they are being used or not. Therefore users tend to take care of their virtual machines, terminating them whenever they are not needed anymore. Moreover, in the cases where users leave their resources running forever, the provider is still obtaining revenues for those resources.
Cloud operators try to solve this problem by setting resource quotas that limits the amount of resources that a user or group is able to consume by doing a static partitioning of the resources [@LopezGarcia2017]. However, this kind of resource allocation automatically leads to an underutilization of the infrastructure since the partitioning needs to be conservative enough so that other users could utilize the infrastructure. Quotas impose hard limits that leading to dedicated resources for a group, even if the group is not using the resources.
Besides, cloud providers also need to provide their users with on-demand access to the resources, one of the most compelling cloud characteristics [@Ramakrishnan2011]. In order to provide such access, an overprovisioning of resources is expected [@Marshall2011] in order to fulfil user request, leading to an infrastructure where utilization is not maximized, as there should be always enough resources available for a potential request.
Taking into account that some processing workloads executed on the cloud do not really require on-demand access (but rather they are executed for long periods of time), a compromise between these two aspects (i.e. maximizing utilization and providing enough on-demand access to the users) can be provided by using idle resources to execute these tasks that do not require truly on-demand access [@Marshall2011]. This approach indeed is common in scientific computing, where batch systems maximize the resource utilization through *backfilling* techniques, where opportunistic access is provided to these kind of tasks.
Unlike in batch processing environments, virtual machines (VMs) spawned in a Cloud do not have fixed duration in time and are supposed to live forever —or until the user decides to stop them. Commercial cloud providers provide specific VM types (like the Amazon EC2 Spot Instances[^1] or the Google Compute Engine Preemptible Virtual Machines[^2]) that can be provisioned at a fraction of a normal VM price, with the caveat that they can terminated whenever the provider decides to do so. This kind of VMs can be used to backfill idle resources, thus allowing to maximize the utilization and providing on-demand access, since normal VMs will obtain resources by evacuating Spot or Preemptible instances.
In this paper we propose an efficient scheduling algorithm that combines the scheduling of preemptible and non preemptible instances in a modular way. The proposed solution is flexible enough in order to allow different allocation, selection and termination policies, thus allowing resource providers to easily implement and enforce the strategy that is more suitable for their needs. In our work we extend the OpenStack Cloud middleware with a prototype implementation of the proposed scheduler, as a way to demonstrate and evaluate the feasibility of our solution. We moreover perform an evaluation of the performance of this solution, in comparison with the existing OpenStack scheduler.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:related\] we present the related work in this field. In Section \[sec:design\] we propose a design for an efficient scheduling mechanism for preemptible instances. In Section \[sec:evaluation\] we present an implementation of our proposed algorithm, as well as an evaluation of its feasibility and performance with regards with a normal scheduler. Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusions\] we present this work’s conclusions.
Related work {#sec:related}
============
The resource provisioning from cloud computing infrastructures using Spot Instances or similar mechanisms has been addressed profusely in the scientific literature in the last years [@Jennings2015]. However, the vast majority of this work has been done from the users’ perspective when using and consuming Spot Instances [@DeAssuncao2016] and few works tackle the problem from the resource provider standpoint.
Due to the unpredictable nature of the Spot Instances, there are several research papers that try to improve the task completion time —making the task resilient against termination— and reduce the costs for the user. Andrzejak et al. [@Andrzejak2010] propose a probabilistic model to obtain the bid prices so that the costs and performance and reliability can be improved. In [@Yi2010; @Yi2012; @Khatua2013; @Jung2011] the task checkpointing is addressed so as to minimize costs and improve the whole completion time.
Related with the previous works, Voorsluys et al. have studied the usage of Spot Instances to deploy reliable virtual clusters [@Voorsluys2011; @Voorsluys2012], managing the allocated instances on behalf of the users. They focus on the execution of compute intensive tasks on top of a pool of Spot Instances, in order to find the most effective way to minimize both the execution time of a given workload and the price of the allocated resources. Similarly, in [@jung2014workflow] the autors develop a workflow scheduling scheme that reduces the completion time using Spot Instances.
Jain et al. have performed studies in the same line, but focused on using a batch system that leverages the Spot Instances [@Jain2014], learning from its previous experience —in terms of spot prices and workload characteristics— in order to dynamically adapt the resource allocation policies of the batch system.
Regarding Big Data analysis, several authors have studied how the usage of Spot Instances could be used to execute MapReduce workloads reducing the monetary costs, such as in [@Chohan2012; @Liu2011]. The usage of Spot Instances for opportunistic computing is another usage that has awaken a lot of interest, especially regarding the design of an optimal bidding algorithm that would reduce the costs for the users [@6195567; @6481231]. There are already existing applications such as the vCluster framework [@Noh2013] that can consume resources from heterogeneous cloud infrastructures in a fashion that could take advantage of the lower price that the Spot Instances should provide.
In spite of the above works, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of research in the feasibility, problematic, challenges and implementation from the perspective of the IaaS provider. In spite of the user’s interest in exploiting preemptible instances and the large commercial actors providing this alternative payment and access model, it is hard to find open source products or implementations of preemptible instances.
Amazon provides the EC2 Spot Instances[^3], where users are able to select how much they are willing to pay for their resources by *bidding* on their price in market where the price fluctuates accordingly to the demand. Those requests will be executed taking into account the following points:
- The EC2 Spot Instances will run as long as the published Spot price is lower than their bid.
- The EC2 Spot Instance will be terminated when the Spot price is higher than the bid (out-of-bid).
- If the user terminates the Spot Instance, the complete usage will be accounted, but if it gets terminated by the system, the last partial hour won’t be accounted.
When an out-of-bid situation happens, the running instances will be terminated without further advise. This rough explanation of the Amazon’s Spot Instances can be considered similar to the traditional job preemption based on priorities, with the difference that the priorities are being driven by an economic model instead by the usual fair-sharing or credit mechanism used in batch systems.
Google Cloud Engine (GCE)[^4] has released a new product branded as *Preemptible Virtual Machines* [^5]. These new Virtual Machine (VM) types are short-lived compute instances suited for batch processing and fault-tolerant jobs, that can last for up to and that can be terminated if there is a need for more space for higher priority tasks within the GCE.
Marshall et al. [@Marshall2011] delivered an implementation of preemptible instances for the Nimbus toolkit in order to utilize those instances for backfilling of idle resources, focusing on HTC fault-tolerant tasks. However, they did not focus on offering this functionality to the end-users, but rather to the operators of the infrastructure, as a way to maximize their resource utilization. In this work, it was the responsibility of the provider to configure the backfill tasks that were to be executed on the idle resources.
Nadjaran Toosi et al. have developed a Spot Instances as a Service (SIPaaS) framework, a set of web services that makes possible to run a Spot market on top of an OpenStack cloud [@NadjaranToosi2015]. However, even if this framework aims to deliver preemptible instances on OpenStack cloud, it is designed to utilize normal resources to provide this functionality. SIPaaS utilizes normal resources to create the Spot market that is provided to the users by means of a thin layer on top of a given OpenStack, providing a different API to interact with the resources. From the CMF point of view, all resources are of the same type, being SIPaaS the responsible of handling them, in different ways. In contrast, our work leverages two different kind of instances at the CMF level, performing different scheduling strategies depending on which kind of resource it is being requested. SIPaaS also delivers a price market similar to the Amazon EC2 Spot Instances market, therefore they also provide the Ex-CORE auction algorithm [@toosi2016auction] in order to govern the price fluctuations.
Carvalho et al. have proposed [@Carvalho2017] a capacity planning method combined with an admission service for IaaS cloud providers offering different service classes. This method allows providers to tackle the challenge of estimating the minimum capacity required to deliver an agreed Service Level Objective (SLO) across all the defined service classes. In the aforementioned paper Carvalho et al. lean on their previous work [@Carvalho2014; @Carvalho2016], where they proposed a way to reclaim unused cloud resources to offer a new *economy* class. This class, in contrast with the preemptible instances described here, still offer a SLO to the users, being the work on Carvalho et al. focused on the reduction of the changes that the SLO is violated due to an instance reclamation because of a capacity shortage.
Scheduling in the existing Cloud Management Frameworks {#sec:sched:algo}
------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, existing Cloud Management Frameworks (CMFs) do not implement full-fledged queuing mechanism as other computing models do (like the Grid or traditional batch systems). Clouds are normally more focused on the rapid scaling of the resources rather than in batch processing, where systems are governed by queuing systems [@Foster2008]. The default scheduling strategies in the current CMFs are mostly based on the immediate allocation or resources following a fist-come, first-served basis. The cloud schedulers provision them when requested, or they are not provisioned at all (except in some CMFs that implement a FIFO queuing mechanism) [@buyya2010cloud].
However, some users require for a queuing system —or some more advanced features like advance reservations— for running virtual machines. In those cases, there are some external services such as Haizea [@Sotomayor2009] for OpenNebula or Blazar [^6] for OpenStack. Those systems lay between the CMF and the users, intercepting their requests and interacting with the cloud system on their behalf, implementing the required functionality.
Besides simplistic scheduling policies like first-fit or random chance node selection [@buyya2010cloud], current CMF implement a scheduling algorithm that is based on a rank selection of hosts, as we will explain in what follows:
OpenNebula
: [^7] uses by default a `match making` scheduler, implementing the Rank Scheduling Policy [@Sotomayor2009]. This policy first performs a filtering of the existing hosts, excluding those that do not meet the request requirements. Afterwards, the scheduler evaluates some operator defined rank expressions against the recorded information from each of the hosts so as to obtain an ordered list of nodes. Finally, the resources with a higher rank are selected to fulfil the request. OpenNebula implements a queue to hold the requests that cannot be satisfied immediately, but this queuing mechanism follows a FIFO logic, without further priority adjustment.
OpenStack
: [^8] implements a Filter Scheduler [@Litvinski2013], based on two separated phases. The first phase consists on the filtering of hosts that will exclude the hosts that cannot satisfy the request. This filtering follows a modular design, so that it is possible to filter out nodes based on the user request (RAM, number of vCPU), direct user input (such as instance affinity or anti-affinity) or operator configured filtering. The second phase consists on the weighing of hosts, following the same modular approach. Once the nodes are filtered and weighed, the best candidate is selected from that ordered set.
CloudStack
: [^9] utilizes the term *allocator* to determine which host will be selected to place the new VM requested. The nodes that are used by the allocators are the ones that are able to satisfy the request.
Eucalyptus
: [^10] implements a greedy or round robin algorithm. The former strategy uses the first node that is identified as suitable for running the VM. This algorithm exhausts a node before moving on to the next node available. On the other hand, the later schedules each request in a cyclic manner, distributing evenly the load in the long term.
$\Omega_i \gets 0$ $\Omega_i \gets \Omega_i + m_j * r_j(h_i, req) $ $hosts \gets hosts + (h_i, \Omega_i)$ $hosts$
All the presented scheduling algorithms share the view that the nodes are firstly filtered out —so that only those that can run the request are considered— and then ordered or ranked according to some defined rules. Generally speaking, the scheduling algorithm can be expressed as the pseudo-code in the Algorithm \[alg:sched\].
Preemptible Instances Design {#sec:design}
============================
The initial assumption for a *preemptible aware* scheduler is that the scheduler should be able to take into account two different instance types —preemptible and normal— according to the following basic rules:
- If it is a normal instance and there are no free resources for it, it must check if the termination of any running preemptible instance will leave enough space for the new instance.
- If this is true, those instances should be terminated —according to some well defined rules— and the new VM should be scheduled into that freed node.
- If this is not possible, then the request should continue with the failure process defined in the scheduling algorithm —it can be an error, or it can be retried after some elapsed time.
- If it is a preemptible instance, it should try to schedule it without other considerations.
It should be noted that the preemptible instance selection and termination does not only depend on pure theoretical aspects, as this selection will have an influence on the resource provider revenues and the service level agreements signed with their users. Taking this into account, it is obvious that modularity and flexibility for the preemptible instance selection and is a key aspect here. For instance, an instance selection and termination algorithm that is only based on the minimization of instances terminated in order to free enough resources may not work for a provider that wish to terminate the instances that generate less revenues, event if it is needed to terminate a larger amount of instances.
Therefore, the aim of our work is not only to design an scheduling algorithm, but also to design it as a modular system so that it would be possible to create any more complex model on top of it once the initial preemptible mechanism is in place.
The most evident design approach is a retry mechanism based on two selection cycles within a scheduling loop. The scheduler will take into account a scheduling failure and then perform a second scheduling cycle after preemptible instances have been evacuated —either by the scheduler itself or by an external service. However, this two-cycle scheduling mechanism would introduce a larger scheduling latency and load in the system. This latency is something perceived negatively by the users [@LopezGarcia2016a] so the challenge here is how to perform this selection in a efficient way, ensuring that the selected preemptible instances are the less costly for the provider.
Preemptible-aware scheduler {#sec:preempt:sched}
---------------------------
Our proposed algorithm (depicted in Figure \[fig:diagram\]) addresses the preemptible instances scheduling within one scheduling loop, without introducing a retry cycle, bur rather performing the scheduling taking into account different host states depending on the instance that is to be scheduled. This design takes into account the fact that all the algorithms described in Section \[sec:sched:algo\] are based on two complimentary phases: filtering and raking., but adds a final phase, where the preemptible instances that need to be terminated are selected. The algorithm pseudocode is shown in \[alg:schedpreempt\] and will be further described in what follows.
![Preemptible Instances Scheduling Algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:diagram"}](flowchart.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
As we already explained, the filtering phase eliminates the nodes that are not able to host the new request due to its current state —for instance, because of a lack of resources or a VM anti-affinity—, whereas the raking phase is the one in charge of assigning a rank or weight to the filtered hosts so that the best candidate is selected.
$\Omega_i \gets 0$ $\Omega_i \gets \Omega_i + m_j * r_j(h_{fi}, req) $ $hosts \gets hosts + (h_{fi}, \Omega_i)$
**return** $hosts$
$host$
I our preemptible-aware scheduler, the filtering phase only takes into account preemptible instances when doing the filtering phase. In order to do so we propose to utilize two different states for the physical hosts:
$h_f$
: This state will take into account all the running VM inside that host, that is, the preemptible and non preemptible instances.
$h_n$
: This state will not take into account all the preemptible instances inside that host. That is, the preemptible instances running into a particular physical host are not accounted in term of consumed resources.
Whenever a new request arrives, the scheduler will use the $h_f$ or $h_n$ host states for the filtering phase, depending on the type of the request:
- When a normal request arrives, the scheduler will use $h_n$.
- When a preemptible request arrives, the scheduler will use $h_f$.
This way the scheduler ensures that a normal instance can run regardless of any preemptible instance occupying its place, as the $h_n$ state does not account for the resources consumed by any preemptible instance running on the host. After this stage, the resulting list of hosts will contain all the hosts susceptible to host the new request, either by evacuating one or several preemptible instances or because there are enough free resources.
Once the hosts are filtered out, the ranking phase is started. However, in order to perform the correct ranking, it is needed to use the full state of the hosts, that is, $h_f$. This is needed as the different rank functions will require the information about the preemptible instances so as to select the best node. This list of filtered hosts may contain hosts that are able to accept the request because they have free resources and nodes that would imply the termination of one or several instances.
In order to choose the best host for scheduling a new instance new ranking functions need to be implemented, in order to prioritise the *costless* host. The simplest ranking function based on the number of preemptible instances per host is described in Algorithm \[alg:weight:overcommit\].
**return** $-1$ $0$
This function assigns a negative value if the free resources are not enough to accommodate the request, detecting an overcommit produced by the fact that it is needed to terminate one or several preemptible instances. However, this basic function only establishes a naive ranking based on the termination or not of instances. In the case that it is needed to terminate various instances, this function does not establish any rank between them, so more appropriate rank functions need to be created, depending on the business model implemented by the provider. Our design takes this fact into account, allowing for modularity of these cost functions that can be applied to the raking function.
For instance, commercial providers tend to charge by complete periods of , so partial hours are not accounted. A ranking function based in this business model can be expressed as Algorithm \[alg:weight:mod\], ranking hosts according to the preemptible instances running inside them and the time needed until the next complete period.
$- weight$
Once the ranking phase is finished, the scheduler will have built an ordered list of hosts, containing the best candidates for the new request. Once the best host selected it is still needed to select which individual preemptible instances need to be evacuated from that host, if any. Our design adds a third phase, so as to terminate the preemptible instances if needed.
This last phase will perform an additional raking and selection of the candidate preemptible instances inside the selected host, so as to select the less costly for the provider. This selection leverages a similar ranking process, performed on the preemptible instances, considering all the preemptible instances combination and the costs for the provider, as shown in Algorithm \[alg:selection\].
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
In the first part of this section (\[sec:evaluation:implementation\]) we will describe an implementation —done for the OpenStack Compute CMF—, in order to evaluate our proposed algorithm. We have decided to implement it on top of the OpenStack Compute software due to its modular design, that allowed us to easily plug our modified modules without requiring significant modifications to the code core.
Afterwards we will perform two different evaluations. On the one hand we will assess the algorithm correctness, ensuring that the most desirable instances are selected according to the configured weighers (Section \[sec:evaluation:algorithm\]). On the other hand we will examine the performance of the proposed algorithm when compared with the default scheduling mechanism (Section \[sec:evaluation:usecase\]).
OpenStack Compute Filter Scheduler
----------------------------------
The OpenStack Compute scheduler is called Filter Scheduler and, as already described in Section \[sec:related\], it is a rank scheduler, implementing two different phases: filtering and weighting.
Filtering
: The first step is the filtering phase. The scheduler applies a concatenation of filter functions to the initial set of available hosts, based on the host properties and state —e.g. free RAM or free CPU number— user input —e.g. affinity or anti-affinity with other instances— and resource provider defined configuration. When the filtering process has concluded, all the hosts in the final set are able to satisfy the user request.
Weighing
: Once the filtering phase returns a list of suitable hosts, the weighting stage starts so that the best host —according to the defined configuration— is selected. The scheduler will apply all hosts the same set of weigher functions $\mathrm{w}_i(h)$, taking into account each host state $h$. Those weigher functions will return a value considering the characteristics of the host received as input parameter, therefore, total weight $\Omega$ for a node $h$ is calculated as follows:
$$\Omega = \sum^n{m_i\cdot \mathrm{N}{(\mathrm{w}_i(h))}}$$
Where $m_i$ is the multiplier for a weigher function, $\mathrm{N}{(\mathrm{w}_i(h))}$ is the normalized weight between $[0, 1]$ calculated via a rescaling like:
$$\mathrm{N}{(\mathrm{w}_i(h))} = \frac{\mathrm{w}_i(h)-\min{W}}{\max{W} - \min{W}}$$
where $\mathrm{w}_i(h)$ is the weight function, and $\min{W}$, $\max{W}$ are the minimum and maximum values that the weigher has assigned for the set of weighted hosts. This way, the final weight before applying the multiplication factor will be always in the range $[0, 1]$.
After these two phases have ended, the scheduler has a set of hosts, ordered according to the weights assigned to them, thus it will assign the request to the host with the maximum weight. If several nodes have the same weight, the final host will be randomly selected from that set.
Implementation Evaluation {#sec:evaluation:implementation}
-------------------------
We have extended the Filter Scheduler algorithm with the functionality described in Algorithm \[alg:spot\]. We have also implemented the ranking functions described in Algorithm \[alg:weight:overcommit\] and Algorithm \[alg:weight:mod\] as weighers, using the OpenStack terminology.
**return** $host$ $best \gets select\_best(H_{weighted})$ **return** $best$
Moreover, the Filter Scheduler has been also modified so as to introduce the additional select and termination phase (Algorithm \[alg:selection\]). This phase has been implemented following the same same modular approach as the OpenStack weighting modules, allowing to define and implement additional cost modules to determine which instances are to be selected for termination.
As for the cost functions, we have implemented a module following Algorithm \[alg:weight:mod\]. This cost function assumes that customers are charged by periods of , therefore it prioritizes the termination of Spot Instances with the lower partial-hour consumption (i.e. if we consider instances with , and of duration, the instance with will be terminated).
This development has been done on the OpenStack Newton version[^11], and was deployed on the infrastructure that we describe in Section \[sec:evaluation:config\].
Configurations {#sec:evaluation:config}
--------------
In order to evaluate our algorithm proposal we have set up a dedicated test infrastructure comprising a set of identical IBM HS21 blade servers, with the characteristics described in Table \[tb:ifcatest\]. All the nodes had an identical base installation, based on an Ubuntu Server 16.04 LTS, running the Linux 3.8.0 Kernel, where we have deployed OpenStack Compute as the Cloud Management Framework. The system architecture is as follows:
- A Head node hosting all the required services to manage the cloud test infrastructure, that is:
- The OpenStack Compute API.
- The OpenStack Compute Scheduler service.
- The OpenStack Compute Conductor service.
- The OpenStack Identity Service (Keystone)
- A MariaDB 10.1.0 server.
- A RabbitMQ 3.5.7 server.
- An Image Catalog running the OpenStack Image Service (Glance) serving images from its local disk.
- Compute Nodes running OpenStack Compute, hosting the spawned instances.
**CPU** x IntelXeonQuad Core E5345
------------- ----------------------------
**RAM**
**Disk** , rpm hard disk
**Network** Ethernet
: Test node characteristics.[]{data-label="tb:ifcatest"}
The network setup of the testbed consists on two Ethernet switches, interconnected with a Ethernet link. All the hosts are evenly connected to these switches using a Ethernet connection.
We have considered the VM sizes described in Table \[tab:sizes\], based on the default set of sizes existing in a default OpenStack installation.
------------------------------------------ -- -- --
**Name & **vCPUs & **RAM () & **Disk ()\
small & 1 & 2000 & 20\
medium & 2 & 4000 & 40\
large & 4 & 8000 & 80\
********
------------------------------------------ -- -- --
: Configured VM sizes.[]{data-label="tab:sizes"}
Algorithm Evaluation {#sec:evaluation:algorithm}
--------------------
The purpose of this evaluation is to ensure that the proposed algorithm is working as expected, so that:
- The scheduler is able to deliver the resources for a normal request, by terminating one or several preemptible instances when there are not enough free idle resources.
- The scheduler selects the best preemptible instance for termination, according to the configured policies by means of the scheduler weighers.
### Scheduling using same Virtual Machine sizes
For the first batch of tests, we have considered same size instances, to evaluate if the proposed algorithm chooses the best physical host and selects the best preemptible instance for termination. We generated requests for both preemptible and normal instances —chosen randomly—, of random duration between and , using an exponential distribution [@knuth1981art] until the first scheduling failure for a normal instance was detected.
The compute nodes used have of RAM and eight CPUs, as already described. The VM size requested was the *medium* one, according to Table \[tab:sizes\], therefore each compute node could host up to four VMs.
We executed these requests and monitored the infrastructure until the first scheduling failure for a normal instance took place, thus the preemptible instance termination mechanism was triggered. At that moment we took a snapshot of the nodes statuses, as shown in Table \[tab:evaluation1\] and Table \[tab:evaluation2\]. These tables depict the status for each of the physical hosts, as well as the running time for each of the instances that were running at that point. The shaded cells represents the preemptible instance that was terminated to free the resources for the incoming non preemptible request.
---------------------------------- -- -- -- --
**& &\
& **ID & **Time & **ID & **Time\
& A1 & 272 & AP1 & 96\
& A2 & 172 & AP2 & 207\
& B1 & 136 & BP1 () & 71\
& B2 & 200 & BP2 & 91\
& C1 & 97 & CP1 & 210\
& C2 & 275 & CP2 & 215\
& & & DP1 & 85\
& & & DP2 & 199\
& & & DP3 & 152\
**********
---------------------------------- -- -- -- --
: Test-1, preemptible instances evaluation using the same VM size. The label marked with () indicate the terminated instance. Time is expressed in minutes.[]{data-label="tab:evaluation1"}
Considering that the preemptible instance selection was done according to Algorithm \[alg:selection\] using the cost function in Algorithm \[alg:weight:mod\], the chosen instance has to be the one with the lowest partial-hour period. In Table \[tab:evaluation1\] this is the instance marked with (): *BP1*. By chance, it corresponds with the preemptible instance with the lowest run time.
---------------------------------- -- -- -- --
**& &\
& **ID & **Time & **ID & **Time\
& & & AP1 & 247\
& & & AP2 & 463\
& & & AP3 & 403\
& & & AP4 & 410\
& B1 & 388 & BP1 & 344\
& B2 & 103 & BP2 & 476\
& C1 & 481 & CP1 () & 181\
& C2 & 177 & CP2 & 160\
& & & DP1 & 384\
& & & DP2 & 168\
& & & DP3 & 232\
**********
---------------------------------- -- -- -- --
: Test-2, preemptible instances evaluation using the same VM size. The label marked with () indicate the terminated instance. Time is expressed in minutes.[]{data-label="tab:evaluation2"}
Table \[tab:evaluation2\] shows a different test execution under the same conditions and constraints. Again, the selected instance has to be the one with the lowest partial-hour period. In Table \[tab:evaluation2\] this corresponds to the instance marked again with (): *CP1*, as its remainder is . In this case this is not the preemptible instance with the lowest run time (being it *CP2*).
### Scheduling using different Virtual Machine sizes
For the second batch of tests we requested instances using different sizes, always following the sizes in Table \[tab:sizes\]. Table \[tab:evaluation3\] depicts the testbed status when a request for a *large* VM caused the termination of the instances marked with (): *AP2*, *AP3* and *AP4*. In this case, the scheduler decided that the termination of these three instances caused a smaller impact on the provider, as the sum of their remainders () was lower than any of the other possibilities ( for *BP1*, for *CP1*, for *CP2* and *CP3*).
--------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
**& &\
& **ID & **Time & **Size & **ID & **Time& **Size\
& & & & AP1 & 298 & L\
& & & & AP2 () & 278 & M\
& & & & AP3 () & 190 & S\
& & & & AP4 () & 187 & S\
& B1 & 494 & L & BP1 & 178 & L\
& & & & CP1 & 297 & L\
& & & & CP2 & 296 & M\
& & & & CP3 & 296 & S\
& D1 & 176 & M & & &\
& D2 & 200 & M & & &\
& D3 & 116 & L & & &\
**************
--------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Test-3, preemptible instances evaluation using different VM sizes. The labels marked with () indicate the terminated instances. Time is expressed in minutes. S, M, L stand for Small, Medium and Large respectively.[]{data-label="tab:evaluation3"}
Table \[tab:evaluation4\] shows a different test execution under the same conditions and constraints. In this case, the preemptible instance termination was triggered by a new VM request of size *medium* and the selected instance was the one marked with (): *BP3*, as *host-B* will have enough free space just by terminating one instance.
--------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
**& &\
& **ID & **Time & **Size & **ID & **Time& **Size\
& A1 & 234 & L & AP1 & 172 & M\
& A2 & 122 & M & & &\
& & & & BP1 & 272 & L\
& & & & BP2 & 212 & M\
& & & & BP3 () & 380 & S\
& C1 & 182 & S & & &\
& C2 & 120 & M & & &\
& C3 & 116 & L & & &\
& & & & DP1 & 232 & L\
& & & & DP2 & 213 & S\
& & & & DP3 & 324 & M\
& & & & DP4 & 314 & S\
**************
--------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Test-4, preemptible instances evaluation using different VM sizes. The labels marked with () indicate the terminated instances. Time is expressed in minutes. S, M, L stand for Small, Medium and Large respectively.[]{data-label="tab:evaluation4"}
Performance evaluation {#sec:evaluation:usecase}
----------------------
As we have already said in Section \[sec:design\], we have focused on designing an algorithm that does not introduce a significant latency in the system. This latency will introduce a larger delay when delivering the requested resources to the end users, something that is not desirable by any resource provider [@LopezGarcia2017c].
In order to evaluate the performance of our proposed algorithm we have done a comparison with the default, unmodified OpenStack Filter Scheduler. Moreover, for the sake of comparison, we have implemented a scheduler based on a retry loop as well. This scheduler performs a normal scheduling loop, and if there is a scheduling failure for a normal instance, it will perform a second pass taking into account the existing preemptible instances. The preemptible instance selection and termination mechanisms remain the same.
We have scheduled 130 Virtual Machines of the same size on our test infrastructure and we have recorded the timings for the scheduling function, thus calculating the means and standard deviation for each of the following scenarios:
- Using the original, unmodified OpenStack Filter scheduler with an empty infrastructure.
- Using the preemptible instances Filter Scheduler and the retry scheduler:
- Requesting normal instances with an empty infrastructure.
- Requesting preemptible instances with an empty infrastructure.
- Requesting normal instances with a saturated infrastructure, thus implying the termination of a preemptible instance each time a request is performed.
We have then collected the scheduling calls timings and we have calculated the means and deviations for each scenario, as shown in Figure \[fig:comparison\]. Numbers in these scenarios are quite low, since the infrastructure is a small testbed, but these numbers are expected to become larger as the infrastructure grows in size.
![Comparison of the time consumed by the different scheduling options in different scenarios. Error bars represent the standard deviation.[]{data-label="fig:comparison"}](scheduling_time.pdf){height="0.95\linewidth"}
As it can be seen in the aforementioned Figure \[fig:comparison\], our solution introduces a delay in the scheduling calls, as we need to calculate additional host states (we hold two different states for each node) and we need to select a preemptible instance for termination (in case it is needed). In the case of the retry scheduler, this delay does not exists and numbers are similar to the original scheduler. However, when it is needed to trigger the termination of a preemptible instance, having a retry mechanism (thus executing the same scheduling call two times) introduces a significantly larger penalty when compared to our proposed solution. We consider that the latency that we are introducing is within an acceptable range, therefore not impacting significantly the scheduler performance.
Exploitation and integration in existing infrastructures
========================================================
The functionality introduced by the preemptible instances model that we have described in this work can be exploited not only within a cloud resource provider, but it can also be leveraged on more complex hybrid infrastructures.
High Performance Computing Integration {#sec:additional}
--------------------------------------
One can find in the literature several exercises of integration of hybrid infrastructures, integrating cloud resources, commercial or private, with High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. Those efforts focus on outbursting resources from the cloud, when the HPC system does not provide enough resources to solve a particular problem [@EC2-HPC].
On-demand provisioning using cloud resources when the batch system of the HPC is full is certainly a viable option to expand the capabilities of a HPC center for serial batch processing.
We focus however in the complementary approach, this is, using HPC resources to provide cloud resources capability, so as to complement existing distributed infrastructures. Obviously HPC systems are oriented to batch processing of highly coupled (parallel) jobs. The question here is optimizing resource utilization when the HPC batch system has empty slots.
If we backfill the empty slots of a HPC system with cloud jobs, and a new regular batch job arrives from the HPC users, the cloud jobs occupying the slots needed by the newly arrived batch job should be terminated immediately, so as to not disturb regular work. Therefore such cloud jobs should be submitted as Spot Instances
Enabling HPC systems to process other jobs during periods in which the load of the HPC mainframe is low, appears as an attractive possibility from the point of view of resource optimization. However the practical implementation of such idea would need to be compatible with both, the HPC usage model, and the cloud usage model.
In HPC systems users login via ssh to a frontend. At the frontend the user has the tools to submit jobs. The scheduling of HPC jobs is done using a regular batch systems software (such as SLURM, SGE, etc...).
HPC systems are typically running MPI parallel jobs as well using specialized hardware interconnects such as Infiniband.
Let us imagine a situation in which the load of the HPC system is low. One can instruct the scheduler of the batch system to allow cloud jobs to HPC system occupying those slots not allocated by the regular batch allocation.
In order to be as less disrupting as possible the best option is that the cloud jobs arrive as preemptible instances as described through this paper. When a batch job arrives to the HPC system, this job should be immediately scheduled and executed. Therefore the scheduler should be able to perform the following steps:
- Allocate resources for the job that just arrived to the batch queue system
- Identify the cloud jobs that are occupying those resources, and stop them.
- Dispatch the batch job.
In the case of parallel jobs the scheduling decision may depend on many factors like the topology of the network requested, or the affinity of the processes at the core/CPU level. In any case parallel jobs using heavily the low latency interconnect should not share nodes with any other job.
High Throughput Computing Integration
-------------------------------------
Existing High Throughput Computing Infrastructures, like the service offered by EGI[^12], could benefit from a cloud providers offering preemptible instances. It has been shown that cloud resources and IaaS offerings can be used to run HTC tasks [@McNab2014] in a pull mode, where cloud instances are started in a way that they are able to pull computing tasks from a central location (for example using a distributed batch system like HTCondor).
However, sites are reluctant to offer large amounts of resources to be used in this mode due to the lack of a fixed duration for cloud instances. In this context, federated cloud e-Infrastrucutres like the EGI Federated Cloud [@FernandezdelCastillo2015], could benefit from resource providers offering preemptible instances. Users could populate idle resources with preemptible instances pulling their HTC tasks, whereas interactive and normal IaaS users will not be impacted negatively, as they will get the requests satisfied. In this way, large amounts of cloud computing power could be offered to the European research community.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this work we have proposed a preemptible instance scheduling design that does not modify substantially the existing scheduling algorithms, but rather enhances them. The modular rank and cost mechanisms allows the definition and implementation of any resource provider defined policy by means of additional pluggable rankers. Our proposal and implementation enables all kind of service providers —whose infrastructure is managed by open source middleware such as OpenStack— to offer a new access model based on preemptible instances, with a functionality similar to the one offered by the major commercial providers.
We have checked for the algorithm correctness when selecting the preemptible instances for termination. The results yield that the algorithm behaves as expected. Moreover we have compared the scheduling performance with regards equivalent default scheduler, obtaining similar results, thus ensuring that the scheduler performance is not significantly impacted.
This implementation allows to apply more complex policies on top of the preemptible instances, like instance termination based on price fluctuations (that is, implementing a preemptible instance stock market), preemptible instance migration so as to consolidate them or proactive instance termination to maximize the provider’s revenues by not delivering computing power at no cost to the users.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the European Commission Horizon 2020 via INDIGO-DataCloud project (grant number 653549) and EGI-ENGAGE (grant number 654142) and the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for the support through the National Plan under contract number FPA2013-40715-P.
The authors want also to thank the IFCA Advanced Computing and e-Science Group.
[^1]: <http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/purchasing-options/spot-instances/>
[^2]: <https://cloud.google.com/preemptible-vms/>
[^3]: <http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/purchasing-options/spot-instances/>
[^4]: <https://cloud.google.com/products/compute-engine>
[^5]: <https://cloud.google.com/preemptible-vms/>
[^6]: <https://launchpad.net/blazar>
[^7]: <http://opennebula.org/>
[^8]: <http://www.openstack.org>
[^9]: <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
[^10]: <https://www.eucalyptus.com/>
[^11]: <https://github.com/indigo-dc/opie>
[^12]: <https://www.egi.eu/services/high-throughput-compute/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a model where Majorana neutrino mass terms are forbidden by the flavor symmetry group $\Delta(27)$. Neutrinos are Dirac fermions and their masses arise in the same way as those of the charged fermions, due to very small Yukawa couplings. The model fits current neutrino oscillation data and correlates the octant of the atmospheric angle $\theta_{23}$ with the magnitude of the lightest neutrino mass, with maximal mixing excluded for any neutrino mass hierarchy.'
author:
- 'Alfredo Aranda,$^{1,2}$[^1] Cesar Bonilla,$^{3}$[^2] S. Morisi,$^{4}$[^3] E. Peinado,$^{5}$[^4] J. W. F. Valle,$^{3}$[^5]'
title: Dirac neutrinos from flavor symmetry
---
**Introduction**
2.mm
The historic observation of neutrino oscillations [@art:2012; @An:2012eh; @Ahn:2012nd; @Abe:2011sj] implies that neutrinos are massive in contrast with the Standard Model (SM) prediction. Incorporating small masses requires an extension of the SM in which neutrinos are generally expected to be of Majorana type, hence violating lepton number symmetry [@Schechter:1980gr] [^6]. On the other hand in many schemes, such as for example the so-called seesaw mechanism is expected to account for the observed smallness of neutrino mass relative to that of charged fermions [@Schechter:1980gr]. Yet, so far current neutrino oscillation experiments have been insensitive to the Majorana nature of neutrinos [@Schechter:1982bd; @Duerr:2011zd] and, despite intense ongoing efforts it has not been confirmed through the observation of processes such as neutrinoless double beta decay () [@Barabash:2011fn]. Hence neutrinos could very well be Dirac fermions [@Memenga:2013vc]. In short, the status of lepton and baryon number symmetries remains as one of the deepest unsolved mysteries of nature [@weinberg:1980bf]. An equally puzzling challenge is associated to the origin of the peculiar flavor pattern of mixing angles indicated by global fits of neutrino oscillation experiments [@Tortola:2012te].
Here we suggest a possible interconnection between these puzzles, namely, that lepton number conservation can be an accidental consequence of the flavor symmetry that accounts for the neutrino mixing pattern.
Over the last decade non-Abelian discrete groups have been widely used as family symmetries because of their potential in restricting neutrino mixing patterns [@Morisi:2012fg; @Hirsch:2012ym]. As examples we mention the successful models based on the $A_{4}$ group predicting $\theta_{23}=\pi/4$ and $\theta_{13}=0$ [@babu:2002dz; @altarelli:2005yp]. However the recent discovery of a large reactor angle, $\theta_{13}>0$ [@An:2012eh; @Ahn:2012nd; @Abe:2011sj], and a possible hint in favor of non-maximal atmospheric mixing present in recent oscillation fits $\theta_{23}$ [@Tortola:2012te] suggests the need for generalizing these models [@Morisi:2013qna] and/or seeking for alternative schemes based upon different flavor symmetries [@Ding:2012wh].
Here we present a flavor model for leptons using the non-Abelian group $\Delta(27)$ [@Ma:2006ip; @deMedeirosVarzielas:2006fc; @Ma:2007wu; @Morisi:2012hu] that is able to provide automatic lepton number conservation in a way consistent with current global fits of neutrino oscillation data [@Tortola:2012te]. Recently other non-Abelian flavor symmetries have been used for pure Dirac neutrinos, see for instance [@Chen:2012jg; @Ding:2013eca; @Holthausen:2013vba; @Memenga:2013vc], however Majorana mass terms are forbidden by means of extra Abelian symmetries. Here we focus on the possibility that Majorana mass terms are not allowed from the flavor symmetry without requiring any extra additional Abelian symmetry. We note that since neutrinos are Dirac fermions is exactly forbidden. In addition the model gives a correlation between neutrino oscillation parameters that excludes the maximal $\theta_{23}$ value.\
3.mm
**Preliminaries**
2.mm In order to generate Dirac neutrino mass terms we introduce singlet “right handed” (RH) neutrinos transforming under the flavor symmetry group $\mathcal{G}_{F}$ in such a way that their tensor product does not contain the trivial element of $\mathcal{G}_{F}$. This means that, even though lepton number conservation is not necessarily required *a priori*, Majorana mass terms are forbidden in the Lagrangian as a result of the flavor symmetry $\mathcal{G}_{F}$.
Although this may be achieved by using an Abelian symmetry $\mathbb{Z}_{N}$ $\forall$ $N\geq3$ our focus relies on simple non-Abelian flavor symmetry groups. We assume that RH-neutrinos ($N_R$) transform as a 3-dimensional irreducible representation (irrep) of $\mathcal{G}_{F}$. Hence if $N_{R}$ transforms as $3$-dimensional irrep ($\bf{3}$) under $\mathcal{G}_{F}$, one finds that the non-Abelian symmetries which forbid a term like $N_{R}^T N_{R}$ are
- $\Delta(3N^{2})$ for $N\geq3$: these groups contain nine singlets and $(N^{2}-3)/3$ triplets for $N=3\mathbb{Z}$. Otherwise, for $N\neq3\mathbb{Z}$, they have three singlets and $(N^{2}-1)/3$ triplets.
- $\Sigma(3N^{3})$ for $N\geq3$: the set of groups with $N(N^{2}+8)/3$ conjugacy classes, $3N$ singlets and $N(N^{2}-1)/3$ triplets.
- $T_{N}$ for the $N$ values given in [@Ishimori:2010au] these groups have 3 singlets and $(N-1)/3$ three-dimensional irreducible representations.
- $Z_9\rtimes Z_3$.
In fact the mass term $N_{R}^{T}N_{R}$ is forbidden because the tensor product ${\bf 3}_{i}\otimes{\bf3}_{i}$ (where $i=1,...,n_{d}$ and $n_{d}=(N^{2}-3)/3$ for $\Delta(3N^{2})$ and $n_{d}=N(N^{2}-1)/3$ for $\Sigma(3N^{3})$) does not contain a trivial 1-dimensional irrep $1^{0}$ [@Luhn:2007uq; @Ishimori:2010au].
3.mm
**The model**
2.mm
Searching for the the smallest realistic flavor symmetry group of the above class, i.e. used in the context of forbidding Majorana mass terms, we find that [^7] it is $\Delta(27)$. The $\otimes \ \Delta(27)$ multiplet assignment is given in Table \[tmc\],[^8]. where we have extended the SM by adding three right-handed neutrinos and two Higgs doublets apart from that of the [[Standard Model ]{}]{}.
$\overline{L}$ $\ell_{1R}$ $\ell_{2R}$ $\ell_{3R}$ $N_{R}$ $H$
-------------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------- -----------
$SU(2)_{L}$ ${\bf2}$ ${\bf1}$ ${\bf1}$ ${\bf1}$ ${\bf1}$ ${\bf2}$
$\Delta(27)$ ${\bf3}$ ${\bf1}$ ${\bf1}'$ ${\bf1}''$ ${\bf3}$ ${\bf3'}$
: Matter assignments of the model.[]{data-label="tmc"}
The most general invariant Lagrangian for leptons is written as $$\label{Lyl}
\mathcal{L}_{\ell}=\sum_{i=1}^{3}Y_{i}^{\ell}\bar{L}\ell_{iR}H+Y^{\nu}\bar{L}N_{R}\tilde{H}+h.c.,$$ where we use the compact notation $H = (H_1, H_2, H_3)$ and $\tilde{H} = (\tilde{H_1},\tilde{H_2},\tilde{H_3})$ with $\tilde{H_i}\equiv i\sigma_2H^*$. After electroweak symmetry breaking one gets the following patterns for the neutrino and charged lepton mass matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MlMnu}
M_{\nu}&=&
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
a v_{1} & b v_{3} & c v_{2} \\
c v_{3} & a v_{2} & b v_{1}\\
b v_{2} & c v_{1} & a v_{3}
\end{array} \right] \\ \nonumber
M_{\ell}&=&
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
Y_{1}^{\ell}v_{1} & Y_{2}^{\ell}v_{1} & Y_{3}^{\ell}v_{1} \\
Y_{1}^{\ell}v_{2} & \omega Y_{2}^{\ell}v_{2} & \omega^{2} Y_{3}^{\ell}v_{2}\\
Y_{1}^{\ell}v_{3} & \omega^{2} Y_{2}^{\ell}v_{3} & \omega Y_{3}^{\ell}v_{3}
\end{array} \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{i}$ are Higgs scalar vacuum expectation values (vevs), $\vev{ H}=(\vev{ H_{1}}, \vev{
H_{2}},\vev{H_{3}})=(v_{1},v_{2},v_{3})$. The parameters $\{a,b,c,Y_{i}\}$ are real if CP invariance is assumed where the CP transformation is properly defined in [@Branco:1983tn; @Ferreira:2012ri; @Holthausen:2012dk; @Nishi:2013jqa]. One sees that in such minimal scenario the smallness of neutrino masses w.r.t. those of the charged leptons must arise due to very small Yukawa couplings [^9]. The structure of $M_{\ell}$ and $M_{\nu}$ are well known in the literature [@Ma:2006ip; @altarelli:2005yp] and the alignment $\vev{H}=v(1,1,1)$ turns out to be natural in $\Delta(27)$ [@Ma:2006ip; @Ma:2007wu].
In such a case $M_{\ell}$ can be written as $M_{\ell}=U_{\omega}\hat{Y}$ where $\hat{Y}=\text{diag}(Y_{1},Y_{2},Y_{3})$ and $$U_{\omega}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & \omega & \omega^{2} \\
1 & \omega^{2} & \omega
\end{array} \right]$$ is the so–called “magic” matrix. However, given the structure of the neutrino mass matrix $M_{\nu}$, the previous alignment $\vev{H}=v(1,1,1)$ cannot be assumed since then $U_{\omega}$ diagonalizes both $M_{\nu}M_{\nu}^\dagger$ and $M_{\ell}{M_{\ell}}^\dagger$. This results in a trivial lepton mixing matrix $$U=U_{\ell}^{\dagger}U_{\nu}= U_{\omega}^{\dagger}U_{\omega}=\mathbb{I}.$$ Moreover, when $v_{1}=v_{2}=v_{3}=v$ and the couplings $a$, $b$ and $c$ are real the resulting neutrino masses are also not suitable to account for current neutrino oscillation data.
All of this can be avoided by deviating from the simplest vev alignment, i.e. we can fit the neutrino squared mass differences, as well as induce large lepton mixing angles by assuming that the vev alignment is generalized to $$\label{al2eps}
\langle H \rangle=\hat{v}(1+\epsilon_{1},1+\epsilon_{2},1)^{T} \ ,$$ where $|\langle H \rangle|^2 = v^2 = (246 \ \rm{GeV})^2$. The above vev configuration is a solution of the minimization conditions of the scalar potential provided it softly breaks the flavor symmetry, the deviation parameters $\epsilon_{1,2}$ being then associated to this soft breaking.
Taking into account Eq. (\[al2eps\]) the mass matrices for the lepton sector are now given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mseps}
M_{\nu}&=&\hat{v}\left[ \begin{matrix}
a (1+\epsilon_{1}) & b & c (1+\epsilon_{2}) \\
c & a (1+\epsilon_{2}) & b (1+\epsilon_{1})\\
b (1+\epsilon_{2}) & c (1+\epsilon_{1}) & a
\end{matrix} \right] \\ \nonumber
M_{\ell}&=&\hat{v}
\left[ \begin{matrix}
Y_{1}^{\ell}(1+\epsilon_{1}) & Y_{2}^{\ell}(1+\epsilon_{1}) & Y_{3}^{\ell}(1+\epsilon_{1}) \\
Y_{1}^{\ell}(1+\epsilon_{2}) & \omega Y_{2}^{\ell}(1+\epsilon_{2}) & \omega^{2} Y_{3}^{\ell}(1+\epsilon_{2})\\
Y_{1}^{\ell} & \omega^{2} Y_{2}^{\ell} & \omega Y_{3}^{\ell}
\end{matrix} \right]\nonumber. \end{aligned}$$ Note that an immediate consequence of the generalized vev alignment is that the $U_{\omega}$ no longer diagonalizes the neutrino mass matrix nor that of the charged leptons, and therefore, as desired, the lepton mixing matrix is now non-trivial, $$U=U_{\ell}^{\dagger}U_{\nu}\ne \mathbb{I} \ .$$ Furthermore one can indeed fit all neutrino observables as we now show.
3.mm **Results**
2.mm
![Correlation between the atmospheric angle and the lightest neutrino mass for the NH case. The horizontal dotted lines represent the best fit values, the (dark) blue and (light) gray horizontal bands are the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ allowed ranges, respectively. The blue (light gray), red (gray) and black points are model expectations corresponding to vev deviations of $10\%$, $20\%$ and $30\%$ respectively (see text for more details). The vertical dot-dashed line indicates KATRIN’s sensitivity [@Bornschein:2003xi]. []{data-label="23-m1-nh"}](m1-atm-NH){width="8cm"}
Here we consider deviations of the alignment $v(1,1,1)$ of the order $\mathcal{O}(\lambda_C)$ where $\lambda_C\sim 0.2$ is the Cabibbo angle. More precisely, using Eqs. (\[al2eps\]) and (\[Mseps\]) we have scanned over values for the small parameters $\epsilon_{1,2}$ within the range $|\epsilon_{1,2}|\leq0.3$ and selected those solutions which satisfy the global fits for the mixing angles at $3\sigma$ [@Tortola:2012te] $$0.017 <\sin^2\theta_{13}<0.033$$ $$0.36(0.37) <\sin^2\theta_{23}<0.68(0.67)~\text{NH(IH)}$$ $$0.27 <\sin^2\theta_{12}<0.37,$$ as well as the neutrino squared mass differences
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta m_{21}^2&=&(7.12-8.20) \times 10^{-5} eV^{2},\nonumber\\
|\Delta m_{31}^2|&=&
\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}
(2.31-2.74) & \text{for NH}\nonumber \\
(0.21-2.64) & \text{for IH} \nonumber
\end{array}
\right\rbrace \times 10^{-3} eV^{2} \ .\end{aligned}$$
We have found a correlation between the atmospheric angle and the lightest neutrino mass for both the normal mass hierarchy (NH) and the inverted mass hierarchy (IH) cases. This is shown in Figures \[23-m1-nh\] and \[23-m1-ih\] for the NH and IH cases, respectively. In both figures the dotted horizontal lines represent the best fit values, while the (dark) blue and (light) gray horizontal bands are the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands obtained in Ref. [@Tortola:2012te], respectively. For the NH case the global oscillation fit finds also a local minimum in the first octant of $\theta_{23}$ [@Tortola:2012te].
![Same as Figure \[23-m1-nh\] for the IH case. Note that in this case a $30\%$ vev deviation is not enough to reach the best fit value of $\theta_{23}$.[]{data-label="23-m1-ih"}](m1-atm-IH){width="8cm"}
In order to explore the sensitivity of the observables with respect to the values of the vev deviation parameters, $\epsilon_{1,2}$, we consider the following cases, $|\epsilon_{1,2}|\lesssim 0.1$, $|\epsilon_{1,2}|\lesssim
0.2$ and $|\epsilon_{1,2}|\lesssim 0.3$ where each one represents deviations of $10\%$, $20\%$ and $30\%$ respectively. As we mentioned above, the free parameters $\epsilon_{1,2}$ are associated to the $\Delta(27)$-soft breaking terms in the scalar potential and they are allowed to deviate at most at the order of the Cabibbo angle, $\epsilon_{1,2}\sim \mathcal{O}(\lambda_C)$.
The solutions in blue (light gray) correspond to deviations up to $10\%$, those in red (gray) up to $20\%$ and those in black up to $30\%$. Figure \[23-m1-ih\] for the IH case shows that a $30\%$ vev deviation is not enough to reach the best fit value for $\theta_{23}$, so that larger deviations would be required in order to accomplish it.
In the near future the KATRIN experiment could discover a neutrino mass in the degenerate region, going from $m_{\beta}\sim 0.3$ eV at $3\sigma$ significance to $m_{\beta}= 0.35$ eV at $5\sigma$ significance [@Bornschein:2003xi]. If a neutrino mass is not seen in tritium $\beta$ decays this will set an upper bound of $0.2$ eV for neutrino mass and such a bound is depicted in each figure with the dot-dashed vertical line.
It is important to note that the atmospheric angle deviates significantly from the maximal value as the vev deviations increase.
Before concluding we mention that the model leads to contributions to flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes in the lepton sector, such as $\mu \to e
\gamma$. However, we have checked a few representative points with normal neutrino mass hierarchy, and found that there is sufficient freedom in parameter space to satisfy the current MEG bound for such a process [@Adam:2013mnn]. Indeed, Table \[tbrs\] gives the expected $\mu \to e \gamma$ branching ratios such points are all consistent with current bounds. Considering that these points are located in different parameter regions, we believe that a detailed analysis will give similar results, though a complete study is beyond the scope of this paper and will be considered elsewere. Note that the model does not lead to FCNC in the quark sector as its symmetry affects only the lepton sector. A model upgrading the flavour symmetry to both sectors is being developed and will be presented in a future publication, including a detailed phenomenological study.
Cases $\text{Br}^{\text{th}}(\mu\to e\gamma)$ $m_{\nu_{1}}$ (eV) $\sin^{2}\theta_{23}$
------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
i) $1.98\times 10^{-14}$ 0.2399 0.4956
ii) $1.74\times 10^{-14}$ 0.0930 0.4615
iii) $1.65\times 10^{-14}$ 0.0762 0.6107
: Theoretical branching ratios for the process $\mu\to e \gamma$ for three different cases corresponding to three different sets of ($\epsilon_{1}$,$\epsilon_{2}$), $m_{\nu_1}$, and $\sin^2\theta_{23}$. []{data-label="tbrs"}
3.mm **Summary**
2.mm
We have presented a model based on $\Delta(27)$ flavor symmetry. We showed that having RH neutrinos and LH leptons transforming as 3 dimensional irreps under $\Delta(27)$ forbids Majorana mass terms so that neutrinos are [*naturally*]{} Dirac-type, just as all other [[Standard Model ]{}]{}fermions [@Memenga:2013vc]. There is accidental lepton number conservation in the model caused by gauge symmetry, as in the SM, and it is present before and after EWSB. Furthermore, due to the particle content of the model, we find that all higher order Weinberg-type operators $LHLH(H^\dagger H)^n$ for $n=0,1,2,...$ that might yield a Majorana mass are not allowed by the symmetry $\Delta(27)$ and there are neither scalar singlets nor triplets to realize any diagram (operator) in [@Ma:1998dn; @Bonnet:2009ej; @Bonnet:2012kz]. This scenario is able to fit the current data in the lepton sector and establishes a correlation between the octant of the atmospheric angle $\theta_{23}$ and the magnitude of the lightest neutrino mass eigenvalue which may be probed by coming experiments.\
**Acknowledgments** 2.mm
We would like to thank Luis Lavoura and Christoph Luhn for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by MINECO grants FPA2011-22975, MULTIDARK Consolider CSD2009-00064, by Prometeo/2009/091 (Generalitat Valenciana), by EU ITN UNILHC PITN-GA-2009-237920. A.A thanks support from CONACYT and PROMEP. S.M. thanks DFG grant WI 2639/4-1. C.B. thanks support from EPLANET.
[10]{}
A. McDonald, Talk at XIV International Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes, Venice, March, 2011.
DAYA-BAY Collaboration, F. An [*et al.*]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**108**]{}, 171803 (2012), \[1203.1669\]. RENO collaboration, J. Ahn [*et al.*]{}, 1204.0626. T2K Collaboration, K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**107**]{}, 041801 (2011), \[1106.2822\].
J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. [**D22**]{}, 2227 (1980). J. Heeck and W. Rodejohann, 1306.0580. J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. [**D25**]{}, 2951 (1982). M. Duerr, M. Lindner and A. Merle, JHEP [**1106**]{}, 091 (2011), \[1105.0901\]. A. Barabash, 1101.4502, .
N. Memenga, W. Rodejohann and H. Zhang, Phys.Rev. [**D87**]{}, 053021 (2013), \[1301.2963\]. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**D22**]{}, 1694 (1980). D. Forero, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, Phys.Rev. [**D86**]{}, 073012 (2012), \[arXiv:1205.4018\]. S. Morisi and J. Valle, Fortschritte der Physik-Progress of Physics [**61**]{}, 466 (2013).
M. Hirsch [*et al.*]{}, 1201.5525. K. S. Babu, E. Ma and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. [**B552**]{}, 207 (2003), \[hep-ph/0206292\]. G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Nucl. Phys. [**B720**]{}, 64 (2005), \[hep-ph/0504165\]. S. Morisi, D. Forero, J. Romao and J. Valle, 1305.6774. G.-J. Ding, S. Morisi and J. Valle, Phys.Rev. [**D87,053013**]{} (2013), \[1211.6506\]. E. Ma, Mod.Phys.Lett. [**A21**]{}, 1917 (2006), \[hep-ph/0607056\]. I. de Medeiros Varzielas, S. King and G. Ross, Phys.Lett. [**B648**]{}, 201 (2007), \[hep-ph/0607045\]. E. Ma, Phys.Lett. [**B660**]{}, 505 (2008), \[0709.0507\]. S. Morisi, E. Peinado and A. Vicente, 1212.4145. M.-C. Chen, M. Ratz, C. Staudt and P. K. Vaudrevange, Nucl.Phys. [**B866**]{}, 157 (2013), \[1206.5375\]. G.-J. Ding and Y.-L. Zhou, 1304.2645. M. Holthausen and K. S. Lim, 1306.4356. H. Ishimori [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**183**]{}, 1 (2010), \[1003.3552\]. C. Luhn, S. Nasri and P. Ramond, J.Math.Phys. [**48**]{}, 073501 (2007), \[hep-th/0701188\]. C. Hagedorn, M. A. Schmidt and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys.Rev. [**D79**]{}, 036002 (2009), \[0811.2955\]. Q.-H. Cao, S. Khalil, E. Ma and H. Okada, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**106**]{}, 131801 (2011), \[1009.5415\]. K. M. Parattu and A. Wingerter, Phys.Rev. [**D84**]{}, 013011 (2011), \[1012.2842\]. C. Luhn, K. M. Parattu and A. Wingerter, JHEP [**1212**]{}, 096 (2012), \[1210.1197\]. G. Branco, J. Gerard and W. Grimus, Phys.Lett. [**B136**]{}, 383 (1984). P. Ferreira, W. Grimus, L. Lavoura and P. Ludl, JHEP [**1209**]{}, 128 (2012), \[1206.7072\]. M. Holthausen, M. Lindner and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP [**1304**]{}, 122 (2013), \[1211.6953\]. C. Nishi, Phys. Rev. D 88, [**033010**]{} (2013), \[1306.0877\]. L. B. [KATRIN Collaboration]{}, hep-ex/0309007.
MEG Collaboration, J. Adam [*et al.*]{}, 1303.0754. E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1171 (1998), \[hep-ph/9805219\]. F. Bonnet, D. Hernandez, T. Ota and W. Winter, JHEP [**10**]{}, 076 (2009), \[0907.3143\]. F. Bonnet, M. Hirsch, T. Ota and W. Winter, JHEP [**1207**]{}, 153 (2012), \[1204.5862\].
[^1]: Electronic address:[email protected]
[^2]: Electronic address:[email protected]
[^3]: Electronic address:[email protected]
[^4]: Electronic address:[email protected]
[^5]: Electronic address:[email protected]
[^6]: Recently it has been claimed that one can find models where lepton number is violated by four units, $\Delta L=4$, even if neutrinos are of the Dirac type [@Heeck:2013rpa].
[^7]: $T_7$ has the desired product and has indeed been used as a successful flavor symmetry, however not in the context of Dirac neutrinos [@Hagedorn:2008bc; @Cao:2010mp; @Parattu:2010cy; @Luhn:2012bc].
[^8]: We denote, by convenience, ${\bf1}\equiv{\bf1}_{(0,0)}$, ${\bf1}'\equiv{\bf1}_{(1,0)}$, ${\bf1}''\equiv{\bf1}_{(2,0)}$, ${\bf3}\equiv{\bf3}_{(0,1)}$ and ${\bf3}'\equiv{\bf3}_{(0,2)}$, where the index notation is that used in [@Luhn:2007uq; @Ishimori:2010au]
[^9]: Suppressed Yukawa coefficients can arise in extra dimension schemes, i.e. [@Ding:2013eca], as well as supersymmetric schemes, see for instance [@Chen:2012jg]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explore full/partial tidal disruption events (TDEs) of stars/planets by *stellar* compact objects (Black holes; BHs; or neutron stars; NSs), which we term micro-TDEs. Disruption of a star/planet with mass $M_{\star}$ may lead to the formation of a debris disk around the BH/NS. Efficient accretion of a fraction $(f_{acc}=0.1$ of the debris may then give rise to bright energetic long ($10^{3}-10^{4}\,s$), X-ray/Gamma-ray flares, with total energies of up to $(f_{acc}/0.1)\times10^{52}\,(M_{\star}/{0.6\,M_{\odot}})\,$ergs, possibly resembling ultra-long GRBs/XRFs. The energy of such flares depends on the poorly constrained accretion processes. Significantly fainter flares might be produced if most of the disk mass is blown away through strong outflows. We suggest three dynamical origins for such disruptions. In the first, a star/planet is tidally disrupted following a close random encounter with a BH/NS in a dense cluster. We estimate the BH (NS) micro-TDE rates from this scenario to be few$\times10^{-6}$ (few$\times10^{-7}$) ${\rm yr}^{-1}$ per Milky-Way galaxy. Another scenario involves the interaction of wide companions due to perturbations by stars in the field, likely producing comparable but lower rates. Finally, a third scenario involves a BH/NS which gain a natal velocity kick at birth, leading to a close encounter with a binary companion and the tidal disruption of that companion. Such events could be associated with a supernova, or even with a preceding GRB/XRF event, and would likely occur hours to days after the prompt explosion; the rates of such events could be larger than those obtained from the other scenarios, depending on the preceding complex binary stellar evolution.'
author:
- 'Hagai B. Perets, Zhuo Li, James C. Lombardi Jr. and Stephen R. Milcarek Jr.'
title: |
[Micro - tidal disruption events by ]{}*stellar*[ compact objects]{}\
[and the production of ultra-long GRBs]{}
---
Introduction
============
The disruption of stars by massive black holes (MBHs) had been extensively studied over the last few decades, and in particular following the observational detection of candidate tidal disruption events (TDEs; see [@Kom15] for a review). However, stars (and sub-stellar objects such as planets/brown dwarfs) can also be tidally disrupted by stellar compact objects (COs), such as stellar black holes (BHs), neutron stars (NSs) and white dwarfs (in this paper we focus on the former, BHs and NSs; white dwarfs, WDs, will be discussed elsewhere), with typical masses $10^{-6}$ smaller than the masses of TDE-producing MBHs. These “micro”-TDEs ($\mu$TDEs) result from close encounters between a star and CO. The importance of such close encounters have been first emphasized in the context of the tidal capture mechanism suggested by @1975MNRAS.172P..15F to explain the formation of close compact binaries (and thus the formation of cataclysmic and X-ray binaries), and had been later invoked to explain non-standard formation and evolution of exotic stars such as blue stragglers, Thorne-Zytkow objects [@1977ApJ...212..832T], and a variety close binary systems (see [@1999PhR...311..363S] for a short review).
Encounters of COs can be categorized into several possible scenarios: physical collisions, tidal disruptions, tidal captures and tidal encounters. These scenarios correspond to the progressively larger distance of the closest approach of the CO trajectory to the star, respectively. Here we study the case of tidal disruptions, whereas other cases of physical collisions or alternatively more distant tidal encounters of COs with stars have been studied by others [@1975MNRAS.172P..15F; @1977ApJ...212..832T; @1998ApJ...502L...9F; @1998ApJ...505L..15H; @1999ApJ...516..892F; @2001ApJ...549..948A; @2001ApJ...550..357Z; @2005MNRAS.361..955B].
Three distance scales are important for describing the encounters: the closest approach distance $R_{p}$, the radius $R_{\star}$ of the star, and the tidal disruption radius $$R_{t}\simeq R_{\star}\left(\frac{M_{\bullet}}{M_{\star}}\right)^{1/3},$$ where $M_{\bullet}$ and $M_{\star}$ are the masses of the compact object and the stellar (or planetary) object, respectively.
In close (non collisional) encounters the tidal forces can be sufficiently strong as to completely or partially disrupt the star, in which case a fraction of the stellar mass may fall back, self interact and eventually be accreted onto the CO. Although the possibility of tidal disruption of stars by stellar COs at close encounters was suggested by many, the observational signature of $\mu$TDEs, their frequency and their consequences have been little explored. In this paper we discuss this possibility and suggest that $\mu$TDEs can result in highly energetic flares, possibly similar to gamma ray bursts (GRBs/X-ray flashes -XRFs), but much longer (>few $\times10^{3}$ s) and fainter than most of them. We find that the timescale of these flares is a few tens of minutes to hours, potentially related to the recently observed class of ultra-long GRBs [@Gre+15; @lev+15]. An alternative scenario in which the debris forms an extended long-lived disk around the compact object, producing an X-ray source very similar to an X-ray binary, is not discussed here; we refer to @kro84 for an in-depth study of this possibility (first discussed by [@1976MNRAS.175P...1H]), which may occur independently of the early accretion flare on which we focus in this work.
The paper is organized as follows. We first discuss the properties of $\mu$TDEs in section 2, and provide a basic estimate of their rates in section 3. We then discuss the observational implications for such transient events as well as their remnants and summarize.
The tidal disruption and accretion
==================================
Tidal disruption of stars was discussed in the context of binary formation through tidal capture [@1976ApL....17...87H; @1976ApL....17...95H]. In this context the tidal disruption radius was important as the closest distance where stars can be captured, but the tidal disruption itself was only briefly mentioned. Tidal disruption of stars by WDs and NSs were simulated by @Ruf92, and @1996JKAS...29...19L, respectively, but the observational signatures from the following accretion of debris were not explored. Tidal disruption of a star by an MBH and its observational signature was discussed by many authors [@1982ApJ...262..120L; @1988Natur.333..523R; @1989ApJ...346L..13E; @1990ApJ...351...38C; @1993ApJ...410L..83L; @1997ApJ...489..573L; @Ulm+98; @1999ApJ...519..647K; @1999ApJ...514..180U; @2000ApJ...545..772A; @2004ApJ...610..707B] and possibly observed in recent years (@2002ApJ...576..753L [@2006astro.ph.12525L; @2006ApJ...653L..25G; @van+11]; see [@Kom15] for a recent review). We follow a similar analysis used for this scenario, and complement it using results from hydrodynamical simulations of $\mu$TDEs. These are used to calculate the relevant parameters for the disruption of stars by *stellar* COs.
As a star is ripped apart by the tidal forces of a CO, the debris is thrown in a fan-like fashion into high eccentricity orbits with a large range of periods, covering a range of specific energy
$$\Delta E\sim\frac{GM_{\bullet}R_{*}}{R_{p}^{2}}$$ where $R_{*}$ is the radius of the star and $R_{p}$ is the pericenter of the orbit [@1982ApJ...262..120L]. For cases in which the star is completely disrupted, simulations show that the mass distribution of the out-thrown debris is nearly constant as a function of the energy [@1999ApJ...514..180U]. A large fraction of the debris would later be flung out and become unbound [@2000ApJ...545..772A]. The gravitational energy dissipated in this stage is possibly emitted as a long and very faint flare, with energetics much smaller than those expected from the later accretion phase which is the main focus of this study.
The returning debris streams self-interact and a large fraction of the bound material becomes unbound, whereas the rest circularizes and forms a torus (e.g. see simulations for a disruption by a WD by [@Ruf92]) at a radius of about $r_{c}=2R_{{\rm p}}$. In the next stage, after circularization, the torus formed from the fallback material is then accreted by the CO [@1989ApJ...346L..13E; @1994ApJ...422..508K; @2000ApJ...545..772A; @2002ApJ...576..753L] possibly producing a flare. In the following we discuss the observational signature (time scales, energetics) of such flares. We note that @luy+08 have discussed a related scenario and explored the accretion stage in a tidal disruption by an intermediate mass BH; they suggest this scenario leads to jet formation producing a GRB with no associated supernova.
Timescales
----------
### Fall-back time
In the following we consider two cases: the case of a low mass ratio disruption, and the case of a high mass ratio disruption. In the former, the mass of the disrupted star/planet is assumed to be negligible compared with the CO mass, and the CO can be assumed to be stationary at the center of mass of the system. Such a case corresponds to the tidal disruptions of planets or low mass stars by stellar COs. However, when the mass of the disrupted object is relatively large (0.1 up to a few 0.1 of the CO mass), the CO can no longer be assumed to be stationary or reside at the center of mass of the system. The first, low mass-ratio scenario had been discussed extensively in the literature in the context of widely studied TDEs by MBHs; although different in scale the results should also apply for the low mass-ratio $\mu$TDE case; we briefly review the results obtained for that case. The high mass-ratio scenario had been little studied and we therefore run hydrodynamical simulations of such tidal disruptions to characterize some of their basic properties.
#### Low mass-ratio tidal disruptions:
At the first stage following the disruption, the bound fraction of the debris, $f_{fall}$, falls back and returns to pericenter. The first bound material returns after a time
$$\begin{gathered}
t_{min}=\frac{2\pi R_{p}^{3}}{(GM_{\bullet})^{1/2}(2R_{\star})^{3/2}}\\
\approx3.52\times10^{5}\left(\frac{R_{p}}{2.15R_{\odot}}\right)^{3}\left(\frac{R_{\star}}{0.1R_{\odot}}\right)^{-3/2}\left(\frac{M_{\bullet}}{10M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1/2}\,s,\label{eq:disruption_time}\end{gathered}$$
where the normalization was done for a Jupiter-like planet with radius $R_{\star}=0.1{\rm R_{\odot}}$ disrupted by a BH with a typical mass of $10\,M_{\odot}$ at $R_{p}=R_{t}=2.15\,R_{\odot}$ closest approach. Note that for $R_{p}<R_{t}$ one should replace $R_{p}$with $R_{t}$ in this Eq. [@Sar+10; @Gui+13; @Sto+13]. Assuming a flat distribution of debris energies, the late time return rate of the bound material to pericenter [@1988Natur.333..523R; @phi89; @1999ApJ...514..180U] is $$\dot{M}\sim\frac{1}{3}\frac{M_{\star}}{t_{min}}\left(\frac{t}{t_{min}}\right)^{-5/3},\label{eq:debris_fall_back}$$ where the peak return rate occurs at about $t\sim1.5t_{min}$ [@1989ApJ...346L..13E] and half of the fallback debris mass returns by about $t\sim6t_{min}$. Indeed, such behavior is seen in our hydrodynamic simulations of a BH tidally disrupting a Jupiter mass planet (see Fig. 1). Note, however, that simulations by @2000ApJ...545..772A show that a large fraction of the returned debris later becomes unbound. They find the total accreted mass of debris to be four times smaller than found earlier, with an approximately constant accretion rate. Nevertheless, this does not make a significant change to the overall derived timescale. We also mention the work by @cou+14 who take a somewhat different approach and suggest the formation of an extended jet-producing envelope.
#### High mass ratio partial tidal disruptions:
The $t^{-5/3}$ infall rate back to the CO discussed above corresponds to the case of complete or nearly complete tidal disruption of a low mass object (compared with the disrupting CO). If the object is completely disrupted then there is nothing special about the debris field near gas that is marginally bound to the black hole, and the classic $t^{-5/3}$ behavior follows. The results change somewhat when the object is only partially disrupted, as can happen more frequently in high mass ratio cases or when the object has a dense core. The surviving remnant affects the distribution of gas marginally bound to the black hole, and a fallback rate steeper than $t^{-5/3}$ results: see e.g. @2012ApJ...757..134M for simulations of partial disruptions of giant stars by a supermassive black hole, and discussion of these issues by @Gui+13 and @Hay+13.
To study partial tidal disruptions in high mass ratio cases, we have carried a set of hydrodynamical simulations using the *StarSmasher* code. *StarSmasher* is a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code that evolved from *StarCrash* [@2010ascl.soft10074F], which itself has its origins in the SPH code of @1991PhDT........11R. The primary enhancement of *StarSmasher* over its predecessors is that it incorporates equations of motion derived from a variational principle to insure accurate energy and entropy evolution [@2010MNRAS.402..105G]. In addition, gravitational forces between particles are calculated by direct summation on NVIDIA graphics cards.
We consider the tidal disruption of a solar mass star or a Jupiter-like planet, modelled with 395K particles, by a 10 M$_{\odot}$ BH point particle. A wider range of parameter space for tidal disruptions will be discussed in more detail elsewhere. The solar mass star is evolved with the TWIN stellar evolution code to an age of 4590 Myr to give a radius $\sim1R_{\odot}$; the hydrodynamic simulation employ an equation of state (EOS) consisting of ideal gas and radiation pressure components. The Jupiter-like planet is modelled as an $n=1$ polytrope of mass $10^{-3}M_{\odot}$ and radius $0.1R_{\odot}$, with a $\Gamma=2$ EOS. We consider both parabolic and hyperbolic encounters (but we discuss only the former cases here, more relevant for the expected relative velocities), and study cases of different closest approach $R_{{\rm p}}=0.6,\,0.9$, and $1$ $R_{{\rm t}}$ (that is, $R_{{\rm p}}=1.29$ R$_{\odot}$, $1.94$ R$_{\odot}$, and $2.15$ R$_{\odot}$). Runs with larger closest approach ($R_{p}\sim4$ R$_{\odot})$ resulted in only a negligible fraction of the stellar (or planetary) mass falling back onto the BH. None of our runs implement radiative cooling. Although radiative cooling would be important for generating optical light curves of the TDEs themselves, it has negligible effect on the hydrodynamics and therefore on the fallback rates extracted from our simulations. As can be seen in Table 1, our simulations result in a *partial* disruption, leaving behind the denser core of the star which is not disrupted. We did not follow the long term stellar evolution of such disruption remnants, which could be of interest by itself.
In order to estimate the fallback rate, we use the so-called freezing model as in @2012ApJ...757..134M: $$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{dM}{dE}\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{1}{3}\left(2\pi GM_{\bullet}\right)^{2/3}\frac{dM}{dE}t^{-5/3}.$$ Here Kepler’s third law has been used to relate the specific binding energy $E=GM_{\bullet}/(2a)$, where $a$ is the semimajor axis of a parcel of debris, to the time $t$ for that material to return to periapsis. This approximation neglects the influence of the remnant star, if it exists, on the fallback time. Note that the canonical $t^{-5/3}$ behavior of $dM/dt$ follows from having a flat $dM/dE$ vs. $E$ distribution. More generally, $dM/dE$ depends on the strength of the tidal interaction as well as the density profile of object being disrupted. Objects that are completely or nearly disrupted tend to give relatively flat $dM/dE$ at small $E$ and therefore $dM/dt\sim t^{-5/3}$ at late times. In contrast, objects that are only partially disrupted yield a fallback rate $dM/dt$ that drops off more quickly with time.
The actual $dM/dE$ distribution from our simulations is determined by sorting the mass of unbound particles into bins of $E$. For each unbound SPH particle, we calculate $E$ as the sum of its specific kinetic energy (relative to the black hole) and its specific gravitational potential energy due to all mass in the system. For our Jupiter-like planetary disruptions (with $R_{*}\ll R_{p}\sim R_{t}$), unbound gas forms a long stream with one end that reaches back to the black hole only once the planet (or what remains of it) has retreated well outside of the tidal radius. Since the tidal disruption plays out fully before the return of the gas to the black hole, it is sufficient to determine the $dM/dE$ distribution from a single snapshot of the simulation, taken shortly before the first stripped material returns.
In the disruption of our Sun-like stars (with $R_{*}\sim R_{p}\sim R_{t}$), stripped material from the star encircles the black hole and collides with other infalling material before the tidal disruption has fully completed, and it is consequently not possible to use a single snapshot to determine the fallback mass rate over all times. We therefore use a sequence of snapshots when binning particles by their specific energy in these cases. The first snapshot is taken about $10^{3}$ s after the periapse passage: all particles that can be identified as being bound to the black hole are included in this binning, although these particles may have their bin locations adjusted while we step through an additional $\sim5$ future snapshots spaced over $\sim5$ dynamical timescales. If a snapshot shows that new particles have been stripped from the star, then these particles are included in the binning. If a previously binned particle has not yet reached 20% of its expected fallback time $t$, then it is instead rebinned according to its specific binding energy $E$ calculated from the more recent snapshot. In this way, preference is given to the energetics calculated once a particle has withdrawn from the star and its trajectory is better described by ballistic motion around the black hole. By using a short enough time interval over which rebinning can occur (namely, the 20% of the fallback time $t$), our procedure avoids issues associated with other particles that have encircled the black hole colliding with the infalling material.
As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:The-return-rate\] the return rate of the most bound material happens on timescales comparable with scaling for the low-mass ratio case (Eq. 1), but the profile of the return rate is more steep, approximately $\sim t^{-7/3}$, with only a weak dependence on the pericenter separation $R_{{\rm p}}$ for the cases considered. We also note that in these simulations the fraction of material bound to the black hole after the disruption is of the order of 0.04 for a closest approach at the tidal radius ($R_{p}=2.15$ R$_{\odot}$), whereas impacts at deeper penetrations result in higher fractions (0.06 and 0.2 for $R_{p}=1.94$ R$_{\odot}$ and $R_{p}=1.29$ R$_{\odot}$, respectively); for the following we adapt $f_{fall}=0.1$ as a typical value.
-------------- ----------------------- ------- --------- ---------------------
$R_{p}$ ($R_{\odot})$ bound unbound left in star/planet
Sun-like 1.29 0.2 0.1 0.7
star 1.94 0.06 0.02 0.92
2.15 0.04 0.01 0.95
Jupiter-like 1.29 0.49 0.49 0.02
planet 1.94 0.49 0.49 0.02
2.15 0.49 049 0.02
-------------- ----------------------- ------- --------- ---------------------
The fraction of bound fallback material and the return rate obtained from hydrodynamical simulations (using the *StarSmasher* code) of tidal disruptions of a solar mass star and a Jupiter-mass planet by a 10 M$_{\odot}$ BH.
### Accretion time
After circularization the bound debris from the tidal disruption forms a torus or disk around the CO [for example, see @Ruf92] at radius of $r_{c}\simeq2R_{p}$. The accretion time scale for this disk, assuming it is thick (with the ratio of disk scale height to its radius, $h$, of the order of 1) is of the order of the viscous time $$\begin{gathered}
t_{{\rm acc}}\approx\frac{t_{{\rm kep}}(2R_{p})}{\alpha2\pi h^{2}}\\
\approx4.5\times10^{4}\,h^{-2}(\frac{\alpha}{0.1})^{-1}(\frac{R_{p}}{2.15R_{\odot}})^{3/2}(\frac{M_{\bullet}}{10M_{\odot}})^{-1/2}\,s\label{eq:accretion_time}\end{gathered}$$ where $t_{{\rm kep}}(r)$ is the Keplerian orbital period at orbital radius $r$, $\alpha$ is the viscous constant. The value of the viscosity constant $\alpha$ is unknown, and we normalize it with the commonly used $\alpha=0.1$ value.
We therefore expect the formation of an accretion disk during the few $1000$ s after the tidal disruption (Eq. \[eq:disruption\_time\]), for the assumed parameters. This might be observable in the flare rise time-scale. Later on the debris material will be accreted on timescales of a few $10^{4}-10^{5}$ s onto the CO (Eq. \[eq:accretion\_time\]), where as additional fall back material is expected to continuously accrete onto the CO at a power law decaying rate (Eq. \[eq:debris\_fall\_back\] or somewhat steeper for the high-mass ratio disruption). The exact timescales for the formation of the accretion disk is therefore less important as the evolution is dominated by the longer accretion timescales. We do note, however, that at the longer-term evolution as well as in the case of the disruption of larger, evolved star (e.g. red giant), occurring at a much larger radius, the accretion rate will be dominated by the fallback time rather than the accretion timescale. It was suggested that such a scenario may explain the origin of some X-ray binaries (J. Steiner and J. Guillochon, private communication 2015; see also @1976MNRAS.175P...1H and [@kro84] for tidal-capture-formed long-lived X-ray sources).
### Light curve
Predicting the exact light curve due to the accretion onto the compact object is difficult given the many uncertainties in the evolution of the accretion-disk and the jet formation an evolution. Nevertheless, in the following we speculate on the possible evolution of the light curve, assuming a proportional relation between the material accreted to the compact object and the luminosity produced by the jet.
We can generally divide the the $\mu$TDEs into two regimes; (1) $t_{min}\gg t_{acc}$ and (2) $t_{min}\ll t_{acc}.$
- $t_{min}\gg t_{acc}$: In this case, typically corresponding to planet disruption (the low-mass ratio regime), the fallback time scale is longer than the accretion time, and the accretion evolution is therefore dominated by the fallback rate, i.e. it should generally follow the regular $t^{-5/3}$ power-law, as derived for TDEs by MBHs.
- $t_{min}\ll t_{acc}$: For this case we can summarize the results from the high mass-ratio disruption. We expect the fallback material to accumulate and form a disk on the fallback time, which then drains on the longer viscous time, and then keeps a low accretion rate from the continuous tail of the fallback debris. We would expect the flaring should therefore begin only once the material is accreted on the compact object itself. We may therefore expect four stages in the light curve evolution (see schematic representation in Fig. \[fig:light-curve\]): (1) A fast rise of the accretion flare, once the disk material is processed in the disk and evolves to accrete on the compact object; (2) Accretion from a disk until the accumulated early fallback material is drained; again, we caution that it’s difficult to predict the exact shape of the light curve at this stage, and it depends on the disk evolution and jet formation mechanism; if we *assume* a steady state accretion until drainage, one might expect a relatively flat light curve. (3) Once the disk drains of the accumulated early fall-back material the light curve should drop steeply; (4) The continuous fall-back of material at the late stages would then govern the accretion rate at times longer than the viscous time, and the accretion rate should then follow the $t^{-5/3}$ rate (or somewhat steeper as discussed above). The exact light curve at the early stages is difficult to predict, but we do note a non-trivial signature of the $\mu$TDEs relating the early and late stages. Since the early accretion can only occur after the peak debris fallback, the *extrapolation* of the late power-law ($t^{-5/3}$ or steeper) to early times (dashed line; we emphasize that this extrapolation is *not* the observed light curve), before the initial flaring, should always precede the observed initial rise (see figure).
![\[fig:light-curve\]Schematics of the expected $\mu$TDE light curve in the regime of $t_{min}\ll t_{acc}$ (see text), assuming the disruption occurred at time 0 (the flaring taking place only after $\sim t_{acc}$).](lc)
Flare energy and spectra
------------------------
The flare energy corresponds to the accreted mass $E_{f}=\eta f_{acc}M_{\star}c^{2}$, with $\eta$ the efficiency of transferring the rest mass to radiation energy in the accretion process, and $f_{acc}$ the fraction of the star mass which is accreted.
These accretion and flaring (e.g. through a jet production) processes are still poorly understood, and the amount of accreted mass is strongly dependent on the accretion scenario. Taking two very different scenarios we try to give some possible lower and upper estimates on the radiated energy released in this stage. We stress that the current lack of knowledge on these accretion processes make more accurate calculations suggestive at most.
If a fraction $\zeta$ of the circularized debris is accreted by the CO, that is $f_{acc}=\zeta f_{fall}$, then $$E_{f}=1.1\times10^{52}\,(f_{fall}/0.1)(\zeta/1)(\eta/0.1)(M_{\star}/0.6M_{\odot})\,ergs,$$ which is somewhat lower but still comparable (especially for the disruption of higher mass stars) with the isotropic equivalent energy of ultra-long GRBs. The true released energy in observed GRBs should be reduced as $E\Omega/4\pi$, with $\Omega$ the unknown GRB jet solid angle. The derived $\mu$TDE energy could therefore be larger than required for a GRB by orders of magnitude, if $\Omega\ll1$, and therefore even much lower $f_{acc}$ could be sufficient. Such hyper-accretion rates of $\dot{M}_{acc}\sim10^{10}\dot{M}_{Edd}$ are very similar to that of an accreting CO in a common envelope with a massive star, which have been studied both analytically (@1993ApJ...411L..33C [@2000ApJ...541..918B] and references within) and in simulations (e.g. [@2000ApJ...532..540A] and references within). Such accretion disks may be advection dominated and quite possibly give rise to strong outflows and jets (see [@2005Sci...307...77N] for a short review).
@2001ApJ...557..949N suggest a convection dominated accretion flow model to describe an accretion scenario, in which case only a small fraction of the material is accreted, with a strong dependence on the accretion disk outer radius and an appropriate decrease in the flare energy. In this model, the accreted mass fraction is $$\begin{aligned}
f_{acc} & \sim14.1f_{{\rm fall}}\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{R_{{\rm out}}}{r_{{\rm s}}}\right)^{-1}\approx\\
\approx & 1.4\times10^{-4}f_{{\rm fall}}\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{R_{p}}{2.15R_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{M_{\bullet}}{10M_{\odot}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $R_{{\rm out}}\approx2R_{p}$ for the outer radius of the accretion disk and where $r_{{\rm s}}$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the CO. In fact, a non-negligible fraction of the energy released may not even be emitted but advected to the CO, at least in the case of an BH accretor, which would make even this estimate only an approximate upper limit for the flare energy in this case.
We conclude that the estimates for the energy emitted in the accretion flare could vary by orders of magnitudes. If most of the tidal debris mass is accreted to the CO, and the energy is efficiently emitted, then such accretion flares may be as energetic as GRBs and should be observable from extragalactic distances, though these would be much fainter than typical GRBs due to their much longer duration. Such flares could have GRB like characteristics but would not be necessarily associated with a supernova. Indeed, @luy+08 have suggested such a related scenario for GRB 060614 where no associated supernova was observed. They suggested a jet formation process scenario, which could produce such a GRB following the tidal disruption of a solar mass star by an intermediate massive black hole. Alternatively, as different accretion scenarios suggest, large outflows from the accretion disk may allow only a small fraction of the tidal debris to be accreted, in which case much fainter flares will be produced.
We should stress that $\mu$TDEs are super-Eddington events, and likely the radiation process arises from a jet. The exact spectra from such jets and their formation are little understood, but generally we would expect the flares to have non-thermal spectra (unless significant interaction of the jet with the tidal debris thermalize the emitted radiation, see e.g. suggestion by @Tho+11).
$\mu$TDE rates
==============
For a $\mu$TDE to occur we require a star/planet to pass by a CO at a distance of no more than the tidal-disruption radius. In the following we consider four possible scenarios in which such close encounters can happen, and assess the $\mu$TDE rates and the expected typical environment in which they occur in each of these cases. These scenarios include (1) A CO has a random close encounter with another star/planet in a dense stellar cluster. (2) A CO in a binary/planetary system is kicked (e.g. through a NS/BH natal kick) and encounters its close binary/planetary companion. (3) very wide binaries in the field are lead into highly eccentric orbits due to multiple-scattering with field stars, resulting in a close encounter.
Another possibility of encounter is through the secular evolution of a CO-hosting quasi-stable triple system [@ant+12] leading to close encounters (similar to the WD-WD collsions suggested by [@kat+12]). However, the uncertainties involved in this scenario, and in particular the fraction of progenitor triple systems, are large, and the discussion of this scenario is beyond the scope of this work.
Formation channel
------------------------------ -------------------- --------------------
BH NS
Encounters in dense clusters $2.8\times10^{-6}$ $4.8\times10^{-7}$
Natal kicks $1.4\times10^{-6}$ $3.4\times10^{-7}$
Perturbed wide binaries $10^{-7}$ –
: The rates of $\mu$TDEs from various potential channels.
Note that the rate from the natal kick scenario corresponds only to binaries with $>10$ AU separations. The perturbed wide-binaries channel rates correspond to the high rates scenario obtained by @mic+15, for direct collapse BHs with no natal kicks (reproducing the LMXB formation rate in the Galaxy); therefore this channel and the natal kicks scenario are mutually exclusive.
$\mu$TDEs from stellar encounters in dense stellar clusters
------------------------------------------------------------
There are several scenarios in which a close encounter between a compact object and a star/planet could occur. An isolated compact-object may directly interact with a star or a binary in a two or three body encounter, respectively. Similarly a CO in a binary system may interact with another star or a binary system in three or four body interactions, with encounters between higher-multiplicities possible. The dominant type of encounter would depend on the environment and the multiplicity of the systems [@lei+11 and references therein]. In the following we estimate the $\mu$TDE rate from such random encounters.
### Two body interactions
The encounter rates between stars have been studied by many (see e.g. [@1992ApJ...396..587D] for very similar calculations). Here we give the rates of encounters leading to a TDE, i.e. where the closest approach of a star/planet to a given CO is smaller that the tidal radius. Such encounter rates are dominated by the contribution from the densest stellar systems, such as globular clusters (GCs) and galactic nuclei.
Consider a CO of mass $M_{co}$ in the core of a cluster containing $N_{*}$ single stars (for a discussion of binaries, see below). A tidal disruption will take place if the distance of closest approach between this CO and a star is less than the tidal radius $R_{{\rm t}}$. If all the ordinary stars had a mass $M_{*}$, the tidal disruption rate from the one CO would be $$\dot{p}_{co}(R_{t},\sigma)=2\pi G(M_{co}+M_{*})N_{*}R_{t}\sigma^{-1}V_{c}^{-1}$$ where $\sigma$ is the relative velocity dispersion and the core volume $V_{{\rm c}}$ can be written in terms of the core radius $R_{{\rm c}}$ of the GC as $V_{{\rm c}}=4\pi R_{{\rm c}}^{3}/3$. Here we are assuming that the collision cross section is dominated by gravitational focusing. The total disruption rate in a single GC is then $$\Gamma_{co}\approx\dot{p}_{co}N_{co}\approx\dot{p}_{co}n_{0}f_{co}V_{{\rm c}},$$ where $N_{co}$ is the total number of COs in the GC core, $n_{0}$ is the number density of stars in the core, and $f_{co}$ is the fraction of COs in the stellar population (see [@1992ApJ...396..587D]).
Typical GC cores have densities of $n_{0}\simeq10^{5}\:{\rm pc}^{-3}$, and a typical core radius $R_{c}=1\:{\rm pc}$ [@pry+93; @gne+97]. Typical velocity dispersions in GC cores are roughly $\sigma\simeq20\:{\rm km\:s}^{-1}$ (see e.g. @1992ApJ...396..587D). The fraction of COs in the stellar population is taken to be $f_{{\rm NS}}=0.017$ and $f_{{\rm BH}}=0.012$ (taking a Salpeter mass function between $0.6-120$ ${\rm M_{\odot}}$ ; NSs are assumed to originate from stars of mass between $8-15$ ${\rm M_{\odot}}$ and BHs are assume to originate from stars more massive than $15$ ${\rm M_{\odot}}$); however, due to NS natal kicks and binary heating of BHs in cluster, only a fraction of these COs are retained in the cluster. We assume a retention fraction of 0.05, following @2002ApJ...573..283P, and we take typical neutron star, and black hole masses to be, $1.4M_{\odot}$ and $10M_{\odot}$, respectively. For COs of 1-10 $M_{\odot}$, the tidal radius falls approximately in the range $R_{\odot}\lesssim r_{t}\lesssim2\,R_{\odot}$ for stars (and also for Jupiter like planets, whereas terrestrial planets are disrupted only at $\sim2$ times smaller distances due to their higher average densities). Using these typical values, we calculate the disruption rates of stars by COs. We find $\Gamma_{{\rm NS}}=3.2\times10^{-9}\,{\rm yr}^{-1},$ and $\Gamma_{{\rm BH}}=1.8\times10^{-8}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. These rates are consistent with more detailed cluster simulations where physical collisions were considered (e.g. [@iva+08]). Although the population of BHs is smaller than that of NSs, their larger mass make the encounter cross section much larger, thus enhancing the rate of close encounters. For the $\sim$150 GCs observed in the MW galaxy we finally get the tidal disruption rates per Milky-Way like galaxy to be $\Gamma_{{\rm NS}}^{{\rm gal}}=4.8\times10^{-7}(f_{NS}/0.017)(f_{ret}/0.05)\,{\rm yr}^{-1},$ and $\Gamma_{{\rm BH}}^{{\rm gal}}=2.8\times10^{-6}(f_{BH}/0.012)(f_{ret}/0.05)\,\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. We point out that many galaxies contain much larger number of GCs, and thus these estimates are only lower limits.
The rates of $\mu$TDEs of planets depend on the unknown fraction of free floating planets in GC; for free floating planets to stars ratio, $f_{ffp-star}$ of one (one free floating planet per star) the rate should be slightly lower (due to the smaller combined mass), but comparable to that of stellar disruptions, and the rate should linearly scale with $f_{ffp-star}$.
### Three and four body interactions
Three and four (or more) body interactions are much more complicated, as they may involve resonant encounters in which the stars can pass by each other several times. These could show chaotic behavior in which the stars may pass each other at almost any arbitrary distance [see e.g. @2006tbp..book.....V and references within]. Such behavior can much enhance the possibility for very close passages followed by tidal disruptions. Calculation of these rates require better knowledge on the characteristics and distributions of binaries and compact binaries in clusters, and a detailed treatment which is beyond the scope of this work. However, from comparison with the somewhat similar scenario of stellar collisions and tidal captures [@kro+84; @2004MNRAS.352....1F; @lei+11], in which such encounters were found to have important contribution, we note that our results thus give only a lower limit on the tidal disruption rates, which could be higher by a factor of a few as a result of these few body encounters.
$\mu$TDEs from natal kicks of COs {#sec:post kick disruption}
---------------------------------
In the previous section we considered random encounters between a star and an unrelated CO. Such an encounter can happen with a non-negligible rates only in dense stellar clusters. A very different scenario for encounters may arise in systems containing NSs or BHs with a stellar or sub-stellar companion. In such systems the two companions may closely interact following the natal kick imparted to the NS/BH at birth.
NSs and BHs are usually born following a violent supernova explosion or through the coalescence of two COs (WD+WD, WD+NS, NS+NS). NSs, and possibly BHs, are thought to be born out from these supernova explosions with high velocities of tens to hundreds kilometers per second (so called natal kicks, see e.g [@2002ApJ...573..283P] for a review and references). The comparison between the observed high velocities of pulsars and the measured low velocities of their progenitor stars are a strong indication for such kicks. BH formation may also involve an intermediate stage of collapse into a NS, suggesting BHs may acquire similarly high momentum kicks, leading to kick velocities which are lower than the typical NS natal kick velocities, due to the higher mass of BHs: $v_{{\rm kick}}^{{\rm BH}}=(M_{{\rm NS}}/M_{{\rm BH}})v_{{\rm kick}}^{{\rm NS}}$. BHs formed through coalescence of COs might also acquire such high velocities [@Ros+00].
Following these high velocity kicks most binary systems would break up, ejecting the newly formed NS/BH, and leaving behind their now isolated companions. However, in some systems the kick imparted to the newly formed NS/BH will give rise to a a close-approach trajectory near the stellar/planetary companion (see e.g. [@1994ApJ...423L..19L; @2005MNRAS.361..955B]). If the encounter is sufficiently close, the companion might be disrupted. The total rates of $\mu$TDEs from such a scenario depend on many uncertain parameters such as the fraction and semi major axis distribution of such binary systems and the distribution of the velocity kicks; a detailed population synthesis model to better evaluate the $\mu$TDE rates from this scenario will be discussed elsewhere. In the following we provide an order of magnitude estimate.
If the natal kick imparted to the CO after SN explosion is randomly oriented and the kick velocity is larger than the Keplerian velocity of the binary (i.e. the interaction is dominated by the natal kick velocity), the probability a tidal disruption is the angular phase space covered by the stellar companion target; i.e. the disruption probability is of the order of $(\sigma_{t}/4\pi a^{2})$, where $\sigma_{t}=\pi R_{t}^{2}(1+2GM_{bin}/R_{t}v^{2}$) is the cross section for such a close encounter (including the gravitational focusing term), $v$ is the relative velocity, and $a$ is the binary separation just after the SN. The probability for such events is therefore a decreasing function of the binary separation.
Binaries with a massive primary ($>$ 8 M$_{\odot}$ progenitors of NSs or BHs) and separations smaller than $\sim10$ AU will interact through a common envelope. Let us first consider only binaries with larger separations. Moe (PhD thesis, 2015 and private communication; see also [@san+12]) finds that $\sim80$ % of all massive stars have a binary companion with separation in the range $0.3-20$ AU, distributed with a log-uniform distribution. We therefore obtain that $\sim0.3$ of all massive stars have non - strongly-interacting binary companions in the separation range $10\,{\rm AU<r<20\,{\rm AU}}$. Given the disruption probability dependence on the binary separation; the rate of $\mu$TDEs will be dominated by binaries in this separation range, and we neglect the additional smaller contribution from wider binaries (only $\lesssim20$ % of all massive stars have binary companions with $a>20$ AU). The disruption probability is therefore on the order of $$\begin{aligned}
p & \sim\left(\frac{\sigma_{t}}{4\pi a^{2}}\right)\simeq\left(\frac{r_{t}^{2}}{a^{2}}\right)\left(\frac{GM_{bin}}{2r_{t}v_{kick}^{2}}\right)\simeq\\
\simeq & 5\times10^{-6}\left(\frac{M_{\bullet}/10M_{\odot}}{M_{\star}/M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{R_{*}}{R_{\odot}}\right)\times\\
\times & \left(\frac{(M_{\bullet}+M_{\star})/11M_{\odot}}{(v_{kick}/190\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1})^{2}}\right)\left(\frac{15\,{\rm AU}}{a}\right)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The core-collapse SN rate in the Galaxy is $\sim2.8\pm0.6$ per century [@li+11]. Therefore, assuming a binary fraction of $0.3$ in the relevant separation range and $v_{kick}^{NS}\sim190\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$, and $2/3$ of these SNe producing a NS, while the rest produce a BH, we obtain a $\mu$TDE rate of $\sim3.4\times10^{-7}$ yr$^{-1}$ per MW galaxy for NSs, while the more massive (and hence smaller kick velocity) BHs provide a rate of $\sim1.4\times10^{-6}$ yr$^{-1}$ per MW galaxy.
Interacting binaries which evolve through mass transfer may go through a common envelope and either merge or give rise to a compact binary with a short period, prior to the SN explosion. In such compact binaries the orbital Keplerian velocity is high and could be comparable with or much higher than the kick velocity, such that the conditions for a close approach following the natal kick need to be fine tuned [@Tro+10]. @Tro+10 studied in detail the possibility of a collision between two COs in a close binary following a SN kick, obtaining collision probabilities of the order of $10^{-8}-10^{-7}$. The cross-section for a tidal encounter with a star is much higher than the cross-section for a collision (by a factor of the tidal radius to the CO radius in the gravitational focusing regime), suggesting this channel as a potentially promising channel for $\mu$TDEs, with tidal disruption probability of the order of $10^{-4}-10^{-3}$. Nevertheless, the formation rate of such short period binaries just prior to the SN explosion strongly depends on not well understood binary stellar evolution and in particular the common envelope phase. We do note that X-ray binaries evolve through a short-period binary phase, and that their formation efficiency is low (the formation rate of X-ray binaries is of the order $\sim3\times10^{-7}$ yr$^{-1}$ per MW galaxy) suggesting that this channel might not be very efficient.
$\mu$TDEs from perturbed wide-binaries in the field
----------------------------------------------------
@mic+15 suggest that low-mass X-ray binaries might form in the field through close interactions between a CO and a wide binary companion induced by perturbations from field stars (following [@kai+14], who discussed a similar scenario for the collisions of two MS stars). Such a process leads to tidal capture like processes, and may therefore produce tidal disruption events at similar rates. Michaely & Perets consider various scenarios; the most efficient scenarios can reproduce the LMXB population in the Galaxy. If we assume this is indeed the main channel for LMXB formation (especially BH-LMXBs) we should expect a similar rate of $\mu$TDEs from the same scenario, namely of the order of few times $10^{-7}$yr$^{-1}$ per MW galaxy.
Discussion and Summary
=======================
In this paper we have explored the partial and full tidal disruptions of stellar and sub-stellar objects by stellar COs. Such disruptions may result in energetic flares of long duration (tens of minutes to hours) following the accretion of the tidal debris onto the CO. The flare energy is highly dependent on the poorly understood accretion process, and could vary by orders of magnitude. If most of the tidal debris mass is accreted to the CO, and the energy is efficiently emitted, the accretion flares may be as energetic as GRBs and should be observable from extragalactic distances, probably with GRB like characteristics but with much longer timescales ($10^{3}-10^{4}$ s; and hence fainter), starting with a relatively flat light curve but decaying in a power law fashion at late times. Such flares are also not necessarily associated with a supernova (where GRB 060614 may serve as a possible candidate; see @luy+08 for a similar suggestion). Alternatively, large outflows may allow only a small fraction of the tidal debris to be accreted, in which case much fainter flares, with total energies smaller by orders of magnitudes may arise.
Our main focus was on disruptions by BHs. Though many similar aspects are expected to characterize disruptions by NSs and WDs, the latter have a physical surface and the accreted material may interact with the surface possibly producing violent events such as X-ray bursts (NSs) and novaes (WDs). Moreover, the accretion of material through TDEs may affect the evolution of such COs and their spin, in cases where significant amount of material is accreted. This work focuses on the accretion event itself, but future follow-up should address the long-term implications and observational signatures from $\mu$TDEs, which are beyond the scope of our current discussion.
On the longer timescales debris from a $\mu$TDE may slowly continue to fall back, possibly forming a long-lived accretion disk (e.g. especially if the disrupted star is an evolved star) that could power an X-ray binary-like object, though with only an accretion disk and not an actual stellar companion (J. Steiner and J. Guillochon, private communication 2015; see also @1976MNRAS.175P...1H [@kro84] for a consideration of tidal-capture-formed long-lived X-ray sources). In an alternative scenario the debris that falls back on the CO gives rise to a gaseous envelope around the CO, possibly forming a Thorne-Zytkow object; however this requires the fall-back of the disrupted star to be very large [@1977ApJ...212..832T], likely arising only from a direct collision rather than a tidal disruption.
Flares following close encounters in dense stellar systems, are likely to occur mainly in dense systems such as globular clusters, galactic nuclei or massive young clusters, and may thus be observable in both early and late type galaxies, with total $\mu$TDE rates of $10^{-7}-10^{-6}$ yr$^{-1}$ per MW-galaxy; comparable rates might also be obtained through tidal disruptions occurring in perturbed wide (>1000 AU) binaries in the field. Flares following a kick of the CO into stellar/sub-stellar companion are likely to be associated with a SN and would occur in star-forming regions, typically months after the SN. Such $\mu$TDEs can also occur at rates comparable with the other scenarios, but are rare compared to the core-collapse SNe rate, i.e. they occur once for every $\sim10^{5}$ core-collapse SNe. We do caution, however, that the latter rate may be underestimated since it does not include the potential contribution from kicks in short-period planetary systems or binaries (possibly evolved through a common-envelope phase prior to the SN; $\mu$TDEs in the latter systems may occur hours to days after the explosion (i.e. during the early stages of the SN rise). The ultra-long GRB 111209A has been observed to be associated with a very luminous SN [@Gre+15]. The delay between the SN and the GRB in this case was at most a few days, and therefore, a $\mu$TDE interpretation for this event indeed requires a compact, likely post-common envelope binary. We should stress that $\mu$TDEs are super-Eddington events, and likely the radiation process arises from a jet. In this case he *observed* rates should be reduced compared with our calculations by a beaming factor, while the apparent luminosities we describe should be enhanced by the same factor.
The expected properties of $\mu$TDEs are consistent with and might explain the origins of ultra-long GRBs [@lev+14]; long lived ($10^{4}$ s) GRBs, showing an initial plateau followed by a rapid decay. Our current models suggest that $\mu$TDEs are not likely to explain the origin of GRBs.
$\mu$TDEs may also explain the origin of the SWIFT detected TDE-candidates [@Blo+11; @Bur+11; @Can+12; @Bro+15], suggested to be produced through a TDE by a supermassive black hole. The typical timescales for the latter are longer than the observed $10^{5}$s, challenging the currently suggested origin, but quite consistent with the $\mu$TDE scenario.
The possible cases where $\mu$TDEs could be related to regular GRBs are those in which a GRB results in the formation of a CO, which is then kicked and disrupts a companion. In this respect, we can mention the very long flare (a $few\times10^{4}\,s$ ) observed in GRB 050724 a few hours after the prompt emission, which could possibly be explained by a $\mu$TDE. Interestingly, this would come in accord with a scenario suggested by @2005astro.ph.10192M for this GRB. They try to explain a shorter late flare in this same event by shock heating from the prompt GRB explosion on a companion which they suggest exists for this GRB progenitor. Taking into account the appropriate velocities possible for a kick, the timescale for both events (the shock heating and the tidal disruption) would correspond to the same distance between the binary members. However, the relevant timescales as well as other flares observed in this event make other scenarios equally, if not more, plausible than a disruption event.
The late flare (16 days after the GRB) in the case of GRB 050709 [@2005Natur.437..845F] is also noteworthy. The very long delay between the flares, could potentially be explained by a $\mu$TDE event; e.g. produced following a natal kick during the formation of a BH from the merger of two NSs, which then disrupts a wider companion. Such a scenario might be fine tuned, but currently no other scenario for this extremely late flare had been suggested.
Finally, the recently discovered sample of ultra-long GRBs could potentially be explained as $\mu$TDEs. Such a scenario would naturally explain their very long timescales compared with regular long GRBs, and suggest the possible existence of yet longer time-scale, but fainter events.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, T., & [Kumar]{}, P. 2001, , 549, 948
, F., & [Perets]{}, H. B. 2012, , 757, 27
, P. J., & [Livio]{}, M. 2000, , 532, 540
, S., [Livio]{}, M., & [Piran]{}, T. 2000, , 545, 772
, J. S., [Giannios]{}, D., [Metzger]{}, B. D., [et al.]{} 2011, Science, 333, 203
, T., [et al.]{} 2004, , 610, 707
, A. E. 2005, , 361, 955
, G. C., [Levan]{}, A. J., [Stanway]{}, E. R., [et al.]{} 2015, , 452, 4297
, G. E., [Lee]{}, C.-H., & [Bethe]{}, H. A. 2000, , 541, 918
, D. N., [Kennea]{}, J. A., [Ghisellini]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2011, , 476, 421
, J. K., [Lee]{}, H. M., & [Goodman]{}, J. 1990, , 351, 38
, S. B., [Krimm]{}, H. A., [Horesh]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 753, 77
, R. A. 1993, , 411, L33
, E. R., & [Begelman]{}, M. C. 2014, , 781, 82
, R., & [Rappaport]{}, S. 1992, , 396, 587
, C. R., & [Kochanek]{}, C. S. 1989, , 346, L13
, J., [Lombardi]{}, J., & [Rasio]{}, F. 2010, [StarCrash: 3-d Evolution of Self-gravitating Fluid Systems]{}, Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1010.074
, A. C., [Pringle]{}, J. E., & [Rees]{}, M. J. 1975, , 172, 15P
, D. B., [et al.]{} 2005, , 437, 845
, J. M., [et al.]{} 2004, , 352, 1
, C., [et al.]{} 1999, , 516, 892
, C. L., & [Woosley]{}, S. E. 1998, , 502, L9+
, E., [Lombardi]{}, Jr., J. C., & [Portegies Zwart]{}, S. 2010, , 402, 105
, S., [et al.]{} 2006, , 653, L25
, O. Y., & [Ostriker]{}, J. P. 1997, , 474, 223
, J., [Mazzali]{}, P. A., [Kann]{}, D. A., [et al.]{} 2015, , 523, 189
, J., & [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E. 2013, , 767, 25
, B. M. S., & [Murali]{}, C. 1998, , 505, L15+
, K., [Stone]{}, N., & [Loeb]{}, A. 2013, , 434, 909
, J. G. 1976, , 175, 1P
—. 1976, , 17, 95
, J. G., & [Day]{}, C. A. 1976, , 17, 87
, N., [Heinke]{}, C. O., [Rasio]{}, F. A., [Belczynski]{}, K., & [Fregeau]{}, J. M. 2008, , 386, 553
, N. A., & [Raymond]{}, S. N. 2014, , 782, 60
, B., & [Dong]{}, S. 2012, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1211.4584
, S. S., [Park]{}, M.-G., & [Lee]{}, H. M. 1999, , 519, 647
, C. S. 1994, , 422, 508
, S. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 148
, J. H. 1984, , 282, 452
, J. H., [Meiksin]{}, A., & [Joss]{}, P. C. 1984, , 282, 466
, J. H., [Townes]{}, C. H., & [Hollenbach]{}, D. J. 1982, , 262, 120
, P., [et al.]{} 1993, , 410, L83
, H. M., [Kim]{}, S. S., & [Kang]{}, H. 1996, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 29, 19
, N., & [Sills]{}, A. 2011, , 410, 2370
, P. J. T., [Hills]{}, J. G., & [Dewey]{}, R. J. 1994, , 423, L19
, A. J. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 44
, A. J., [Tanvir]{}, N. R., [Starling]{}, R. L. C., [et al.]{} 2014, , 781, 13
, L.-X., [Narayan]{}, R., & [Menou]{}, K. 2002, , 576, 753
, W., [Leaman]{}, J., [Chornock]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2011, , 412, 1441
, A., & [Ulmer]{}, A. 1997, , 489, 573
, Y., [Huang]{}, Y. F., & [Zhang]{}, S. N. 2008, arXiv:0801.2419
, Y., [et al.]{} 2006, astro-ph/0612525
, A. I., [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E., & [Zhang]{}, W. 2005, astro-ph/0510192
, M., [Guillochon]{}, J., & [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E. 2012, , 757, 134
, E., & [Perets]{}, H. B. 2015, ArXiv:1510.0602
, R., [Piran]{}, T., & [Kumar]{}, P. 2001, , 557, 949
, R., & [Quataert]{}, E. 2005, Science, 307, 77
, E., [Rappaport]{}, S., & [Podsiadlowski]{}, P. 2002, , 573, 283
, E. S. 1989, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 136, The Center of the Galaxy, ed. M. [Morris]{}, 543
, C., & [Meylan]{}, G. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, ed. S. G. [Djorgovski]{} & G. [Meylan]{}, 357–+
, F. A. 1991, PhD thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
, M. J. 1988, , 333, 523
, S., [Davies]{}, M. B., [Thielemann]{}, F.-K., & [Piran]{}, T. 2000, , 360, 171
, M. 1992, , 265, 82
, H., [de Mink]{}, S. E., [de Koter]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2012, Science, 337, 444
, R., [Kobayashi]{}, S., & [Rossi]{}, E. M. 2010, , 708, 605
, M. M. 1999, , 311, 363
, N., [Sari]{}, R., & [Loeb]{}, A. 2013, , 435, 1809
, C. C., [de Ugarte Postigo]{}, A., [Fryer]{}, C. L., [et al.]{} 2011, , 480, 72
, K. S., & [Zytkow]{}, A. N. 1977, , 212, 832
, E., [Wynn]{}, G. A., [O’Brien]{}, P. T., & [Rosswog]{}, S. 2010, , 401, 1381
, A. 1999, , 514, 180
, A., [Paczynski]{}, B., & [Goodman]{}, J. 1998, , 333, 379
, M., & [Karttunen]{}, H. 2006, [The Three-Body Problem]{} (The Three-Body Problem, by Mauri Valtonen and Hannu Karttunen, pp. . ISBN 0521852242. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.)
, S., [Farrar]{}, G. R., [Gezari]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2011, , 741, 73
, W., & [Fryer]{}, C. L. 2001, , 550, 357
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a pairing Hamiltonian of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer form which exhibits two quantum critical lines of deconfined excitations. This conclusion is drawn using the exact Bethe ansatz equations of the model which admit a class of analytic solutions. The deconfined excitations obey generalised exclusion statistics. A notable property of the Hamiltonian is that it is non-hermitian. Although it does not have a real spectrum for all choices of coupling parameters, we provide a rigorous argument to establish that real spectra occur on the critical lines. The critical lines are found to be invariant under a renormalisation group map.'
address: 'Centre for Mathematical Physics, School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland 4072, Australia'
author:
- 'Jon Links, Amir Moghaddam, and Yao-Zhong Zhang'
title: 'Deconfined quantum criticality and generalised exclusion statistics in a non-hermitian BCS model '
---
Introduction
============
Characterising quantum states of matter has been a subject of fervent activity for some years now, using a variety of techniques. Terms such as order parameter, renormalisation group, excitation gap, entanglement, fidelity, topological invariant, and conformal invariance are commonly found in the identification of quantum critical (or quantum phase transition) points between distinct quantum phases. In [@svbsf04; @sbsvf04] it was proposed that quantum criticality may be identified by deconfined (or emergent) excitations at the critical point, which are not found in phases adjacent to the critical point. Here we present a pairing Hamiltonian of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) form [@bcs57] which provides an example of this phenomenon through two lines of critical points. This model has five properties which, in combination, give it a unique profile: 1) the model admits an exact Bethe ansatz solution whereby the energy spectrum associated to the deconfined excitations can be calculated analytically; 2) the deconfined excitations exist for finite-sized systems, not just in the thermodynamic limit; 3) the deconfined excitations obey generalised exclusion statistics; 4) the Hamiltonian is non-hermitian but has a real spectrum on the critical lines; 5) the spectrum of deconfined excitations is invariant under a renormalisation group map.
The Hamiltonian
===============
The general form for a reduced BCS Hamiltonian as originally discussed in [@bcs57] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm{BCS}}=\sum_{j=1}^{L}\epsilon_j n_j
-\sum_{j,k=1}^{L}G_{jk}
c_{k+}^{\dagger}c_{k-}^{\dagger}c_{j-} c_{j+}. \label{h_bcs} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $j=1,\dots,{L}$ enumerates doubly-degenerate, single-particle energy levels with energy $\epsilon_j$ for level $j$. The operators $c_{j\pm} ,\,c^{\dagger}_{j\pm}$ are annihilation and creation operators for fermions at level $j$, and $n_j=c^\dagger_{j+}c_{j+}
+ \ c^\dagger_{j-}c_{j-} $ are fermion number operators. The labels $\pm$ refer to pairs of time-reversed states. Throughout we will work with a [*picket fence*]{} model whereby the $\epsilon_j$ are uniformly and symmetrically distributed around zero. In particular we choose $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_j = \left(j-\frac{L+1}{2}\right)\delta
\label{pf}\end{aligned}$$ where the level spacing $\delta$ provides an energy scale for the system.
The study of exactly solvable cases of BCS Hamiltonians originates from the work of Richardson [@r63] dealing with uniform couplings $G_{jk}=G$ for all $j,k$. This case is also known as the $s$-wave pairing model. Our interest is in the choice $$\begin{aligned}
G_{jk}=\begin{cases}
G_+ ,& j< k , \\
\displaystyle \frac{G_++G_-}{2}, & j=k, \\
G_- ,& j>k
\end{cases}
\label{gees}\end{aligned}$$ for two independent parameters $G_+$ and $G_-$. This contains the Richardson subcase when $G_+=G_-$. The instance where $G_+$ and $G_-$ are a complex conjugate pair is known as the [*Russian Doll*]{} model, which has a self-adjoint Hamiltonian. It was introduced in [@lrs04] as an example of a many-body system admitting a cyclic renormalisation group map, motivated by the one-body model of Glazek and Wilson [@gw]. The Russian Doll model was shown to be exactly solvable in [@dl04]. Below we study (\[h\_bcs\],\[pf\],\[gees\]) for real-valued $G_+,\,G_->0$. It will be shown that the critical lines are given by $$\begin{aligned}
G_+ - G_-=\pm 2\delta.
\label{crit}\end{aligned}$$
An important feature of the Hamiltonian (\[h\_bcs\]) is the blocking effect. For any unpaired fermion at level $j$, the action of the pairing interaction is zero since only paired fermions are scattered. This means that the Hilbert space can be decoupled into a product of paired and unpaired fermion states in which the action of the Hamiltonian on the space for the unpaired fermions is diagonal in the basis of number operator eigenstates. In view of this property the pair number operator $\displaystyle N=\sum_{j=1}^L c^\dagger_{j+}c_{j+}c_{j-}^\dagger c_{j-}$ commutes with (\[h\_bcs\]) and thus provides a good quantum number. Throughout, $M$ will be used to denote the eigenvalues of the pair number operator, while $m$ will denote the eigenvalues of the total fermion number operator $n=\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^L n_j$.
First we address that issue that the Hamiltonian is generally non-hermitian for real-valued $G_+,\,G_->0$, so is not guaranteed to have a real spectrum (except when $G_+=G_-$, or when either of $G_{\pm}$ is zero). The study of non-hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra has attracted intense activity [@special]. Numerical diagonalisation for small system sizes shows that (\[h\_bcs\]) subject to (\[pf\],\[gees\]) does give rise to complex spectra for some choices of the coupling parameters, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The numerical results show that the boundaries between real and complex spectra are close to the lines given by (\[crit\]). Next we turn to the exact solution of the Hamiltonian to show that (\[crit\]) are associated with deconfined excitations obeying generalised exclusion statistics.
Exact Bethe ansatz solution and generalised exclusion statistics
================================================================
The exact solution for (\[h\_bcs\]) subject to (\[gees\]) was obtained using the techniques of the [*Quantum Inverse Scattering Method*]{} and [*algebraic Bethe ansatz*]{} [@faddeev]. In order to present the exact solution, which is adapted from [@dl04], it is useful to make a change of variables. We parameterise the coupling constants $G_\pm$ through variables $\alpha$, $\eta$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha&=\frac{1}{2}\ln \left(\frac{G_+}{G_-}\right),\quad
\eta= \frac{1}{2}\left(G_+ - G_-\right).
\label{change}\end{aligned}$$ For our purposes it will be sufficient to restrict the subsequent analysis to the subspace with no unpaired fermions (i.e. $M=m/2$). The exact solution for the energy spectrum on this subspace is $$\begin{aligned}
E=2\sum_{k=1}^M v_k
\label{nrg}\end{aligned}$$ where the $v_k,\,k=1,...,M$, are solutions of the system of [*Bethe ansatz equations*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
&e^{2\alpha} P(v_k+\eta) \prod^M_{j\neq k}(v_k-v_j-\eta) =P(v_k) \prod^M_{j\neq k}(v_k-v_j+\eta), \quad k=1,...,M
\label{bae}\end{aligned}$$ with $\displaystyle P(u)=\prod_{j=1}^L(u-\epsilon_j-\eta/2)$. Each of the solutions $v_k$ may be viewed as the energy of a fermion in a Cooper pair quasiparticle. However these quasiparticles are typically bound rather than free, since a solution set for $M$ quasiparticles is not simply the union of one-body solutions due to the coupled nature of (\[bae\]).
In general the Eqs. (\[bae\]) cannot be solved analytically. However setting $\eta=\pm\delta$, and recalling (\[pf\]), it is seen that the polynomials $P(u)$ and $P(u+\eta)$ share a set of common roots. Specifically $P(v)=P(v+\eta)=0$ for $ v\in {\mathcal S}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal S}= \{\delta(k-L/2):k=1,...,L-1 \}.
\label{s}\end{aligned}$$ For this case we obtain analytic solutions of (\[bae\]) by choosing $v_k\in {\mathcal S}$ for $k=1,...,M$, with associated energies given by (\[nrg\]). A remarkable property of these solutions, corresponding to the lines (\[crit\]), is that the energies are independent of the parameter $\alpha$. This justifies identifying them with deconfined excitations which do not occur for generic values of $G_\pm$. Note however that these particular solutions which occur on the critical lines are [*not*]{} associated with the ground state of the model, and that there is a gap between the ground and excited states.
For these deconfined excitations a free quasiparticle interpretation [*is*]{} appropriate, since a solution set for $M$ particles is simply the union of one-body solutions chosen from ${\mathcal S}$. However there are still restrictions that apply to the possible choices, which leads to the picture of free quasiparticles obeying generalised exclusion statistics in the sense proposed by Haldane [@h91]. Partially deconfined excitations also occur, where some roots belong to ${\mathcal S}$ and others do not, but will not be discussed here. Next we state the main result before explaining the details behind it:
For the Hamiltonian (\[h\_bcs\]) subject to (\[pf\],\[gees\],\[crit\]), consider a set ${\mathcal T}=\{v_1,\,v_2,\,...,v_M\}$ where each $v_j\in\,{\mathcal S}$ as given by (\[s\]). Then ${\mathcal T}$ gives rise to an energy eigenvalue of a deconfined excitation through (\[nrg\]) provided that for each pair $v_j,\,v_k\in\, {\mathcal T}$ we have $|v_j-v_k|> \delta$. For given $L$ and $M\leq L/2$ the total number of deconfined excitations is $$\begin{aligned}
n(L,M)=\frac{(L-M)!}{(L-2M)!M!}
\label{number}\end{aligned}$$ and they are said to obey generalised exclusion statistics. A consequence is that deconfined excitations do not occur for filling fractions greater than 1/2.
This result stems from certain aspects of the representation theory of the Yangian algebra $Y(gl(2))$ associated to the Lie algebra $gl(2)$ [@cp90], which is the algebraic structure underpinning the exact solution of the Hamiltonian through the algebraic Bethe ansatz [@faddeev]. For our purposes we view this algebra as being dependent on a variable, which in the present context corresponds to $\eta$.
The finite-dimensional, highest-weight modules of $Y(gl(2))$ are characterised by a polynomial, in an analogous way that finite-dimensional, highest-weight modules of $gl(2)$ are characterised by a highest-weight vector. Typically such a polynomial is termed a [*Drinfeld polynomial*]{}. Every polynomial is a Drinfeld polynomial, through its decomposition into [*strings*]{} [@cp90], for some finite-dimensional, highest-weight module. Given a polynomial $Q(u)$ of order $L$, if $Q(u)$ and $Q(u+\eta)$ do not have common roots then the $Y(gl(2))$-module which has $Q(u)$ as its Drinfeld polynomial is irreducible of dimension $2^L$. If the roots are then varied such that a common root does occur, at say $u=w$, the module contains a non-trivial submodule. In such a case we can write $Q(u)=(u-w)(u-w-\eta)R(u)$ such that $Q(w)=Q(w+\eta)=0$. Then the module associated to $Q(u)$ contains a submodule containing a highest-weight state associated with the Drinfeld polynomial $R(u)$.
For the case at hand with generic values of the level spacing $\delta$, the Drinfeld polynomial is the polynomial $P(u)$ which appears in (\[bae\]) and is associated with an irreducible module. However setting $\eta=\pm\delta$, $P(u)$ and $P(u+\eta)$ have many common roots and non-trivial submodules arise. For a given index $j$, $2j\in\,{\mathbb Z}$ with $2-L\leq 2j\leq L-2$, consider the expression $$P(u)=(u-(j-1)\delta)(u-j\delta)(u-(j+1)\delta)S(u)$$ where $S(u)$ is a polynomial of degree $L-3$. We set $v_1=j\delta $ and $v_2=(j-1)\delta$ such that $v_1-v_2=\delta$ and $P(v_1)=P(v_1+\delta)=P(v_2)=P(v_2+\delta)=0$ with $S(v_1)=S(v_2+\delta)\neq 0$. By the previous discussion the module associated with $P(u)$ contains a submodule with a highest-weight state associated with the Drinfeld polynomial $R_1(u)=(u-v_2)S(u)$. This highest-weight state has energy $E_1=2v_1$. The module associated with $P(u)$ also contains a submodule with a highest-weight state associated to the Drinfeld polynomial $R_2(u)=(u-(v_1+\delta))S(u)$. This highest-weight state has energy $E_2=2v_2$. Now $R_1(v_2)=0$ but $R_1(v_2+\delta)\neq 0$, and $R_2(v_1+\delta)= 0$ but $R_2(v_1)\neq 0$. So there is no highest-weight state to be found with energy $E_{1+2}=E_1+E_2$. For this reason we cannot take both $v_1$ and $v_2$ as elements of a solution set for (\[bae\]). A straightforward counting argument leads to (\[number\]). At a mathematical level the Hamiltonian is very closely related in some respects, but quite different in others, to the Haldane-Shastry model [@h_s] for which $Y(gl(2))$ also plays an intimate role [@bghp93]. It is well-known that some distinguishing features of the Haldane-Shastry model are that the energy levels are known analytically, they contain high degeneracies, they have integer spacing (in appropriate units), and the excitations are categorised as being [*semionic*]{} [@h91a]. This bears some similarity to the spectrum of deconfined excitations described above. The quantum Lax operator as given in [@bghp93] for the Haldane-Shastry model is equivalent, up to a non-unitary transformation, to the quantum Lax operator for (\[h\_bcs\]). The transfer matrix obtained by using the form of the Lax operator in [@bghp93] is self-adjoint on the critical lines, from which it follows that the spectrum of (\[h\_bcs\],\[pf\],\[gees\]) is real on the critical lines. A key difference is the inclusion of the “twist in the boundary conditions” parameterised by the variable $\alpha$ [@dl04], which does not have an analogue in the Haldane-Shastry model. Another contrasting feature is that the Haldane-Shastry model Hamiltonian is not derived from a transfer matrix associated to the Yangian algebra, but is more closely related to the quantum determinant [@wgx97].
Renormalisation group map
=========================
The motivation of [@lrs04] to introduce the Russian Doll model was for the study of cyclic renormalisation group maps. The mathematical difference between the Russian Doll model and the non-hermitian model considered here is simply through the change of variables $\eta \rightarrow i\eta, \alpha \rightarrow i\alpha$. Thus we can directly transcribe the renormalisation group map for the non-hermitian model from the results of [@lrs04]. For a system of $L$ levels, eliminating high magnitude energy degrees of freedom associated with $\epsilon_1$ or $\epsilon_L$ leads to a system of $L-1$ levels with renormalised coupling constants $$\begin{aligned}
G_\pm^{(L-1)}= G_\pm^{(L)}+\frac{1}{2\delta L} G_+^{(L)}G_-^{(L)} .
\label{rg}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[change\]) and (\[rg\]) it is seen that $\eta$ is invariant under the renormalisation group map, while $\alpha$ is not. As the spectrum of deconfined states on the critical lines is independent of $\alpha$, this spectrum is also invariant under (\[rg\]).
Mean-field analysis
===================
Finally we make some comments on results obtained through a mean-field analysis, the details of which will be deferred to a later publication. We introduce a cut-off energy $\omega$ by setting $\delta=2\omega/(L-1)$ such that $\epsilon_1=-\omega$ and $\epsilon_L=\omega$. Letting $G_{\pm}=4\omega g_{\pm}/L$, $x=\langle{n}\rangle/(2L)$, in the continuum limit $L\rightarrow \infty,\,G_{\pm}\rightarrow 0$ we obtain from mean-field techniques the following expressions for the chemical potential $\mu$ and gap parameter $\Delta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu=\frac{\omega(g_+^{\chi}+g_-^{\chi})(2x-1)}{g_+^{\chi}-g_-^{\chi}}, \quad
\Delta^2=\frac{16\omega^2 g_+^\chi g_-^\chi x(1-x)}{(g_+^\chi-g_-^\chi)^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi=1/(g_+-g_-)$. Note that $\Delta^2>0$ for all $g_{\pm}$ with $0<x<1$. The elementary excitation spectrum is found to be given by $\mathcal{E}(\epsilon)=\sqrt{(\epsilon-\mu)^2+\Delta^2},\, -\omega\leq \epsilon\leq \omega.$ We obtain the gound-state energy per fermion as $$\begin{aligned}
e_{\rm MF}
&=-\frac{1}{8x\omega}\left((\omega+\mu)\sqrt{(\omega-\mu)^2+\Delta^2}+(\omega-\mu)\sqrt{(\omega+\mu)^2+\Delta^2}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Note that in the hermitian limit $g_\pm \rightarrow g$ for which $\chi\rightarrow \infty$, both $\mu$ and $\Delta$ can be evaluated through use of $\displaystyle \exp(x)=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \left(1+{x}/{n}\right)^n$. In particular for half-filling $x=1/2$ we obtain $\mu=0$ and $\Delta={\omega}/{\sinh(1/2g)}$ which is in agreement with the classic $s$-wave result obtained in [@bcs57] (equation (2.40)).
From the above results we point out the following two observations, which pose some open questions to be addressed in future work.
- In the mean-field approximation the non-hermitian Hamiltonian has real spectrum for all couplings $g_\pm$ and filling fractions $x$. It might be expected that mean-field results are exact in the thermodynamic limit (e.g. see [@rsd02] for when $g_+=g_-$). It would be very useful to determine whether or not the energy spectrum is real to leading order, with complex terms only appearing in lower order corrections.
- In terms of the mean-field variables the critical lines (\[crit\]) correspond to $\chi=\pm 1$. Here the mean-field excitation spectrum of the Bogoliubov quasiparticles does not obviously display some subset of excitations with the property of being invariant with respect to $\alpha$. It is consequently not clear whether it is possible to reproduce generalised exclusion statistics within the Bogoliubov quasiparticle picture.
We thank an anonymous referee for very useful comments. Jon Links and Yao-Zhong Zhang are supported by the Australian Research Council through Discovery Projects DP110101414 and DP110103434 respectively. Amir Moghaddam is supported by an International Postgraduate Research Scholarship and a UQ Research Scholarship.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M.P.A. Fisher, Science [**303**]{}, 1490 (2004).
T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 144407 (2004).
J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. [**108**]{}, 1175 (1957).
R.W. Richardson, Phys. Lett. [**3**]{}, 277 (1963).
A. LeClair, J.M. Román, and G. Sierra, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 020505(R) (2004).
St.D. Glazek and K.G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 230401 (2002).
C. Dunning and J. Links, Nucl. Phys. B [**702**]{}, 481 (2004).
C.M. Bender, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**70**]{}, 947 (2007); C.M. Bender, A. Fring, U. Guenther, and H.F. Jones, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**45**]{}, 010201 (2012).
L.A. Takhtadzhan and L.D. Faddeev, Russ. Math. Surv. [**34**]{}, 11 (1979).
F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 937 (1991).
V. Chari and A. Pressley, L’Enseignement Math. [**36**]{}, 267 (1990).
F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 635 (1988); B.S. Shastry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 639 (1988).
D. Bernard, M. Gaudin, F.D.M. Haldane, and V. Pasquier, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**26**]{}, 5219 (1993).
F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 1529 (1991).
Z.-F. Wang, M.-L. Ge, and K. Xue, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**30**]{}, 5023 (1997).
J.M. Román, G. Sierra, and J. Dukelsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**634**]{}, 483 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent neural models have shown significant progress on the problem of generating short descriptive texts conditioned on a small number of database records. In this work, we suggest a slightly more difficult data-to-text generation task, and investigate how effective current approaches are on this task. In particular, we introduce a new, large-scale corpus of data records paired with descriptive documents, propose a series of extractive evaluation methods for analyzing performance, and obtain baseline results using current neural generation methods. Experiments show that these models produce fluent text, but fail to convincingly approximate human-generated documents. Moreover, even templated baselines exceed the performance of these neural models on some metrics, though copy- and reconstruction-based extensions lead to noticeable improvements.'
author:
- Sam Wiseman
- 'Stuart M. Shieber'
- |
Alexander M. Rush\
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences\
Harvard University\
Cambridge, MA, USA\
[{swiseman,shieber,srush}@seas.harvard.edu ]{}
bibliography:
- 'gen.bib'
title: 'Challenges in Data-to-Document Generation'
---
Introduction
============
Over the past several years, neural text generation systems have shown impressive performance on tasks such as machine translation and summarization. As neural systems begin to move toward generating longer outputs in response to longer and more complicated inputs, however, the generated texts begin to display reference errors, inter-sentence incoherence, and a lack of fidelity to the source material. The goal of this paper is to suggest a particular, long-form generation task in which these challenges may be fruitfully explored, to provide a publically available dataset for this task, to suggest some automatic evaluation metrics, and finally to establish how current, neural text generation methods perform on this task.
A classic problem in natural-language generation (NLG) [@kukich1983design; @mckeown1992text; @reiter1997building] involves taking structured data, such as a table, as input, and producing text that adequately and fluently describes this data as output. Unlike machine translation, which aims for a complete transduction of the sentence to be translated, this form of NLG is typically taken to require addressing (at least) two separate challenges: *what to say*, the selection of an appropriate subset of the input data to discuss, and *how to say it*, the surface realization of a generation [@reiter1997building; @jurafsky2014speech]. Traditionally, these two challenges have been modularized and handled separately by generation systems. However, neural generation systems, which are typically trained end-to-end as conditional language models [@mikolov-2010; @sutskever2011generating; @sutskever2014sequence], blur this distinction.
In this context, we believe the problem of generating multi-sentence summaries of tables or database records to be a reasonable next-problem for neural techniques to tackle as they begin to consider more difficult NLG tasks. In particular, we would like this generation task to have the following two properties: (1) it is relatively easy to obtain fairly clean summaries and their corresponding databases for dataset construction, and (2) the summaries should be primarily focused on conveying the information in the database. This latter property ensures that the task is somewhat congenial to a standard encoder-decoder approach, and, more importantly, that it is reasonable to *evaluate* generations in terms of their fidelity to the database.
One task that meets these criteria is that of generating summaries of sports games from associated box-score data, and there is indeed a long history of NLG work that generates sports game summaries [@robin1994revision; @tanaka1998reactive; @barzilay2005collective]. To this end, we make the following contributions:
- We introduce a new large-scale corpus consisting of textual descriptions of basketball games paired with extensive statistical tables. This dataset is sufficiently large that fully data-driven approaches might be sufficient.
- We introduce a series of extractive evaluation models to automatically evaluate output generation performance, exploiting the fact that post-hoc information extraction is significantly easier than generation itself.
- We apply a series of state-of-the-art neural methods, as well as a simple templated generation system, to our data-to-document generation task in order to establish baselines and study their generations.
Our experiments indicate that neural systems are quite good at producing fluent outputs and generally score well on standard word-match metrics, but perform quite poorly at content selection and at capturing long-term structure. While the use of copy-based models and additional reconstruction terms in the training loss can lead to improvements in BLEU and in our proposed extractive evaluations, current models are still quite far from producing human-level output, and are significantly worse than templated systems in terms of content selection and realization. Overall, we believe this problem of data-to-document generation highlights important remaining challenges in neural generation systems, and the use of extractive evaluation reveals significant issues hidden by standard automatic metrics.
Data-to-Text Datasets
=====================
We consider the problem of generating descriptive text from database records. Following the notation in @liang2009learning, let $\bolds = \{r_j\}_{j=1}^J$ be a set of records, where for each $r \, {\in} \, \bolds$ we define $r.t \, {\in} \, \mcT$ to be the *type* of $r$, and we assume each $r$ to be a binarized relation, where $r.e$ and $r.m$ are a record’s entity and value, respectively. For example, a database recording statistics for a basketball game might have a record $r$ such that $r.t$ = <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">points</span>, $r.e$ = <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Russell Westbrook</span>, and $r.m=50$. In this case, $r.e$ gives the player in question, and $r.m$ gives the number of points the player scored. From these records, we are interested in generating descriptive text, $\hat{y}_{1:T} = \hat{y}_1, \ldots, \hat{y}_T$ of $T$ words such that $\hat{y}_{1:T}$ is an adequate and fluent summary of $\bolds$. A dataset for training data-to-document systems typically consists of $(\bolds, y_{1:T})$ pairs, where $y_{1:T}$ is a document consisting of a gold (i.e., human generated) summary for database $\bolds$.
Several benchmark datasets have been used in recent years for the text generation task, the most popular of these being <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WeatherGov</span> [@liang2009learning] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Robocup</span> [@chen2008learning]. Recently, neural generation systems have show strong results on these datasets, with the system of achieving BLEU scores in the 60s and 70s on <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WeatherGov</span>, and BLEU scores of almost 30 even on the smaller <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Robocup</span> dataset. These results are quite promising, and suggest that neural models are a good fit for text generation. However, the statistics of these datasets, shown in Table \[tab:datastats\], indicate that these datasets use relatively simple language and record structure. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WeatherGov</span> is at least partially machine-generated [@reiterblog]. More recently, @lebret2016neural introduced the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WikiBio</span> dataset, which is at least an order of magnitude larger in terms of number of tokens and record types. However, as shown in Table \[tab:datastats\], this dataset too only contains short (single-sentence) generations, and relatively few records per generation. As such, we believe that early success on these datasets is not yet sufficient for testing the desired linguistic capabilities of text generation at a document-scale.
With this challenge in mind, we introduce a new dataset for data-to-document text generation, available at <https://github.com/harvardnlp/boxscore-data>. The dataset is intended to be comparable to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WeatherGov</span> in terms of token count, but to have significantly longer target texts, a larger vocabulary space, and to require more difficult content selection.
The dataset consists of two sources of articles summarizing NBA basketball games, paired with their corresponding box- and line-score tables. The data statistics of these two sources, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBNation</span>, are also shown in Table \[tab:datastats\]. The first dataset, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span>, uses professionally written, medium length game summaries targeted at fantasy basketball fans. The writing is colloquial, but relatively well structured, and targets an audience primarily interested in game statistics. The second dataset, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBNation</span>, uses fan-written summaries targeted at other fans. This dataset is significantly larger, but also much more challenging, as the language is very informal, and often tangential to the statistics themselves. We show some sample text from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> in Figure \[fig:samplesummary\]. Our primary focus will be on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> data.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RC</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WG</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WB</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RW</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBN</span>
------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
Vocab 409 394 400K 11.3K 68.6K
Tokens 11K 0.9M 19M 1.6M 8.8M
Examples 1.9K 22.1K 728K 4.9K 10.9K
Avg Len 5.7 28.7 26.1 337.1 805.4
Rec. Types 4 10 1.7K 39 39
Avg Records 2.2 191 19.7 628 628
: Vocabulary size, number of total tokens, number of distinct examples, average generation length, total number of record types, and average number of records per example for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Robocup</span> (RC), <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WeatherGov</span> (WG), <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WikiBio</span> (WB), <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> (RW), and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBNation</span> (SBN) datasets.[]{data-label="tab:datastats"}
Evaluating Document Generation
==============================
We begin by discussing the evaluation of generated documents, since both the task we introduce and the evaluation methods we propose are motivated by some of the shortcomings of current approaches to evaluation. Text generation systems are typically evaluated using a combination of automatic measures, such as BLEU [@papineni02bleu], and human evaluation. While BLEU is perhaps a reasonably effective way of evaluating short-form text generation, we found it to be unsatisfactory for document generation. In particular, we note that it primarily rewards fluent text generation, rather than generations that capture the most important information in the database, or that report the information in a particularly coherent way. While human evaluation, on the other hand, is likely ultimately necessary for evaluating generations [@liu2016how; @wu2016google], it is much less convenient than using automatic metrics. Furthermore, we believe that current text generations are sufficiently bad in sufficiently obvious ways that automatic metrics can still be of use in evaluation, and we are not yet at the point of needing to rely solely on human evaluators.
Extractive Evaluation {#sec:extractive}
---------------------
To address this evaluation challenge, we begin with the intuition that assessing document quality is easier than document generation. In particular, it is much easier to automatically extract information from documents than to generate documents that accurately convey desired information. As such, simple, high-precision information extraction models can serve as the basis for assessing and better understanding the quality of automatic generations. We emphasize that such an evaluation scheme is most appropriate when evaluating generations (such as basketball game summaries) that are primarily intended to summarize information. While many generation problems do not fall into this category, we believe this to be an interesting category, and one worth focusing on *because* it is amenable to this sort of evaluation.
To see how a simple information extraction system might work, consider the document in Figure \[fig:samplesummary\]. We may first extract candidate entity (player, team, and city) and value (number and certain string) pairs $r.e, r.m$ that appear in the text, and then predict the type $r.t$ (or none) of each candidate pair. For example, we might extract the entity-value pair (“Miami Heat”, “95”) from the first sentence in Figure \[fig:samplesummary\], and then predict that the *type* of this pair is <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">points</span>, giving us an extracted record $r$ such that $(r.e, r.m, r.t) = $ (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Miami Heat</span>, 95, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">points</span>). Indeed, many relation extraction systems reduce relation extraction to multi-class classification precisely in this way [@zhang2004weakly; @zhou2008semi; @zeng2014relation; @dosSantos2015classifying].
More concretely, given a document $\hat{y}_{1:T}$, we consider all pairs of word-spans in each sentence that represent possible entities $e$ and values $m$. We then model $p(r.t \, | \, e, m;\btheta)$ for each pair, using $r.t =\epsilon$ to indicate unrelated pairs. We use architectures similar to those discussed in @collobert2011natural and @dosSantos2015classifying to parameterize this probability; full details are given in the Appendix.
Importantly, we note that the $(\bolds, y_{1:T})$ pairs typically used for training data-to-document systems are also sufficient for training the information extraction model presented above, since we can obtain (partial) supervision by simply checking whether a candidate record lexically matches a record in $\bolds$.[^1] However, since there may be multiple records $r \, {\in} \, \bolds$ with the same $e$ and $m$ but with different types $r.t$, we will not always be able to determine the type of a given entity-value pair found in the text. We therefore train our classifier to minimize a latent-variable loss: for all document spans $e$ and $m$, with observed types $t(e,m)= \{r.t : r \, {\in} \, \bolds, r.e \, {=} \, e, r.m \, {=} \, m\}$ (possibly $\{\epsilon\}$), we minimize $$\begin{aligned}
\mcL(\btheta) = - \sum_{e,m} \log \sum_{t'\in t(e,m)} p(r.t=t' \given e,m ;\btheta).\end{aligned}$$
We find that this simple system trained in this way is quite accurate at predicting relations. On the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rotowire</span> data it achieves over 90% accuracy on held-out data, and recalls approximately 60% of the relations licensed by the records.
Comparing Generations {#sec:comparing}
---------------------
With a sufficiently precise relation extraction system, we can begin to evaluate how well an automatic generation $\hat{y}_{1:T}$ has captured the information in a set of records $\bolds$. In particular, since the predictions of a precise information extraction system serve to align entity-mention pairs in the text with database records, this alignment can be used both to evaluate a generation’s content selection (“what the generation says”), as well as content placement (“how the generation says it”).
We consider in particular three induced metrics:
- Content Selection (CS): precision and recall of unique relations $r$ extracted from $\hat{y}_{1:T}$ that are also extracted from $y_{1:T}$. This measures how well the generated document matches the gold document in terms of selecting which records to generate.
- Relation Generation (RG): precision and number of unique relations $r$ extracted from $\hat{y}_{1:T}$ that also appear in $\bolds$. This measures how well the system is able to generate text containing factual (i.e., correct) records.
- Content Ordering (CO): normalized Damerau-Levenshtein Distance [@brill2000improved][^2] between the sequences of records extracted from $y_{1:T}$ and that extracted from $\hat{y}_{1:T}$. This measures how well the system orders the records it chooses to discuss.
We note that CS primarily targets the “what to say” aspect of evaluation, CO targets the “how to say it” aspect, and RG targets both.
We conclude this section by contrasting the automatic evaluation we have proposed with recently proposed *adversarial evaluation* approaches, which also advocate automatic metrics backed by classification [@bowman2016generating; @kannan2016adversarial; @li2017adversarial]. Unlike adversarial evaluation, which uses a black-box classifier to determine the quality of a generation, our metrics are defined with respect to the predictions of an information extraction system. Accordingly, our metrics are quite interpretable, since by construction it is always possible to determine which fact (i.e., entity-value pair) in the generation is determined by the extractor to not match the database or the gold generation.
Neural Data-to-Document Models {#sec:models}
==============================
In this section we briefly describe the neural generation methods we apply to the proposed task. As a base model we utilize the now standard attention-based encoder-decoder model [@sutskever2014sequence; @cho2014on; @bahdanau2015neural]. We also experiment with several recent extensions to this model, including copy-based generation, and training with a source reconstruction term in the loss (in addition to the standard per-target-word loss).
#### Base Model
For our base model, we map each record $r \, {\in} \, \bolds$ into a vector $\tilde{\boldr}$ by first embedding $r.t$ (e.g., <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">points</span>), $r.e$ (e.g., <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Russell Westbrook</span>), and $r.m$ (e.g., 50), and then applying a 1-layer MLP (similar to @yang2016reference).[^3] Our source data-records are then represented as $\tilde{\bolds} = \{\tilde{\boldr}_j\}_{j=1}^J$. Given $\tilde{\bolds}$, we use an LSTM decoder with attention and input-feeding, in the style of @luong2015effective, to compute the probability of each target word, conditioned on the previous words and on $\bolds$. The model is trained end-to-end to minimize the negative log-likelihood of the words in the gold text $y_{1:T}$ given corresponding source material $\bolds$.
#### Copying
There has been a surge of recent work involving augmenting encoder-decoder models to copy words directly from the source material on which they condition [@gu2016incorporating; @gulcehre2016pointing; @merity2016pointer; @jia2016data; @yang2016reference]. These models typically introduce an additional binary variable $z_t$ into the per-timestep target word distribution, which indicates whether the target word $\hat{y}_t$ is copied from the source or generated: $$\begin{aligned}
p(\hat{y}_t \given \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) = \sum_{z \in \{0,1\}} p(\hat{y}_t, z_t = z \given \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds).\end{aligned}$$ In our case, we assume that target words are copied from the *value* portion of a record $r$; that is, a copy implies $\hat{y}_t \, {=} \, r.m$ for some $r$ and $t$.
#### Joint Copy Model
The models of @gu2016incorporating and @yang2016reference parameterize the *joint* distribution table over $\hat{y}_t$ and $z_t$ directly: $$\begin{aligned}
p(&\hat{y}_t, z_t \given \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) \propto \\
&\begin{cases} \mathrm{copy}( \hat{y}_{t}, \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) &\mbox{$z_t = 1$, $\hat{y}_t \in \bolds$} \\
0 &\mbox{$z_t = 1$, $\hat{y}_t \not \in \bolds$} \\
\mathrm{gen}( \hat{y}_{t}, \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) &\mbox{$z_t=0$}, \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{copy}$ and $\mathrm{gen}$ are functions parameterized in terms of the decoder RNN’s hidden state that assign scores to words, and where the notation $\hat{y}_t \, {\in} \, \bolds$ indicates that $\hat{y}_t$ is equal to $r.m$ for some $r \, {\in} \, \bolds$.
#### Conditional Copy Model
@gulcehre2016pointing, on the other hand, decompose the joint probability as: $$\begin{aligned}
&p(\hat{y}_t, z_t \given \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) = \\ &\begin{cases} p_{\mathrm{copy}}(\hat{y}_t \given z_t, \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) \, p(z_t \given \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) &\mbox{$z_t{=}1$} \\
p_{\mathrm{gen}}(\hat{y}_t \given z_t, \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) \, p(z_t \given \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds) &\mbox{$z_t{=}0$}, \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
where an MLP is used to model $p(z_t \given \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds)$.
Models with copy-decoders may be trained to minimize the negative log marginal probability, marginalizing out the latent-variable $z_t$ [@gu2016incorporating; @yang2016reference; @merity2016pointer]. However, if it is known which target words $y_t$ are copied, it is possible to train with a loss that does not marginalize out the latent $z_t$. @gulcehre2016pointing, for instance, assume that any target word $y_t$ that also appears in the source is copied, and train to minimize the negative joint log-likelihood of the $y_t$ and $z_t$. In applying such a loss in our case, we again note that there may be multiple records $r$ such that $r.m$ appears in $\hat{y}_{1:T}$. Accordingly, we slightly modify the $p_{\mathrm{copy}}$ portion of the loss of @gulcehre2016pointing to sum over all matched records. In particular, we model the probability of relations $r \in \bolds$ such that $r.m = y_t$ and $r.e$ is in the same sentence as $r.m$. Letting $r(y_t) = \{ {r\in \bolds: r.m=y_t, \mathrm{same{-}sentence}(r.e, r.m)} \}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\text{copy}}(y_t \given z_t, y_{1:t-1}, \bolds) &= \sum_{r \in r(y_t)} p(r \given z_t, y_{1:t-1}, \bolds).\end{aligned}$$
We note here that the key distinction for our purposes between the Joint Copy model and the Conditional Copy model is that the latter *conditions* on whether there is a copy or not, and so in $p_{\mathrm{copy}}$ the source records compete only with each other. In the Joint Copy model, however, the source records also compete with words that cannot be copied. As a result, training the Conditional Copy model with the supervised loss of @gulcehre2016pointing can be seen as training with a word-level reconstruction loss, where the decoder is trained to choose the record in $\bolds$ that gives rise to $y_t$.
#### Reconstruction Losses
Reconstruction-based techniques can also be applied at the document- or sentence-level during training. One simple approach to this problem is to utilize the hidden states of the decoder to try to reconstruct the database. A fully differentiable approach using the decoder hidden states has recently been successfully applied to neural machine translation by @tu2017neural. Unlike copying, this method is applied only at training, and attempts to learn decoder hidden states with broader coverage of the input data.
In adopting this reconstruction approach we segment the decoder hidden states $\boldh_t$ into $\lceil \frac{T}{B} \rceil$ contiguous blocks of size at most $B$. Denoting a single one of these hidden state blocks as $\boldb_i$, we attempt to predict each field value in some record $r \in \bolds$ from $\boldb_i$. We define $p(r.e, r.m \given \boldb_i)$, the probability of the entity and value in record $r$ given $\boldb_i$, to be $\mathrm{softmax}(f(\boldb_i))$, where $f$ is a parameterized function of $\boldb_i$, which in our experiments utilize a convolutional layer followed by an MLP; full details are given in the Appendix. We further extend this idea and predict $K$ records in $\bolds$ from $\boldb_i$, rather than one. We can train with the following reconstruction loss for a particular $\boldb_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mcL(\btheta) &= -\sum_{k=1}^K \min_{r \in \bolds} \log p_k(r \given \boldb_i; \btheta) \\
&= -\sum_{k=1}^K \min_{r \in \bolds} \sum_{x \in \{e, m, t\}} \log p_k(r.x \given \boldb_i; \btheta) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $p_k$ is the $k$’th predicted distribution over records, and where we have modeled each component of $r$ independently. This loss attempts to make the *most* probable record in $\bolds$ given $\boldb_i$ more probable. We found that augmenting the above loss with a term that penalizes the total variation distance (TVD) between the $p_k$ to be helpful.[^4] Both $\mcL(\btheta)$ and the TVD term are simply added to the standard negative log-likelihood objective at training time.
Experimental Methods
====================
In this section we highlight a few important details of our models and methods; full details are in the Appendix. For our <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> models, the record encoder produces $\tilde{\boldr}_j$ in $\reals^{600}$, and we use a 2-layer LSTM decoder with hidden states of the same size as the $\tilde{\boldr}_j$, and dot-product attention and input-feeding in the style of @luong2015effective. Unlike past work, we use two identically structured attention layers, one to compute the standard generation probabilities ($\mathrm{gen}$ or $p_{\mathrm{gen}}$), and one to produce the scores used in $\mathrm{copy}$ or $p_{\mathrm{copy}}$.
We train the generation models using SGD and truncated BPTT [@elman1990; @mikolov-2010], as in language modeling. That is, we split each $y_{1:T}$ into contiguous blocks of length 100, and backprop both the gradients with respect to the current block as well as with respect to the encoder parameters for each block.
Our extractive evaluator consists of an ensemble of 3 single-layer convolutional and 3 single-layer bidirectional LSTM models. The convolutional models concatenate convolutions with kernel widths 2, 3, and 5, and 200 feature maps in the style of [@kim2014convolutional]. Both models are trained with SGD.
#### Templatized Generator
In addition to neural baselines, we also use a problem-specific, template-based generator. The template-based generator first emits a sentence about the teams playing in the game, using a templatized sentence taken from the training set:
> [The `<team1>` (`<wins1>`-`<losses1>`) defeated the `<team2>` (`<wins2>`-`<losses2>`) `<pts1>`-`<pts2>`. ]{}
Then, 6 player-specific sentences of the following form are emitted (again adapting a simple sentence from the training set):
> [`<player>` scored `<pts>` points (`<fgm>`-`<fga>` FG, `<tpm>`-`<tpa>` 3PT, `<ftm>`-`<fta>` FT) to go with `<reb>` rebounds. ]{}
The 6 highest-scoring players in the game are used to fill in the above template. Finally, a typical end sentence is emitted:
> [The `<team1>`’ next game will be at home against the Dallas Mavericks, while the `<team2>` will travel to play the Bulls.]{}
Code implementing all models can be found at <https://github.com/harvardnlp/data2text>. Our encoder-decoder models are based on OpenNMT [@opennmt].
Results
=======
We found that all models performed quite poorly on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBNation</span> data, with the best model achieving a validation perplexity of 33.34 and a BLEU score of 1.78. This poor performance is presumably attributable to the noisy quality of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBNation</span> data, and the fact that many documents in the dataset focus on information not in the box- and line-scores. Accordingly, we focus on <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> in what follows.
The main results for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> dataset are shown in Table \[tab:maintestresults\], which shows the performance of the models in Section \[sec:models\] in terms of the metrics defined in Section \[sec:comparing\], as well as in terms of perplexity and BLEU.
Discussion
----------
------ ------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ -------
CO PPL BLEU
Beam Model P% \# P% R% DLD%
Gold 91.77 12.84 100 100 100 1.00 100
Template 99.35 49.7 18.28 65.52 12.2 N/A 6.87
Joint Copy 47.55 7.53 20.53 22.49 8.28 7.46 10.41
Joint Copy + Rec 57.81 8.31 23.65 23.30 9.02 7.25 10.00
Joint Copy + Rec + TVD 60.69 8.95 23.63 24.10 8.84 7.22 12.78
Conditional Copy 68.94 9.09 25.15 22.94 9.00 7.44 13.31
Joint Copy 47.00 10.67 16.52 26.08 7.28 7.46 10.23
Joint Copy + Rec 62.11 10.90 21.36 26.26 9.07 7.25 10.85
Joint Copy + Rec + TVD 57.51 11.41 18.28 25.27 8.05 7.22 12.04
Conditional Copy 71.07 12.61 21.90 27.27 8.70 7.44 14.46
Template 99.30 49.61 18.50 64.70 8.04 N/A 6.78
Joint Copy + Rec (B=5) 61.23 11.02 21.56 26.45 9.06 7.47 10.88
Joint Copy + Rec + TVD (B=1) 60.27 9.18 23.11 23.69 8.48 7.42 12.96
Conditional Copy (B=5) 71.82 12.82 22.17 27.16 8.68 7.67 14.49
------ ------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ -------
There are several interesting relationships in the development portion of Table \[tab:maintestresults\]. First we note that the Template model scores very poorly on BLEU, but does quite well on the extractive metrics, providing an upper-bound for how domain knowledge could help content selection and generation. All the neural models make significant improvements in terms of BLEU score, with the conditional copying with beam search performing the best, even though all the neural models achieve roughly the same perplexity.
The extractive metrics provide further insight into the behavior of the models. We first note that on the gold documents $y_{1:T}$, the extractive model reaches $92\%$ precision. Using the Joint Copy model, generation only has a record generation (RG) precision of $47\%$ indicating that relationships are often generated incorrectly. The best Conditional Copy system improves this value to $71\%$, a significant improvement and potentially the cause of the improved BLEU score, but still far below gold.
Notably, content selection (CS) and content ordering (CO) seem to have no correlation at all with BLEU. There is some improvement with CS for the conditional model or reconstruction loss, but not much change as we move to beam search. CO actually gets worse as beam search is utilized, possibly a side effect of generating more records (RG\#). The fact that these scores are much worse than the simple templated model indicates that further research is needed into better copying alone for content selection and better long term content ordering models.
Test results are consistent with development results, indicating that the Conditional Copy model is most effective at BLEU, RG, and CS, and that reconstruction is quite helpful for improving the joint model.
Human Evaluation
----------------
We also undertook two human evaluation studies, using Amazon Mechanical Turk. The first study attempted to determine whether generations considered to be more precise by our metrics were also considered more precise by human raters. To accomplish this, raters were presented with a particular NBA game’s box score and line score, as well as with (randomly selected) sentences from summaries generated by our different models for those games. Raters were then asked to count how many facts in each sentence were supported by records in the box or line scores, and how many were contradicted. We randomly selected 20 distinct games to present to raters, and a total of 20 generated sentences per game were evaluated by raters. The left two columns of Table \[tab:humantable\] contain the average numbers of supporting and contradicting facts per sentence as determined by the raters, for each model. We see that these results are generally in line with the RG and CS metrics, with the Conditional Copy model having the highest number of supporting facts, and the reconstruction terms significantly improving the Joint Copy models.
Using a Tukey HSD post-hoc analysis of an ANOVA with the number of contradicting facts as the dependent variable and the generating model and rater id as independent variables, we found significant ($p < 0.01$) pairwise differences in contradictory facts between the gold generations and all models except “Copy+Rec+TVD,” as well as a significant difference between “Copy+Rec+TVD” and “Copy”. We similarly found a significant pairwise difference between “Copy+Rec+TVD” and “Copy” for number of supporting facts.
Our second study attempted to determine whether generated summaries differed in terms of how natural their *ordering* of records (as captured, for instance, by the DLD metric) is. To test this, we presented raters with random summaries generated by our models and asked them to rate the naturalness of the ordering of facts in the summaries on a 1-7 Likert scale. 30 random summaries were used in this experiment, each rated 3 times by distinct raters. The average Likert ratings are shown in the rightmost column of Table \[tab:humantable\]. While it is encouraging that the gold summaries received a higher average score than the generated summaries (and that the reconstruction term again improved the Joint Copy model), a Tukey HSD analysis similar to the one presented above revealed no significant pairwise differences.
\# Supp. \# Cont. Order Rat.
----------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------
Gold 2.04 0.70 5.19
Joint Copy 1.65 2.31 3.90
Joint Copy + Rec 2.33 1.83 4.43
Joint Copy + Rec +TVD 2.43 1.16 4.18
Conditional Copy 3.05 1.48 4.03
: Average rater judgment of number of box score fields supporting (left column) or contradicting (middle column) a generated sentence, and average rater Likert rating for the naturalness of a summary’s ordering (right column). All generations use B=1.[]{data-label="tab:humantable"}
Qualitative Example
-------------------
Figure \[fig:qualitative\] shows a document generated by the Conditional Copy model, using a beam of size 5. This particular generation evidently has several nice properties: it nicely learns the colloquial style of the text, correctly using idioms such as “19 percent from deep.” It is also partially accurate in its use of the records; we highlight in blue when it generates text that is licensed by a record in the associated box- and line-scores.
At the same time, the generation also contains major logical errors. First, there are basic copying mistakes, such as flipping the teams’ win/loss records. The system also makes obvious semantic errors; for instance, it generates the phrase “the Rockets were able to out-rebound the Rockets.” Finally, we see the model hallucinates factual statements, such as “in front of their home crowd,” which is presumably likely according to the language model, but ultimately incorrect (and not supported by anything in the box- or line- scores). In practice, our proposed extractive evaluation will pick up on many errors in this passage. For instance, “four assists” is an RG error, repeating the Rockets’ rebounds could manifest in a lower CO score, and incorrectly indicating the win/loss records is a CS error.
Related Work
============
In this section we note additional related work not noted throughout. Natural language generation has been studied for decades [@kukich1983design; @mckeown1992text; @reiter1997building], and generating summaries of sports games has been a topic of interest for almost as long [@robin1994revision; @tanaka1998reactive; @barzilay2005collective].
Historically, research has focused on both content selection (“what to say”) [@kukich1983design; @mckeown1992text; @reiter1997building; @duboue2003statistical; @barzilay2005collective], and surface realization (“how to say it”) [@goldberg1994using; @reiter2005choosing] with earlier work using (hand-built) grammars, and later work using SMT-like approaches [@wong2007generation] or generating from PCFGs [@belz2008automatic] or other formalisms [@soricut2006stochastic; @white2007towards]. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, a number of systems were proposed that did both [@liang2009learning; @angeli2010simple; @kim2010generative; @lu2011probabilistic; @konstas2013global].
Within the world of neural text generation, some recent work has focused on conditioning language models on tables [@yang2016reference], and generating short biographies from Wikipedia Tables [@lebret2016neural; @chisholm2017learning]. @mei2016what use a neural encoder-decoder approach on standard record-based generation datasets, obtaining impressive results, and motivating the need for more challenging NLG problems.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
This work explores the challenges facing neural data-to-document generation by introducing a new dataset, and proposing various metrics for automatically evaluating content selection, generation, and ordering. We see that recent ideas in copying and reconstruction lead to improvements on this task, but that there is a significant gap even between these neural models and templated systems. We hope to motivate researchers to focus further on generation problems that are relevant both to content selection and surface realization, but may not be reflected clearly in the model’s perplexity.
Future work on this task might include approaches that process or attend to the source records in a more sophisticated way, generation models that attempt to incorporate semantic or reference-related constraints, and approaches to conditioning on facts or records that are not as explicit in the box- and line-scores.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We gratefully acknowledge the support of a Google Research Award.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
A. Additional Dataset Details {#a.-additional-dataset-details .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> data covers NBA games played between 1/1/2014 and 3/29/2017; some games have multiple summaries. The summaries have been randomly split into training, validation, and test sets consisting of 3398, 727, and 728 summaries, respectively.
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBNation</span> data covers NBA games played between 11/3/2006 and 3/26/2017; some games have multiple summaries. The summaries have been randomly split into training, validation, and test sets consisting of 7633, 1635, and 1635 summaries, respectively.
All numbers in the box- and line-scores (but not the summaries) are converted to integers; fractional numbers corresponding to percents are multiplied by 100 to obtain integers in $[0, 100]$. We show the *types* of records in the data in Table \[tab:types\].
------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
**Player Types** <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">posn</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">min</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pts</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fgm</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fga</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fg-pct</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fg3m</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fg3a</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fg3-pct</span>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ftm</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fta</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ft-pct</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreb</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dreb</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">reb</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ast</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tov</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">stl</span>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blk</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pf</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">full-name</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">name1</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">name2</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">city</span>
\[2mm\] **Team Types** <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pts-qtr1</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pts-qtr2</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pts-qtr3</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pts-qtr4</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pts</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fg-pct</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fg3-pct</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ft-pct</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">reb</span>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ast</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tov</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">wins</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">losses</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">city</span> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">name</span>
------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
B. Generation Model Details {#sec:suppgen .unnumbered}
---------------------------
#### Encoder
For the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RotoWire</span> data, a relation $r$ is encoded into $\tilde{\boldr}$ by embedding each of $r.e$, $r.t$, $r.m$ and a “home-or-away” indicator feature in $\reals^{600}$, and applying a 1-layer MLP (with ReLU nonlinearity) to map the concatenation of these vectors back into $\reals^{600}$. To initialize the decoder LSTMs, we first mean-pool over the $\tilde{\boldr}_j$ by entity (giving one vector per entity), and then linearly transform the concatenation of these pooled entity-representations so that they can initialize the cells and hidden states of a 2-layer LSTM with states also in $\reals^{600}$. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBNation</span> setup is identical, except all vectors are in $\reals^{700}$.
#### Decoder
As mentioned in the body of the paper, we compute two different attention distributions (i.e., using different parameters) at each decoding step. For the Joint Copy model, one attention distribution is not normalized, and is normalized along with all the output-word probabilities.
Within the Conditional Copy model we compute $p(z_t | \hat{y}_{1:t-1}, \bolds)$ by mean-pooling the $\tilde{\boldr}_j$, concatenating them with the current (topmost) hidden state of the LSTM, and then feeding this concatenation via a 1-layer ReLU MLP with hidden dimension 600, and with a Sigmoid output layer.
For the reconstruction-loss, we feed blocks (of size at most 100) of the decoder’s LSTM hidden states through a [@kim2014convolutional]-style convolutional model. We use kernels of width 3 and 5, 200 filters, a ReLU nonlinearity, and max-over-time pooling. To create the $p_k$, these now 400-dimensional features are then mapped via an MLP with a ReLU nonlinearity into 3 separate 200 dimensional vectors corresponding to the predicted relation’s entity, value, and type, respectively. These 200 dimensional vectors are then fed through (separate) linear decoders and softmax layers in order to obtain distributions over entities, values, and types. We use $K=3$ distinct $p_k$.
Models are trained with SGD, a learning rate of 1 (which is divided by 2 every time validation perplexity fails to decrease), and a batch size of 16. We use dropout (at a rate of 0.5) between LSTM layers and before the linear decoder.
C. Information Extraction Details {#c.-information-extraction-details .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
#### Data
To form an information extraction dataset, we first sentence-tokenize the gold summary documents $y_{1:T}$ using NLTK [@bird2006nltk]. We then determine which word-spans $y_{i:j}$ could represent entities (by matching against players, teams, or cities in the database), and which word-spans $y_{k:l}$ could represent numbers (using the open source `text2num` library[^5] to convert (strings of) number-words into numbers).[^6] We then consider each $y_{i:j}, y_{k:l}$ pair in the same sentence, and if there is a record $r$ in the database such that $r.e \, {=} \, y_{i:j}$ and $r.m \, {=} \, \mathrm{text2num}(y_{k:l})$ we annotate the $y_{i:j}, y_{k:l}$ pair with the label $r.t$; otherwise, we give it a label of $\epsilon$.
#### Model
We predict relations by ensembling 3 convolutional models and 3 bidirectional LSTM [@hochreiter1997lstm; @graves2005framewise] models. Each model consumes the words in the sentence, which are embedded in $\reals^{200}$, as well as the distances of each word in the sentence from both the entity-word-span and the number-word-spans (as described above), which are each embedded in $\reals^{100}$. These vectors are concatenated (into a vector in $\reals^{500}$) and fed into either a convolutional model or a bidirectional LSTM model.
The convolutional model uses 600 total filters, with 200 filters for kernels of width 2, 3, and 5, respectively, a ReLU nonlinearity, and max-pooling. These features are then mapped via a 1-layer (ReLU) MLP into $\reals^{500}$, which predicts one of the 39 relation types (or $\epsilon$) with a linear decoder layer and softmax.
The bidirectional LSTM model uses a single layer with 500 units in each direction, which are concatenated. The hidden states are max-pooled, and then mapped via a 1-layer (ReLU) MLP into $\reals^{700}$, which predicts one of the 39 relation types (or $\epsilon$) with a linear decoder layer and softmax.
[^1]: Alternative approaches explicitly align the document with the table for this task [@liang2009learning].
[^2]: DLD is a variant of Levenshtein distance that allows transpositions of elements; it is useful in comparing the ordering of sequences that may not be permutations of the same set (which is a requirement for measures like Kendall’s Tau).
[^3]: We also include an additional feature for whether the player is on the home- or away-team.
[^4]: Penalizing the TVD between the $p_k$ might be useful if, for instance, $K$ is too large, and only a smaller number of records can be predicted from $\boldb_i$. We also experimented with *encouraging*, rather than penalizing the TVD between the $p_k$, which might make sense if we were worried about ensuring the $p_k$ captured different records.
[^5]: https://github.com/exogen/text2num
[^6]: We ignore certain particularly misleading number-words, such as “three-point,” where we should not expect a corresponding value of 3 among the records.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Fine-grained entity typing is a challenging problem since it usually involves a relatively large tag set and may require to understand the context of the entity mention. In this paper, we use entity linking to help with the fine-grained entity type classification process. We propose a deep neural model that makes predictions based on both the context and the information obtained from entity linking results. Experimental results on two commonly used datasets demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach. On both datasets, it achieves more than 5% absolute strict accuracy improvement over the state of the art.'
author:
- |
Hongliang Dai^1^, Donghong Du^1,3^, Xin Li^2^, and Yangqiu Song^1^\
^1^Department of CSE, HKUST\
^2^Tencent Technology (SZ) Co., Ltd.\
[^1^{hdai,yqsong}@cse.ust.hk ]{}\
[^2^[email protected]]{}\
[^3^[email protected]]{}\
bibliography:
- 'emnlp-ijcnlp-2019.bib'
title: 'Improving Fine-grained Entity Typing with Entity Linking'
---
Introduction
============
Given a piece of text and the span of an entity mention in this text, fine-grained entity typing (FET) is the task of assigning fine-grained type labels to the mention [@ling2012fine]. The assigned labels should be context dependent [@gillick2014context]. For example, in the sentence “Trump threatens to pull US out of World Trade Organization,” the mention “Trump” should be labeled as /person and /person/politician, although Donald Trump also had other occupations such as businessman, TV personality, etc.
This task is challenging because it usually uses a relatively large tag set, and some mentions may require the understanding of the context to be correctly labeled. Moreover, since manual annotation is very labor-intensive, existing approaches have to rely on distant supervision to train models [@ling2012fine; @ghaddar2018transforming].
Thus, the use of extra information to help with the classification process becomes very important. In this paper, we improve FET with entity linking (EL). EL is helpful for a model to make typing decisions because if a mention is correctly linked to its target entity, we can directly obtain the type information about this entity in the knowledge base (KB). For example, in the sentence “There were some great discussions on a variety of issues facing Federal Way,” the mention “Federal Way” may be incorrectly labeled as a company by some FET models. Such a mistake can be avoided after linking it to the city Federal Way, Washington. For cases that require the understanding of the context, using entity linking results is also beneficial. In the aforementioned example where “Trump” is the mention, obtaining all the types of Donald Trump in the knowledge base (e.g., politician, businessman, TV personality, etc.) is still informative for inferring the correct type (i.e., politician) that fits the context, since they narrows the possible labels down.
However, the information obtained through EL should not be fully trusted since it is not always accurate. Even when a mention is correctly linked to an entity, the type information of this entity in the KB may be incomplete or outdated. Thus, in this paper, we propose a deep neural fine-grained entity typing model that flexibly predicts labels based on the context, the mention string, and the type information from KB obtained with EL.
Using EL also introduces a new problem for the training process. Currently, a widely used approach to create FET training samples is to use the anchor links in Wikipedia [@ling2012fine; @ren2016afet]. Each anchor link is regarded as a mention, and is weakly labeled with all the types of its referred entity (the Wikipedia page the anchor link points to) in KB. Our approach, when links the mention correctly, also uses all the types of the referred entity in KB as extra information. This may cause the trained model to overfit the weakly labeled data. We design a variant of the hinge loss and introduce noise during training to address this problem.
We conduct experiments on two commonly used FET datasets. Experimental results show that introducing information obtained through entity linking and having a deep neural model both helps to improve FET performance. Our model achieves more than 5% absolute strict accuracy improvement over the state of the art on both datasets.
Our contributions are summarized as follows:
- We propose a deep neural fine-grained entity typing model that utilizes type information from KB obtained through entity linking.
- We address the problem that our model may overfit the weakly labeled data by using a variant of the hinge-loss and introducing noise during training.
- We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach with experimental results on commonly used FET datasets.
Our code is available at <https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/IFETEL>.
Related Work
============
An early effort of classifying named entities into fine-grained types can be found in [@fleischman2002fine], which only focuses on person names. Latter, datasets with larger type sets are constructed [@weischedel2005; @ling2012fine; @choi2018ultra]. These datasets are more preferred by recent studies [@ren2016afet; @murty2018hierarchical].
Most of the existing approaches proposed for FET are learning based. The features used by these approaches can either be hand-crafted [@ling2012fine; @gillick2014context] or learned from neural network models [@shimaoka2017neural; @xu2018neural; @xin2018improving]. Since FET systems usually use distant supervision for training, the labels of the training samples can be noisy, erroneous or overly specific. Several studies [@ren2016label; @xin2018put; @xu2018neural] address these problems by separating clean mentions and noisy mentions, modeling type correction [@ren2016afet], using a hierarchy-aware loss [@xu2018neural], etc.
[@huang2016building] and [@zhou2018zero] are two studies that are most related to this paper. @huang2016building propose an unsupervised FET system where EL is an importat component. But they use EL to help with clustering and type name selection, which is very different from how we use it to improve the performance of a supervised FET model. [@zhou2018zero] finds related entities based on the context instead of directly applying EL. The types of these entities are then used for inferring the type of the mention.
{width="99.00000%"}
Method
======
Let $T$ be a predefined tag set, which includes all the types we want to assign to mentions. Given a mention $m$ and its context, the task is to predict a set of types $\bm{\tau}\subset T$ suitable for this mention. Thus, this is a multi-class, multi-label classification problem [@ling2012fine]. Next, we will introduce our approach for this problem in detail, including the neural model, the training of the model, and the entity linking algorithm we use.
Fine-grained Entity Typing Model {#sec:fet-model}
--------------------------------
#### Input
Each input sample to our FET system contains one mention and the sentence it belongs to. We denote $w_1,w_2,...,w_n$ as the words in the current sentence, $w_{p_1},w_{p_2},...,w_{p_l}$ as the words in the mention string, where $n$ is the number of words in the sentence, $p_1,...,p_l$ are the indices of the words in the mention string, $l$ is the number of words in the mention string. We also use a set of pretrained word embeddings.
Our FET approach is illustrated in Figure \[fig:method\]. It first constructs three representations: *context representation*, *mention string representation*, and *KB type representation*. Note that the KB type representation is obtained from a knowledge base through entity linking and is independent of the context of the mention.
#### Context Representation
To obtain the context representation, we first use a special token $w_m$ to represent the mention (the token “\[Mention\]” in Figure \[fig:method\]). Then, the word sequence of the sentence becomes $w_1,...,w_{p_l-1},\allowbreak w_m,\allowbreak w_{p_l+1},...,w_n$. Their corresponding word embeddings are fed into two layers of BiLSTMs. Let $\bm{h}_m^1$ and $\bm{h}_m^2$ be the output of the first and the second layer of BiLSTMs for $w_m$, respectively. We use $\bm{f}_c=\bm{h}_m^1+\bm{h}_m^2$ as the context representation vector.
#### Mention String Representation
Let $\bm{x}_1,...,\bm{x}_l$ be the word embeddings of the mention string words $w_{p_1},...,w_{p_l}$. Then the mention string representation $\bm{f}_s=(\sum_{i=1}^l \bm{x}_i)/l$.
#### KB Type Representation
To obtain the KB type representation, we run an EL algorithm for the current mention. If the EL algorithm returns an entity, we retrieve the types of of this entity from the KB. We use Freebase as our KB[^1]. Since the types in Freebase is different from $T$, the target type set, they are mapped to the types in $T$ with rules similar to those used in [@zhou2018zero]. Afterwards, we perform one hot encoding on these types to get the KB Type Representation $\bm{f}_e$. If the EL algorithm returns NIL (i.e., the mention cannot be linked to an entity), we simply one hot encode the empty type set.
#### Prediction
Apart from the three representations, we also obtain the score returned by our entity linking algorithm, which indicates its confidence on the linking result. We denote it as a one dimensional vector $\bm{g}$. Then, we get $\bm{f}=\bm{f}_c\oplus\bm{f}_s\oplus \bm{f}_e\oplus \bm{g}$, where $\oplus$ means concatenation. $\bm{f}$ is then fed into an MLP that contains three dense layers to obtain $\bm{u}_m$, out final representation for the current mention sample $m$. Let $t_1,t_2,...,t_k$ be all the types in $T$, where $k=|T|$. We embed them into the same space as $\bm{u}_m$ by assigning each of them a dense vector [@yogatama2015embedding]. These vectors are denoted as $\bm{t}_1,...,\bm{t}_k$. Then the score of the mention $m$ having the type $t_i\in T$ is calculated as the dot product of $\bm{u}_m$ and $\bm{t}_i$: $$s(m,t_i)=\bm{u}_m \cdot \bm{t}_i.$$ We predict $t_i$ as a type of $m$ if $s(m,t_i)>0$.
Model Training
--------------
Following existing studies, we also generate training data by using the *anchor links* in Wikipedia. Each anchor link can be used as a mention. These mentions are labeled by mapping the Freebase types of the target entries to the tag set $T$ [@ling2012fine].
Since the *KB type representations* we use in our FET model are also obtained through mapping Freebase types, they will perfectly match the automatically generated labels for the mentions that are correctly linked (i.e., when the entity returned by the EL algorithm and the target entry of the anchor link are the same). For example, in Figure \[fig:method\], suppose the example sentence is a training sample obtained from Wikipedia, where “Donald Trump” is an anchor link points to the Wikipedia page of *Donald Trump*. After mapping the Freebase types of *Donald Trump* to the target tag set, this sample will be weakly annotated as /person/politician, /person/tv\_personality, and /person/business, which is exactly the same as the type information (the “Types From KB” in Figure \[fig:method\]) obtained through EL. Thus, during training, when the EL system links the mention to the correct entity, the model only needs to output the types in the *KB type representation*. This may cause the trained model to overfit the weakly labeled training data. For most types of entities such as locations and organizations, it is fine since they usually have the same types in different contexts. But it is problematic for person mentions, as their types can be context dependent. To address this problem, during training, if a mention is linked to a person entity by our entity linking algorithm, we add a random fine-grained person type label that does not belong to this entity while generating the *KB type representation*. For example, if the mention is linked to a person with types /person/actor and /person/author, a random label /person/politician may be added. This will force the model to still infer the type labels from the context even when the mention is correctly linked, since the *KB type representation* no longer perfectly match the weak labels. To make it more flexible, we also propose to use a variant of the hinge loss used by [@abhishek2017fine] to train our model: $$\begin{split}
L&=\sum_m [\sum_{t\in \tau_m}\max(0,1-s(m,t)) \\
&+\sum_{t\in \bar{\tau}_m} \lambda (t) \max(0,1+s(m,t))]
\end{split}$$ where $\tau_m$ is the correct type set for mention $m$, $\bar{\tau}_m$ is the incorrect type set. $\lambda (t)\in [1,+\infty)$ is a predefined parameter to impose a larger penalty if the type $t$ is incorrectly predicted as positive. Since the problem of overfitting the weakly annotated labels is more severe for person mentions, we set $\lambda (t)=\lambda_P$ if $t$ is a fine-grained person type, and $\lambda (t)=1$ for all other types.
During training, we also randomly set the EL results of half of the training samples to be NIL. So that the model can perform well for mentions that cannot be linked to the KB at test time.
Entity Linking Algorithm
------------------------
In this paper, we use a simple EL algorithm that directly links the mention to the entity with the greatest commonness score. Commonness [@pan2015unsupervised; @medelyan2008integrating] is calculated base on the anchor links in Wikipedia. It estimates the probability of an entity given only the mention string. In our FET approach, the commonness score is also used as the confidence on the linking result (i.e., the $\bm{g}$ used in the prediction part of Subsection \[sec:fet-model\]). Within a same document, we also use the same heuristic used in [@ganea2017deep] to find coreferences of generic mentions of persons (e.g., “Matt”) to more specific mentions (e.g., “Matt Damon”).
We also tried other more advanced EL methods in our experiments. However, they do not improve the final performance of our model. Experimental results of using the EL system proposed in [@ganea2017deep] is provided in Section \[sec:exp\].
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
Dataset
--------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Approach Accuracy Macro F1 Micro F1 Accuracy Macro F1 Micro F1
AFET 53.3 69.3 66.4 67.0 72.7 73.5
AAA 65.8 81.2 77.4 73.3 79.1 79.2
NFETC 68.9 81.9 79.0 72.1 77.1 77.5
CLSC - - - 74.7 80.7 80.5
Ours (NonDeep NoEL) 65.9 81.7 78.0 69.3 81.4 81.5
Ours (NonDeep) 72.3 85.4 82.6 79.1 87.9 88.4
Ours (DirectTrain) 69.1 85.2 82.2 - - -
Ours (NoEL) 69.8 82.7 80.4 80.5 87.5 88.0
Ours (LocAttEL) 75.1 86.3 83.9 **82.8** 88.9 89.5
Ours (Full) **75.5** **87.1** **84.6** 82.5 **89.2** **89.6**
Setup
-----
We use two datasets: FIGER (GOLD) [@ling2012fine] and BBN [@weischedel2005]. The sizes of their tag sets are 113 and 47, respectively. FIGER (GOLD) allows mentions to have multiple type paths, but BBN does not. Another commonly used dataset, OntoNotes [@gillick2014context], is not used since it contains many pronoun and common noun phrase mentions such as “it,” “he,” “a thrift institution,” which are not suitable to directly apply entity linking on.
Following [@ling2012fine], we generate weakly labeled datasets for training with Wikipedia anchor links. Since the tag sets used by FIGER (GOLD) and BBN are different, we create a training set for each of them. For each dataset, $2,000$ weakly labeled samples are randomly picked to form a development set. We also manually annotated 50 person mentions collected from news articles for tuning the parameter $\lambda_P$.
We use the 300 dimensional pretrained GloVe word vectors provided by [@pennington2014glove]. The hidden layer sizes of the two layers of BiLSTMs are both set to 250. For the three-layer MLP, the size of the two hidden layers are both set to 500. The size of the type embeddings is 500. $\lambda_P$ is set to 2.0. We also apply batch normalization and dropout to the input of each dense layer in our three-layer MLP during training.
We use strict accuracy, Macro F1, and Micro F1 to evaluate fine-grained typing performance [@ling2012fine].
Compared Methods
----------------
We compare with the following existing approaches: AFET [@ren2016afet], AAA [@abhishek2017fine], NFETC [@xu2018neural], and CLSC [@chen2019improving].
We use **Ours (Full)** to represent our full model, and also compare with five variants of our own approach: **Ours (DirectTrain)** is trained without adding random person types while obtaining the KB type representation, and $\lambda_P$ is set to 1; **Ours (NoEL)** does not use entity linking, i.e., the KB type representation and the entity linking confidence score are removed, and the model is trained in DirectTrain style; **Ours (NonDeep)** uses one BiLSTM layer and replaces the MLP with a dense layer; **Ours (NonDeep NoEL)** is the NoEL version of *Ours (NonDeep)*; **Ours (LocAttEL)** uses the entity linking approach proposed in [@ganea2017deep] instead of our own commonness based approach. *Ours (Full)*, *Ours (DirectTrain)*, and *Ours (NonDeep)* all use our own commonness based entity linking approach.
Results
-------
The experimental results are listed in Table \[tab:fet-perf\]. As we can see, our approach performs much better than existing approaches on both datasets.
The benefit of using entity linking in our approach can be verified by comparing *Ours (Full)* and *Ours (NoEL)*. The performance on both datasets decreases if the entity linking part is removed. Especially on FIGER (GOLD), the strict accuracy drops from 75.5 to 69.8. Using entity linking improves less on BBN. We think this is because of three reasons: 1) BBN has a much smaller tag set than FIGER (GOLD); 2) BBN does not allow a mention to be annotated with multiple type paths (e.g., labeling a mention with both /building and /location is not allowed), thus the task is easier; 3) By making the model deep, the performance on BBN is already improved a lot, which makes further improvement harder.
The improvement of our full approach over *Ours (DirectTrain)* on FIGER (GOLD) indicates that the techniques we use to avoid overfitting the weakly labeled data are also effective.
*Ours (LocAttEL)*, which uses a more advanced EL system, does not achieve better performance than *Ours (Full)*, which uses our own EL approach. After manually checking the results of the two EL approaches and the predictions of our model on FIGER (GOLD), we think this is mainly because: 1) Our model also uses the context while making predictions. Sometimes, if it “thinks” that the type information provided by EL is incorrect, it may not use it. 2) The performances of different EL approaches also depends on the dataset and the types of entities used for evaluation. We find that on FIGER (GOLD), the approach in [@ganea2017deep] is better at distinguishing locations and sports teams, but it may also make some mistakes that our simple EL method does not. For example, it may incorrectly link “March,” the month, to an entity whose Wikipedia description fits the context better. 3) For some mentions, although the EL system links it to an incorrect entity, the type of this entity is the same with the correct entity.
Conclusions
===========
We propose a deep neural model to improve fine-grained entity typing with entity linking. The problem of overfitting the weakly labeled training data is addressed by using a variant of the hinge loss and introducing noise during training. We conduct experiments on two commonly used dataset. The experimental results demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This paper was supported by the Early Career Scheme (ECS, No. 26206717) from Research Grants Council in Hong Kong and WeChat-HKUST WHAT Lab on Artificial Intelligence Technology.
[^1]: We use Freebase mainly because it is widely used by existing studies. Wikidata is an alternative.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For many years, the Simplified Refined Instrumental Variable method for Continuous-time systems (SRIVC) has been widely used for identification. The intersample behaviour of the input plays an important role in this method, and it has been shown recently that the SRIVC estimator is not consistent if an incorrect assumption on the intersample behaviour is considered. In this paper, we present an extension of the SRIVC algorithm that is able to deal with input signals that cannot be interpolated exactly through hold reconstructions. The proposed estimator is generically consistent for any input reconstructed through zero or first-order-hold devices, and we show that it is generically consistent for continuous-time multisine inputs as well. The statistical performance of the proposed estimator is compared to the standard SRIVC estimator through extensive simulations.'
address:
- 'Division of Decision and Control Systems, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden'
- 'School of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, 2308 NSW, Australia'
author:
- 'Rodrigo A. González'
- 'Cristian R. Rojas'
- Siqi Pan
- 'James S. Welsh'
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: 'Consistent identification of continuous-time systems under multisine input signal excitation'
---
,
,
,
System identification; Continuous-time systems; Instrumental variable method; Consistency
Introduction
============
System identification involves using measured input and output data for building mathematical models that characterise a system’s behaviour. Different approaches to system identification have been developed depending on whether a discrete-time (DT) or continuous-time (CT) model is needed. Continuous-time system identification has applications in many areas of science and engineering such as economics, biology, physics and control, with comprehensive literature written on the subject [@rao2006identification; @Garnier2008book; @young2012recursive]. Although the system identification community has focused mainly in DT setups, as it has been investigated during a predominantly digital era, there are many reasons why CT system identification has had a renewed interest during the last decades [@garnier2015direct]. For example, model coefficients are directly linked to physical parameters, and more parsimonious models can be obtained as knowledge of the relative degree of the CT system can be accommodated. Also, contrary to the DT system identification using the forward shift operator, irregular and fast sampling can be easily handled, since the associated parameters remain invariant with respect to the varying sampling period and the model poles do not become statistically ill-defined as the sampling period decays to zero.
One of the main difficulties in CT system identification is the treatment of time derivatives. Since the goal is to obtain an estimate of a CT system, knowledge of the derivatives of the input and output are, either explicitly or implicitly, required. However, these derivatives are not exactly computable when only sampled input-output data is obtained. To overcome this problem, many algorithms have been suggested (see, e.g., [@sinha1991identification; @rao2006identification] and the references therein). One of the most popular algorithms is the Simplified Refined Instrumental Variable method for Continuous-time systems (SRIVC), which was first presented in [@young1980refined]. This method has been suggested for general use due to its robustness and accuracy in practical applications [@garnier2014advantages]. Many further extensions of this method also exist in the literature, for example, to handle non-uniformly sampled data [@huselstein2002approach] or multi-input systems [@garnier2007optimal]. Extensions to output error (OE) and Box-Jenkins (BJ) models [@chen2013refined], unification of DT and CT transfer function estimation [@young2015refined], and a comprehensive consistency analysis [@pan2020consistency] have also been presented.
The SRIVC algorithm uses interpolation of the input and output data in order to compute filtered regressor and instrument vectors in an iterative estimation procedure. This reconstruction of the CT input and output signals is usually implemented through simple interpolation schemes like zero-order hold (ZOH) or first-order hold (FOH) devices, independently of the nature of the true signals [@garnier2004time]. For inputs that can be described exactly with these reconstruction schemes, the SRIVC estimator has recently been shown to be generically consistent [@pan2020consistency]. However, when the intersample behaviour assumption on the model input does not match that of the system input, continuous-time estimation methods can deliver large estimation errors if the sampling period is large [@schoukens1994identification], and in particular, the SRIVC estimator is known to be generically inconsistent in this case. Important input signals for identification that cannot be described by holds are band limited signals such as multisines. These signals are advantageous due to their flexibility regarding power spectrum design, time domain averaging possibilities, simplification of the model validation step and finite sample estimation performance [@schoukens1994advantages]. For these input signals, the complete CT input signal is known to the practitioner, but the SRIVC procedure only performs simple interpolations of the input, which impact its consistency regardless of the sampling period.
In summary, in this paper,
- we present a refinement of the SRIVC method that is shown to yield generic consistency of the estimated model parameters for CT multisine input signal excitations;
- we prove that, given knowledge of the CT multisine input signal and measured output samples, the exact computation of the input regressors is necessary and sufficient for a generically consistent estimate of the CT system;
- we propose a computationally efficient algorithm for computing the regressors under the multisine case, and introduce an extension of the SRIVC algorithm for arbitrary CT inputs, which are not necessarily constructed through hold devices; and
- we exemplify the consistency of the proposed estimator through extensive Monte Carlo simulations.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. The identification problem is formulated in Section \[sec2\]. Section \[sec3\] provides a description of the SRIVC estimator and its consistency properties. The proposed SRIVC-type method is presented and analysed in Section \[sec4\], and Section \[sec5\] illustrates this method with extensive numerical examples. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section \[sec6\].
Problem formulation {#sec2}
===================
Consider a linear and time-invariant (LTI), causal, stable, proper, single-input single-output, CT system $$\label{eq1}
x(t) = \frac{B^*(p)}{A^*(p)} u(t), \notag$$ where $p$ is the Heaviside operator, i.e., $p g(t) := \text{d}g(t)/\text{d}t$, and the numerator and denominator polynomials are coprime and given by $$\begin{aligned}
B^*(p) &= b_0^* p^{m^*} + b_1^* p^{{m^*}-1} + \dots + b_{m^*}^*, \notag \\
A^*(p) &= a_1^* p^{n^*} + a_2^* p^{{n^*}-1} + \dots + a_{n^*}^* p+1. \notag\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that the CT input $u(t)$ is known from $t=t_1$ to $t=t_N$, and that $N$ noisy measurements of the output $x(t)$ are obtained at the instants $\{t_k\}_{k=1}^N$. In other words, the output observations are given by $$\label{outputdescription}
y(t_k) =x(t_k) + v(t_k), \quad k=1,\dots,N,$$ where it is assumed that the sampled noise sequence $\{v(t_k)\}$ can be described as a zero-mean and finite variance random process. Due to the nature of the sampled signals and the difficulty of computing the time-derivative of CT white noise, which does not have finite variance [@aastrom2012introduction], we only consider DT noise in this paper.
To identify the system, we propose the model structure $$G(p)= \frac{b_0 p^{m} + b_1 p^{m-1} + \dots + b_m}{a_1 p^{n} + a_2 p^{n-1} + \dots + a_n p+1}, \notag$$ where the parameter vector $$\theta := \begin{bmatrix}
a_1, & a_2, &\dots, & a_n, & b_0, & b_1, &\dots, & b_m
\end{bmatrix}^\top \notag$$ needs to be estimated. The goal is to obtain an accurate model of the CT system $G^*(p):=B^*(p)/A^*(p)$ given the knowledge of $N$ samples of the output measurements and the CT input signal. Note that in this framework the input signal is not limited to hold reconstructions. Hence, the description includes the standard framework where $u(t)$ is assumed to be obtained through a ZOH or FOH and extends to more general inputs, such as multisines and band limited signals [@schoukens1994advantages].
The identification of the system $G^*(p)$ can be done by obtaining the data points $\{u(t_k),y(t_k)\}$ and applying a method for CT system identification, such as in [@chen2013refined], or as in [@young1980refined; @maruta2013projection; @gonzalez2018asymptotically] for regular sampling schemes. In most of these algorithms, however, the hold reconstructions of the input and output are assumed, and they are independent of the exact nature of the signals. In this work, we show that the knowledge of the exact intersample behaviour of the input can provide further insights for a better design of the identification procedure.
The Simplified Refined Instrumental Variable method for Continuous-time systems (SRIVC) {#sec3}
=======================================================================================
The SRIVC estimator is an adaptive instrumental variable algorithm where parameter-dependent CT filters are updated iteratively. In each step, the instruments are computed using the parameter estimate obtained in the previous iteration until the model parameters have converged. The iterative procedure of the SRIVC algorithm is designed so that the sum of squares of the residuals (also called the generalised equation errors or GEEs) $\varepsilon(t_k)$, is minimised. The residuals are written as $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon(t_k) :&= y(t_k)-\frac{B(p)}{A(p)}u(t_k) \notag \\
\label{gee}
&= A(p)y_f(t_k)-B(p)u_f(t_k),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$y_f(t_k) = \frac{1}{A(p)}y(t_k) \textnormal{, and } u_f(t_k) = \frac{1}{A(p)}u(t_k). \label{filt1}$$ Note that in and we have adopted a mixed notation of CT operators and DT data. Since this dichotomy is repeatedly encountered in this paper, we formalise it in the following remark.
**.** \[remark1\] In this paper, $G(p)x(t_k)$ means that the DT signal $x(t_k)$ is interpolated in some manner, e.g., using a ZOH or FOH, and the resultant output through the CT filter $G(p)$ is sampled at $t=t_k$. On the other hand, $\{G(p)x(t)\}_{t_k}$ (or $[G(p)x(t)]_{t_k}$ in the vector-valued case) means that the CT signal $x(t)$ is filtered through $G(p)$, and later sampled at $t=t_k$.
The SRIVC method is described in Algorithm \[algorithm1\], where we denote $\varphi_f(t_k)$ as the filtered regressor vector, $\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)$ as the filtered instrument vector, and $y_f(t_k)$ as the filtered output. Note that line 8 of Algorithm \[algorithm1\] requires the DT signals to be prefiltered by CT transfer functions. This is usually done by assuming a ZOH or FOH reconstruction for the input and output signals and then simulating the response by using, for example, the `lsim` command in MATLAB. Although this approach has provided a quick procedure to compute the filtered regressor and instrument vectors, it is prone to approximation errors that can jeopardise the statistical properties of the method.
\[algorithm1\]
Input: $\{(u(t_k),y(t_k))\}_{k=1}^N$, model order $(n,m)$, initial vector estimate $\theta_1$, tolerance $\epsilon$ and maximum number of iterations $M$ Using $\theta_1$, form the estimated system polynomials $A_1(p)$ and $B_1(p)$ $j\gets 1$, $\textnormal{flag}\gets 1$ Reflect the unstable poles of $1/A_j(s)$ into the stable region of the complex $s$-plane Prefilter the (DT) input $\{u(t_k)\}_{k=1}^N$ and output $\{y(t_k)\}_{k=1}^N$ by CT filters to form
\_f(t\_k) & \^,&\
\_f(t\_k) & \^, &\
\[filteredoutput\] y\_f(t\_k) &y(t\_k)&
Compute the parameter estimate $$\label{iterations}
\theta_{j+1} \gets \hspace{-0.05cm}\left[\sum_{k=1}^N \hat{\varphi}_f(t_k) \varphi_f^\top(t_k)\right]^{-1}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left[ \sum_{k=1}^N \hat{\varphi}_f(t_k) y_f(t_k) \right]$$ $\textnormal{flag} \gets 0$ $j \gets j+1$ Output: $\theta_{j}$ and its associated model $B_j(p)/A_j(p)$.
\[algorithm1\]
**.** In the SRIVC method, the user has several choices regarding the intersample behaviour assumptions. In particular, the intersample behaviour of the input in both and can be chosen, as well as the reconstruction of the output signal for the filtering steps in and . Usually the output is selected to have a FOH behaviour, since it is argued that it typically gives rise to a satisfactory approximation if the sampling period is small [@chen2017robust].
Consistency Analysis of the SRIVC estimator
-------------------------------------------
Previous works [@young2008refined; @young2015refined] have suggested that the SRIVC estimator uses the optimal instrumental variable terms, and that it minimises the prediction error and maximises the likelihood function, but they lack rigorous theoretical analysis regarding the influence of the interpolation of the input and output for the prefiltering step. Only recently [@pan2020consistency] has the intersample behaviour of the signals been taken into account for the consistency analysis. In [@pan2020consistency Theorem 1], the generic consistency of the SRIVC estimator was proven for inputs that can be exactly interpolated by FOH or ZOH devices. More precisely, under mild assumptions regarding the sampling period and persistence of excitation of the input, the following statements are true for an input that is exactly reconstructible with FOH or ZOH interpolation:
1. The matrix $E\{\hat{\varphi}(t_k)\varphi^\top(t_k)\}$ is generically non-singular.[^1]
2. The true parameter $\theta^*$ is the unique converging point.
3. As the sample size $N$ approaches infinity, $\theta_{j+1}$ in converges to $\theta^*$ for $j\geq 1$.
Also, the effect of choosing a different intersample behaviour than that of the system input was also analysed in [@pan2020consistency Corollary 3]. In the following, we say that a *correct intersample behaviour in the input signal is assumed* whenever the intersample behaviour of such signal in the SRIVC algorithm matches that of the system input. In [@pan2020consistency] it was shown that the SRIVC estimator
1. remains generically consistent if an incorrect assumption on the intersample behaviour is used for generating the filtered signals in the instrument vector $\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)$, and
2. is generically inconsistent if an incorrect assumption on the intersample behaviour is used for filtering the input signal in the regressor vector $\varphi_f(t_k)$.
This result indicates that the intersample behaviour of the input signal needs to be correctly taken into account for the consistency of the SRIVC estimator. In particular, it implies that if the system input is a signal that is not produced by a hold mechanism, the estimator will be generically inconsistent. This argument holds regardless of whether the additive noise $v(t_k)$ is white or coloured.
Consistent SRIVC-type method {#sec4}
============================
As mentioned in the previous section, a correct assumption of the intersample behaviour of the input (ZOH of FOH) in the regressor vector $\varphi(t_k)$ guarantees generic consistency under mild conditions. The extension of this principle constitutes our main contribution. In this work, we propose an extension of the SRIVC method that computes the filtered regressors exactly for a wide class of input signals whose intersample behaviour is known and prove its consistency for multisine input excitations.
The generalised equation error for the proposed approach is $$\label{gee2}
\varepsilon(t_k) = A(p)y_f(t_k)-\{B(p)u_f(t)\}_{t_k},$$ where $u_f(t) = \frac{1}{A(p)}u(t)$. In , the predicted output measurement is explicitly calculated by first computing the underlying CT signal, and later evaluating it at $t=t_k$. The proposed estimator follows the procedure described in Algorithm \[algorithm1\], but the filtered regressor and instrument vectors in Equations and now become
&\_f(t\_k) = \^,&
and
&\_f(t\_k) = \^\_[t\_k]{}.&
Note that the $t_k$ in follows the notation in Remark \[remark1\].
**.** The proposed estimator is an extension of the standard SRIVC estimator that uses the complete CT input signal for identification. For input signals that are reconstructed exactly through a ZOH or FOH, this estimator is equivalent to the SRIVC estimator. Thus, the SRIVC-type estimator with prefiltering stage given by and is generically consistent under the same assumptions as in [@pan2020consistency].
In order to further analyse the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator, we first study its consistency for multisine inputs. Later, an extension for arbitrary input excitations is presented.
Multisine input signal
----------------------
We consider multisine input signals of the form $$\label{inputmultisine}
u(t)=\alpha_0+\sum_{l=1}^{m_u} \alpha_{l} \cos(\omega_l t + \psi_l),$$ where $m_u,\{\alpha_l\}_{l=0}^{m_u},\{\omega_l\}_{l=0}^{m_u}$ and $\{\psi_l\}_{l=0}^{m_u}$ are input parameters. The frequencies $\omega_l$ are assumed to be positive and distinct, and without loss of generality we assume that the weights $\alpha_l$ are positive as well. It is well known that the output in stationary regime of an asymptotically stable LTI filter $H(s)$ when $u(t)$ is applied is also a multisine, given by $$\label{eval3}
y(t)=H(0)\alpha_0+\sum_{l=1}^{m_u} \alpha_l|H(i\omega_l)| \cos(\omega_l t + \psi_l+\angle H(i\omega_l)).$$ This property of LTI systems provides a natural way to obtain exact values for the signal evaluations in and , and it is of low computational cost, since the prefiltering is directly obtained by evaluating with the corresponding filter. Another advantage of this approach is that it extends naturally to non-uniformly sampled data. For such type of sampling, the proposed method is not as computationally intensive as the standard SRIVC method, since the algorithm only obtains approximations of the filtered output $p^i A_j^{-1}(p)y(t_k), i=0,\dots,n$, instead of computing approximations of the filtered values of both $u(t_k)$ and $y(t_k)$. The filtered output computations can be carried out by, e.g., an adaptive Runge-Kutta method (as in [@chen2013refined]), or by any oversampling technique with intersample behaviour assumptions.
We now prove the consistency of the proposed estimator for the multisine input. The assumptions we use during the analysis are the following:
1. \[assumption1\] The true system $B^*(p)/A^*(p)$ is proper ($n^* \geq m^*$) and asymptotically stable with $A^*(p)$ and $B^*(p)$ being coprime.
2. \[assumption2\] The disturbance sequence $\{v(t_k)\}$ is a zero-mean stationary random process.
3. \[assumption3\] The number of sinusoids of the input, $m_u$, satisfies $m_u\geq (n+m)/2$, and the input offset, $\alpha_0$, is different from zero.
4. \[assumption4\] All the zeros of $A_j(p)$ have strictly negative real parts, $n\geq m$, with $A_j(p)$ and $B_j(p)$ being coprime.
5. \[assumption5\] The degrees of the polynomials in the model satisfy $\min(n-n^*,m-m^*)=0$.
Assumptions \[assumption1\] and \[assumption2\] are standard. The condition in Assumption \[assumption3\] is a persistence of excitation requirement, where $\alpha_0 \neq 0$ is set only for simplicity in our derivations and can be removed.[^2] Given that the poles of unstable models are reflected in line 6 of Algorithm \[algorithm1\], Assumption \[assumption4\] is met in practice. Assumption \[assumption5\] takes into account the model structure, as it ensures a unique solution of the model parameters to be obtained.
Since deterministic inputs will be considered in conjunction with stochastic noise processes, our analysis uses the standard definition of expectation for quasi-stationary signals [@ljung1998system pp. 34], which is $$\overline{E}\{g(t)\} := \lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=1}^N E\{g(t)\}. \notag$$
**.** \[theorem1\] Consider the SRIVC-type estimator with a fixed sampling period $h$ and filtered regressor and instrument vectors given by and respectively, and suppose that Assumptions \[assumption1\] to \[assumption5\] hold. Then, the following statements are true:
1. There exists a maximum sampling period $h^*>0$ such that, if $h\leq h^*$, the matrix $\overline{E}\{\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)\varphi_f^\top(t_k)\}$ is generically non-singular.
2. If $h\leq h^*$, the true parameter $\theta^*$ is the unique converging point.
3. As the sample size $N$ approaches infinity, $\theta_{j+1}$ converges to $\theta^*$ for $j\geq 1$.
[Proof.]{}
*Proof of Statement 1*. By substituting $$y(t_k) = \left\{\frac{B^*(p)}{A^*(p)}u(t)\right\}_{t_k} + v(t_k) \notag$$ into , we find that $\varphi_f(t_k)=\varphi_{f1}(t_k)-V(t_k)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.21cm}\varphi_{f1}(t_k)\hspace{-0.05cm}:= \hspace{-0.12cm}\Bigg[\dfrac{-p^n}{A_j(p)}&\left\{ \dfrac{B^*(p)}{A^*(p)}u(t) \right\}_{t_k} \hspace{-0.2cm},\hspace{0.1cm} \dots, \hspace{0.1cm}\dfrac{-p}{A_j(p)}\left\{ \dfrac{B^*(p)}{A^*(p)}u(t) \right\}_{t_k} \notag \\
&\hspace{0.1cm} \left\{\dfrac{p^m u(t)}{A_j(p)} \right\}_{t_k} \hspace{-0.1cm}, \hspace{0.1cm} \dots,\hspace{0.1cm} \left\{\dfrac{u(t)}{A_j(p)} \right\}_{t_k}
\Bigg]^\top,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{Vtk}
V(t_k):= \begin{bmatrix}
\dfrac{p^n}{A_j(p)} v(t_k), & \hspace{0.05cm}\dots, & \hspace{0.1cm} \dfrac{p}{A_j(p)} v(t_k), & 0, & \hspace{0.05cm}\dots, & 0
\end{bmatrix}^\top.$$ On the other hand, we also have $$\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)=S(-B_j,A_j) \left[ \dfrac{U_{du}(t)}{A_j^2(p)} \right]_{t_k}, \notag$$ where $$\label{Udu}
U_{du}(t) := \begin{bmatrix}
\dfrac{\textnormal{d}^{n+m}}{\textnormal{d}t^{n+m}}u(t), & \dfrac{\textnormal{d}^{n+m-1}}{\textnormal{d}t^{n+m-1}}u(t), & \hspace{0.1cm}\dots, & \hspace{0.1cm} u(t)
\end{bmatrix}^\top \hspace{-0.1cm},$$ and $S(-B_j,A_j)$ is the Sylvester matrix associated with the polynomials $-B_j(p)$ and $A_j(p)$, whose non-singularity follows from the same analysis done in [@pan2020consistency], where Assumption \[assumption4\] is used. With this, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E}\{\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)\varphi_f^\top(t_k)\} &= S(-B_j,A_j)\underbrace{\overline{E}\left\{\left[ \dfrac{U_{du}(t)}{A_j^2(p)} \right]_{t_k}\varphi_{f1}^\top(t_k) \right\}}_{=:\Phi} \notag \\
\label{Psidef}
&\hspace{-1.5cm}-S(-B_j,A_j)\underbrace{\overline{E}\left\{\left[ \dfrac{U_{du}(t)}{A_j^2(p)} \right]_{t_k}V^\top(t_k)\right\}}_{=:\Psi}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for showing that $\overline{E}\{\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)\varphi_f^\top(t_k)\}$ is generically non-singular for a small enough sampling period $h$, it is sufficient to show that $\Psi=0$ and $\Phi$ is generically non-singular for a small enough $h$. The difference between the analysis in [@pan2020consistency Theorem 1] and the proof in the current paper is that the signals of interest are hybrid in nature: some are evaluations of CT signals, whereas others are DT signals interpolated with a reconstruction device, such as a FOH.
The proof of $\Psi=0$ can be found in Lemma \[lemma1\] in the Appendix. Regarding the invertibility of $\Phi$, we will conveniently write $\varphi_{f1}(t_k)$ as $\varphi_{f2}(t_k)+\Delta(t_k)$, where $\Delta(t_k) \in \mathbb{R}^{n+m+1}$ has entries $$\label{deltai}
\Delta_i(t_k)= \begin{cases}
\left\{\frac{p^{n+1-i}}{A_j(p)}x(t)\right\}_{t_k}-\frac{p^{n+1-i}}{A_j(p)} x(t_k) &\hspace{-0.2cm},\hspace{0.07cm} i=1,\dots,n \\
0 &\hspace{-2.2cm},\hspace{0.07cm} i=n+1,\dots,n+m+1,
\end{cases}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{f2}(t_k) &= \Bigg[
\dfrac{-p^nB^*(p)}{A_j(p) A^*(p)}u(t), \hspace{0.1cm}\dots, \hspace{0.1cm}\dfrac{-pB^*(p)}{A_j(p)A^*(p)}u(t), \notag \\
&\hspace{2cm} \quad \dfrac{p^m}{A_j(p)}u(t), \hspace{0.1cm}\dots, \hspace{0.1cm} \dfrac{1}{A_j(p)}u(t)
\Bigg]^\top_{t_k} \notag \\
&= S(-B^*,A^*) \left[ \frac{U_{du}(t)}{A_j(p)A^*(p)} \right]_{t_k}, \notag
\end{aligned}$$ with $S(-B^*,A^*)$ being the Sylvester matrix associated with the polynomials $-B^*(p)$ and $A^*(p)$, which is non-singular since $A^*(p)$ and $B^*(p)$ are coprime. Hence, we can write the expected value of interest as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E}\{\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)\varphi_f^\top(t_k)\} &= S(-B_j,A_j)\Phi_1 S^\top(-B^*,A^*) \notag \\
\label{righthandside}
&\hspace{-1.9cm}+S(-B_j,A_j)\overline{E}\left\{\left[ \dfrac{U_{du}(t)}{A_j^2(p)} \right]_{t_k}\Delta^\top(t_k)\right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Phi_1 := \overline{E}\left\{ \left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{A_j^2(p)}\right]_{t_k} \left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{A_j(p)A^*(p)} \right]_{t_k}^\top \right\}. \notag$$ It is shown in Lemma \[lemma2\] that $\Phi_1$ is generically non-singular, which means that the first summand of the right hand side of is generically non-singular.
Finally, as $h$ tends to zero, the infinity norm of the difference between the direct evaluation of a CT signal and its interpolated counterpart also tends to zero. Thus, $\Delta(t_k)\to 0$ as $h\to 0$. This, together with the fact that (generic) non-singularity of a matrix is preserved under small-enough matrix perturbations [@Horn2012 Chap. 6], leads to the first statement of the theorem.
*Statement 2*. Suppose that $\bar{\theta}$ is a limiting point of the iteration in , where $\varphi_f(t_k)$ and $\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)$ are defined as in and respectively, and the corresponding polynomials are denoted by $\bar{A}(p)$ and $\bar{B}(p)$. These polynomials are coprime by Assumption \[assumption4\]. The ergodic lemmas in [@soderstrom1975ergodicity Lemma 3.1] and [@soderstrom1983instrumental Lemma A4.3] permit us to write the iteration equation , at the converging point and as $N$ tends to infinity, as $$\label{eqlimit}
\overline{E}\{\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k,\bar{\theta})\varphi_f^\top(t_k,\bar{\theta})\}^{-1} \overline{E}\{\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k,\bar{\theta})\varepsilon(t_k,\bar{\theta})\}=0,$$ where $\varepsilon(t_k,\bar{\theta})$ is the GEE evaluated at the converging point. Since the matrix inverse in is assumed to be non-singular, the second expectation in must be zero, i.e., $$\label{eqcon2}
\overline{E}\{\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k,\bar{\theta})\varepsilon(t_k,\bar{\theta})\}=0.$$
Let $\bar{A}(p)B^*(p)-\bar{B}(p)A^*(p)=h_0p^r+h_1 p^{r-1}+\dots + h_r$, where $r = \max(n+m^*,n^*+m)=n+m$. Then, the GEE in can be rearranged as $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon(t_k,\bar{\theta})&=\left\{\frac{\bar{A}(p)B^*(p)-\bar{B}(p)A^*(p)}{\bar{A}(p)A^*(p)}u(t)\right\}_{t_k}+v(t_k) \notag \\
&= \left\{\frac{U_{du}^\top(t)}{\bar{A}(p)A^*(p)}H \right\}_{t_k} + v(t_k), \notag
\end{aligned}$$ where $H = \begin{bmatrix}
h_0, & h_1, & \hspace{0.1cm}\dots, & h_{n+m}\end{bmatrix}^\top$. Now, note that the instrument vector $\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)$ can be written as $$\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k) = S(-\bar{B},\bar{A})\left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{\bar{A}^2(p)}\right]_{t_k}, \notag$$ where $S(-\bar{B},\bar{A})$ is a Sylvester matrix associated with the polynomials $\bar{B}(p)$ and $\bar{A}(p)$, which again is non-singular. So, we can express as $$\begin{aligned}
&0 = S(-\bar{B},\bar{A}) \underbrace{\overline{E}\left\{\left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{\bar{A}^2(p)}\right]_{t_k} \left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{\bar{A}(p)A^*(p)}\right]_{t_k}^\top\right\}}_{:=\bar{\Phi}} H \notag \\
\label{eqcon3}
&\hspace{0.2cm}+ S(-\bar{B},\bar{A})\underbrace{\overline{E}\left\{ \left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{\bar{A}^2(p)}\right]_{t_k}v(t_k) \right\}}_{:=\bar{\Psi}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Following a similar approach as in Lemma \[lemma1\], we conclude that $\bar{\Psi}=0$, and by Lemma \[lemma2\], $\bar{\Phi}$ is generically non-singular. Thus, for to hold we need $H=0$, which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{A}(p)B^*(p)&-\bar{B}(p)A^*(p)=0 \notag \\
\frac{\bar{B}(p)}{\bar{A}(p)}&= \frac{B^*(p)}{A^*(p)}, \notag
\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $\theta^*$ is the unique limiting point.
*Statement 3*. The proof follows from the analysis made for proving Statement 3 of Theorem 1 in [@pan2020consistency].
Note that if the commonly used FOH (or ZOH) were chosen as the intersample behaviour of the signals when discretising the prefilters, the reconstruction of $u(t)$ would suffer from high frequency distortion, which usually leads to inaccuracies in the computation of $\varphi_f(t_k)$ and $\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)$. As stated next, only an inaccurate computation of the regressor vector $\varphi_f(t_k)$ causes generic inconsistency of the proposed method under CT multisine input excitation.
**.** Assume that an incorrect intersample behaviour in the input signal is assumed, but nevertheless satisfies $G(p)u(t_k) = \{G(p)u(t)\}_{t_k}$ as $h\to 0$. The SRIVC-type estimator with filtered regressor and instrument vectors given by and respectively
1. remains generically consistent if an incorrect assumption on the intersample behaviour is used for generating the filtered signals in the instrument vector $\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)$, and
2. is generically inconsistent if an incorrect assumption on the intersample behaviour is used for filtering the input signal in the regressor vector $\varphi_f(t_k)$.
[Proof.]{}
*Statement 1*: The result follows from the same logic as in the proof in [@pan2020consistency Corollary 3, Statement 1].
*Statement 2*: Statement 1 of Theorem \[theorem1\] still holds by following the same steps as before, but this time the vector $\Delta(t_k)$ in will also have non-zero elements in its bottom $m+1$ entries. Namely, the $i$-th component of $\Delta(t_k)$, with $i=n+1,\dots,n+m+1$, is now $$\Delta_i(t_k) = \frac{p^{m+n+1-i}}{A_j(p)}u(t_k)-\left\{\frac{p^{m+n+1-i}}{A_j(p)}u(t)\right\}_{t_k}, \notag$$ which still satisfies $\Delta_i(t_k)\to 0$ as $h\to 0$. Thus, Theorem \[theorem1\] is valid for this case as well. However, Statement 2 of Theorem \[theorem1\] does not yet hold. This fact follows from the same analysis done in the proof in [@pan2020consistency Corollary 3, Statement 2].
**.** A similar procedure to and could be proposed for the computation of $y_f(t_k)$ by exploiting the fact that the noiseless output also corresponds to a multisine (thus, a more adequate reconstruction scheme could be designed). However, Remark 5 of [@pan2020consistency] suggests that, as the number of iterations tends to infinity, the GEE at the converging point does not depend on the intersample behavior of the output. Thus, if the iterations converge, a more precise filtering of the output is not needed.
Extension to arbitrary input signals {#arbitrary}
------------------------------------
The previous method is naturally suited for multisine inputs due to the simplicity of the filtered outputs at stationary regime, since they are also multisine signals. By introducing a Delta transform description, the computations in and can be generalised for an arbitrary input signal with arbitrary accuracy. For this procedure, only regular sampling is considered, although extensions to irregular sampling are also possible.
The proposed algorithm for computing $\varphi_f(t_k)$ and $\hat{\varphi}_f(t_k)$ at the $j$-th iteration of the SRIVC-type method goes as follows:
1. Given the sampling period $h$ of $y(t)$, (over)sample $u(t)$ with sampling period $\delta h$, where $\delta\ll 1$.
2. From $\theta_j$, form the prefilters of interest, namely $p^i/A_j(p)$ and $B_j(p)p^l/A_j^2(p)$ for $i=0,\dots,m$; $l=1,\dots,n$.
3. Compute the Delta equivalent [@middleton1990digital] of the prefilters, and calculate the response at instants $t_k$ of each filter to the fast-sampled version of $u(t)$ in the Delta domain.
The Delta domain description leads to an exact simulation of the underlying CT system when $\delta h\to 0$. Thus, the SRIVC-type method with prefilters computed as in steps 1, 2 and 3 above calculates the filtered regressor and instrument vectors accurately if the oversampling period $\delta h$ is chosen small as compared to the sampling period. Due to potentially high sampling rates, the use of the Delta operator is needed for ameliorating rounding errors and ill-conditioning problems regarding the sensitivity of the coefficients of the prefilters. Note that step 3 of the algorithm can be easily performed by using the Delta domain Toolbox in MATLAB.
**.** The precision of this procedure will depend on the over-sampling period $\delta h$. Via extensive simulations, we have found that sampling at least 100 times faster is usually enough to provide reliable estimates.
Simulation examples {#sec5}
===================
Via numerical simulations we compare the performance of the standard SRIVC method with the proposed SRIVC-type method, which is labeled SRIVC-c. For a multisine input, we examine the consistency of both methods for different regular sampling period and also for irregular sampling. We also study the consistency of each method under an arbitrary input excitation for different regular sampling periods. For the following tests, we consider the system $$\label{systemexample}
G^*(p) = \frac{1.25}{0.25p^2+0.7p+1},$$ where the parameters of interest are $a_1^*=0.25$, , and $b_0^*=1.25$. Regarding the implementation of the standard SRIVC method, we have used the `srivc` command from the CONTSID toolbox version 7.3 for MATLAB [@garnier2018contsid], under default initialisation and tolerance settings. It was set to estimate the best model among the correct model structure with a FOH as the intersample behaviour.
Multisine input: Regular sampling
---------------------------------
We first test if the algorithms provide consistent estimates of the parameter vector $[a_1, \hspace{0.1cm} a_2, \hspace{0.10cm} b_0]^\top$. The system in is excited with the CT input $$u(t) = \sin(0.714t)+ \sin(1.428t)+\sin(2.142t). \notag$$ The noiseless output is computed analytically by assuming that it corresponds to the output of the system at the stationary regime, i.e., $$x(t) = \sum_{k=1}^3|G^*(i\omega_k)|\sin(\omega_k t+\angle G^*(i\omega_k)), \notag$$ where $(\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3) = (0.714, 1.428,2.142)[\textnormal{rad}/\textnormal{s}]$. This output is sampled at $h = 0.3[\textnormal{s}]$ and is contaminated with additive noise, which is set as an i.i.d. Gaussian sequence of variance 0.1. Sixty different sample sizes are considered, ranging logarithmically from $N=100$ to $N=25500$, and 300 Monte Carlo runs are performed for each value of $N$.
Figures \[fig1\] and \[fig2\] show the sample means and sample mean square errors (MSEs) of each estimated parameter. The SRIVC-c estimator accurately identifies all parameters while the standard SRIVC method fails to recover the true parameter vector as $N$ increases. The MSEs for the SRIVC-c estimator decrease to zero as expected for consistency, while at least two out of the three estimated parameters given by the SRIVC method are biased, which empirically indicates that the SRIVC estimator is not consistent in this example.
Multisine input: Different sampling periods
-------------------------------------------
We now study the effect of the intersample behaviour on the SRIVC-type estimates. Under the same input and noise variance as the previous simulation, we test the performance of each algorithm for a fixed number of output measurements ($N=2000$) with different regular sampling periods. Since the rise time of the system is approximately 2 seconds, a good choice for the sampling period should be between 0.2 and 0.5 seconds according to the criterion suggested in [@astroem1984computer]. In order to cover fast, normal and slow sampling, we test with sampling periods $h=0.06,0.2$ and $0.6$\[s\].
The sample mean and mean square error of each parameter over $300$ Monte Carlo runs for each sampling period are shown in Table \[table1\]. On average, the SRIVC-c estimator delivers the true values of every parameter for all sampling periods in this study, whereas the SRIVC estimator only performs well when the sampling period is small. For $h=0.6[\textnormal{s}]$, the large sampling period exaggerates the interpolation error of the input signal in the standard SRIVC estimator, which severely degrades its performance. This is confirmed by the order of magnitude of difference in MSE of the parameters given by the two estimators.
\[table1\]
[|@m[0.92cm]{}|m[0.96cm]{}|@m[0.63cm]{}@|m[1.13cm]{}|m[1.13cm]{}|m[1.13cm]{}|]{} Method &
---------
Param.
(Value)
---------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
& Stats. & & $h=0.2$ & $h=0.6$\
& $a_1 (0.25)$ &
------
Mean
MSE
------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.253$
$1.8\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.251$
$1.1\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.248$
$1.6\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
\
SRIVC & $a_2 (0.7)$ &
------
Mean
MSE
------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.697$
$7.0\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.694$
$9.3\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.668$
$1.1\cdot 10^{-3}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
\
& $b_0 (1.25)$ &
------
Mean
MSE
------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$1.244$
$1.6\cdot 10^{-4}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$1.251$
$1.2\cdot 10^{-4}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$1.286$
$1.5\cdot 10^{-3}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
\
& $a_1 (0.25)$ &
------
Mean
MSE
------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.250$
$1.1\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.250$
$1.1\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.250$
$1.2\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
\
& &
------
Mean
MSE
------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.700$
$6.0\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.699$
$6.3\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$0.700$
$6.7\cdot 10^{-5}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
\
& $b_0 (1.25)$ &
------
Mean
MSE
------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$1.249$
$1.3\cdot 10^{-4}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$1.250$
$1.3\cdot 10^{-4}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
&
--------------------
$1.250$
$1.3\cdot 10^{-4}$
--------------------
: Sample mean and MSE of each parameter, for SRIVC and SRIVC-c, when $h=0.06, 0.2$ and $0.6[\textnormal{s}]$.
\
Multisine input: Irregular sampling
-----------------------------------
We consider the same system described before, with the same input and noise variance. In this simulation study, 2000 irregularly sampled output measurements are obtained. The sampling interval is distributed uniformly between $h_{lb}$ and $h_{hb}$, where the lower bound is fixed at $h_{lb}=0.05$, while the upper bound is varied from $0.1$ to $0.6$. A total of 6 Monte Carlo simulations are performed with each simulation containing 300 runs.
Figure \[fig3\] shows the mean value of each parameter, with their standard deviation around this value. As expected, the SRIVC-c estimator provides accurate estimates for all sampling period ranges in this study. On the other hand, the SRIVC estimator has a degrading performance as the sampling range increases, which could be attributed to the approximation errors in the prefilter calculations due to incorrect assumptions on the intersampling behaviour.
Arbitrary input application: Chirp signals
------------------------------------------
The next goal is to check whether the algorithms can provide accurate estimates for arbitrary input signals. Now, the system in is excited with an up-chirp signal, which is a CT signal that increases in frequency with time. These signals are widely used in signal processing applications such as radar systems and seismology and have been used for system identification [@xia1997system; @muller2001transfer]. The chirp signal used in this example is $$u(t)=\cos\left(f_0 \left[\frac{f_1}{f_0}\right]^{t/T_f} 2\pi t\right), \notag$$ where $f_0=0.1$\[Hz\] and $f_1=0.6$\[Hz\], and $T_f=500$\[s\] is the length of one period of the chirp signal. In this case, we determine the true system output using the explicit Runge-Kutta formulae RK5(4) [@dormand1980family]. The output is sampled every $h=0.5$\[s\] with $\delta=0.001$, and the measurement noise has variance $0.05$, which corresponds to approximately $10\%$ of the energy of the noiseless output. For the computation of the SRIVC-c estimate, we follow the algorithm described in Section \[arbitrary\]. The number of periods of the input signal vary from $1$ to $10$, which is equivalent to sample sizes ranging from 1000 to 10000, and $300$ Monte Carlo runs are performed for each case. The empirical evidence in Figure \[fig4\] suggests that the SRIVC-c estimator can also lead to accurate estimates for signals that are not described exactly by hold reconstructions nor multisines.
Conclusions {#sec6}
===========
In this paper, we have derived an algorithm for continuous-time system identification that is consistent for a wide class of input signals that have a known intersample behaviour. This estimator extends the applicability of the standard SRIVC method to inputs that are not exactly described by hold devices. We put forward a comprehensive analysis of the generic consistency of this estimator for multisine inputs, and extensive simulations have confirmed the advantages of this estimator over the widely popular SRIVC method. Further research on this topic concerns variance analyses of these estimators, and theoretical guarantees for irregular sampling schemes.
This work was partially supported by the Swedish Research Council under contract number 2016-06079 (NewLEADS) and by the Australian government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship.
Appendix
========
**.** \[lemma1\] Consider $u(t)$ as in , and $V(t_k)$ and $U_{du}(t)$ as defined in and respectively. Under Assumption \[assumption2\], the matrix $\Psi$ defined in is equal to zero.
[Proof.]{} From the definition of $V(t_k)$, we directly obtain that all the entries $\Psi_{il}$ of $\Psi$, with , are equal to zero. For the other entries, we see that an arbitrary entry of this matrix is of the form $$\label{expec1}
\Psi_{il} = \overline{E}\left\{ \left\{\frac{p^{n+m+1-i}u(t)}{A_j^2(p)}\right\}_{t_k} \frac{p^{n+1-l}}{A_j(p)}v(t_k) \right\}.$$ If we define $g_i(t)$ as the inverse Laplace transform of $s^{n+m+1-i}A_j^{-2}(s)$, the first term in the expectation in can be written as $$\left\{\frac{p^{n+m+1-i}u(t)}{A_j^2(p)}\right\}_{t_k} = \int_0^{t_k} g_i(t_k-\tau) u(\tau)\textnormal{d}\tau. \notag$$ Note that this is a DT signal, as a function of the time measurements $\{t_k\}$. On the other hand, the second term can be described by $$\frac{p^{n+1-l}}{A_j(p)}v(t_k) = \sum_{r=1}^k \beta_{k-r,l} v(t_r). \notag$$ where $\{\beta_{j,l}\}_{j=0}^{k-1}$ are the first $k$ values of the impulse response of the FOH DT equivalent of $p^{n+1-l}A_j^{-1}(p)$. So, we compute $\Psi_{il}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{il} &= \overline{E}\left\{ \int_0^{t_k} g_i(t_k-\tau) u(\tau)\textnormal{d}\tau \sum_{r=1}^k \beta_{k-r,l} v(t_r) \right\} \notag \\
&=\lim_{N\to \infty}\frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{r=1}^k \int_0^{t_k} g_i(t_k-\tau)u(\tau) \beta_{k-r,l} E\{v(t_r)\} \textnormal{d}\tau \notag \\
&= 0, \notag\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that the disturbance signal has zero mean.
**.** \[lemma2\] Under Assumptions \[assumption1\] to \[assumption5\], with $u(t)$ described as in , the following matrix is generically non-singular: $$\bar{\Phi}:= \overline{E}\left\{\left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{\bar{A}^2(p)}\right]_{t_k} \left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{\bar{A}(p)A^*(p)}\right]_{t_k}^\top\right\}. \notag$$
[Proof.]{} Similar to [@pan2020consistency], we follow an analyticity argument. We must first prove that $$\bar{\Phi}^*:= \overline{E}\left\{\left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{{A^*}^2(p)}\right]_{t_k} \left[\frac{U_{du}(t)}{{A^*}^2(p)}\right]_{t_k}^\top\right\} \notag$$ is positive definite. For this, let $\textbf{z}\in \mathbb{R}^{n+m+1}$. We write $$\textbf{z}^\top \bar{\Phi}^* \textbf{z} = \overline{E}\left\{\left(\left\{\frac{B_{\textbf{z}}(p)}{{A^*}^2(p)}u(t)\right\}_{t_k}\right)^2 \right\} \geq 0. \notag$$ Since $u(t)$ is a multisine of the form , we have in stationary regime $$\frac{B_{\textbf{z}}(p)}{{A^*}^2(p)}u(t) = \tilde{\alpha}_0 + \sum_{l=1}^{m_u} \tilde{\alpha}_l \cos(\omega_l t + \tilde{\phi}_l), \notag$$ where $\tilde{\alpha}_0 = \alpha_0 B_{\textbf{z}}(0)/{A^*}^2(0)$, $\tilde{\alpha}_l = \alpha_l|B_{\textbf{z}}(i\omega_l)/{A^*}^2(i\omega_l)|$, and $\tilde{\phi}_l = \phi_l + \angle B_{\textbf{z}}(i\omega_l)/{A^*}^2(i\omega_l)$. Therefore,
$$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{z}^\top \bar{\Phi}^* \textbf{z} &= \lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \left(\tilde{\alpha}_0 + \sum_{l=1}^{m_u} \tilde{\alpha}_l \cos(\omega_l kh + \tilde{\phi}_l)\right)^2 \notag \\
\label{cosinesums1}
&\hspace{-1cm}= \lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \Bigg(\tilde{\alpha}_0^2 + 2\tilde{\alpha}_0\sum_{l=1}^{m_u} \tilde{\alpha}_l \cos(\omega_l kh+ \tilde{\phi}_l) \\
\label{cosinesums2}
&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\sum_{j,l=1}^{m_u} \tilde{\alpha}_j\tilde{\alpha}_l \cos(\omega_j kh + \tilde{\phi}_j) \cos(\omega_l kh + \tilde{\phi}_l)\Bigg).
\end{aligned}$$
Recall the formula for a geometric series $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\cos(\omega k + \phi) &= \textnormal{Re}\left\{\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{e^{i\phi}}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N e^{i\omega k} \right\} \notag \\
&= 0. \notag
\end{aligned}$$ Using this result, and the identity $\cos(\alpha)\cos(\beta) = [\cos(\alpha+\beta)+\cos(\alpha-\beta)]/2$, the second term in the sum in is zero. Moreover, in the term for $j\neq l$ is a sum of sinusoids whose sum tends to zero as $N$ tends to infinity, while for $j= l$ constants appear. Thus, $$\label{expectationcomputation}
\textbf{z}^\top \bar{\Phi}^* \textbf{z} = \tilde{\alpha}_0^2 + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{m_u} \tilde{\alpha}_j^2.$$ This computation leads to stating that $\textbf{z}^\top \bar{\Phi}^* \textbf{z}=0$ occurs if and only if $\tilde{\alpha}_0=\tilde{\alpha}_1 = \cdots = \tilde{\alpha}_{m_u}=0$, which in turn is equivalent to imposing $$\frac{B_{\textbf{z}}(0)}{{A^*}^2(0)} = 0, \hspace{0.15cm} \frac{B_{\textbf{z}}(i\omega_l)}{{A^*}^2(i\omega_l)} = \frac{B_{\textbf{z}}(-i\omega_l)}{{A^*}^2(-i\omega_l)}= 0, \hspace{0.15cm} l = 1,\dots, m_u. \notag$$ Since $m_u \geq (n+m)/2$, the only rational function that satisfies all of these restrictions is the null transfer function. Thus, $B_{\textbf{z}}(p)=0$ and $\textbf{z}=0$. With this, we have shown that $\bar{\Phi}^*$ is positive definite.
We now show that the entries of the matrix $\bar{\Phi}$ are real analytic functions of the (real-valued) parameters $(\bar{a}_1,\dots,\bar{a}_n)$ in the domain where $\bar{A}(p)$ is a stable polynomial. We denote this domain as . The entries of the matrix $\bar{\Phi}$ are given by $$\bar{\Phi}_{jl}:= \overline{E}\left\{\left\{\frac{p^{n+m+1-j}u(t)}{\bar{A}^2(p)}\right\}_{t_k}\hspace{-0.15cm} \left\{\frac{p^{n+m+1-l}u(t)}{\bar{A}(p)A^*(p)}\right\}_{t_k}\right\}, \notag$$ where $j,l=1,2,\dots,n+m+1$. By computing the expectation similarly to the derivation of , we find that $$\bar{\Phi}_{jl} =\tilde{\alpha}_0^j \tilde{\alpha}_0^l + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{r=1}^{m_u} \tilde{\alpha}_r^j \tilde{\alpha}_r^l \cos(\tilde{\phi}_r^j-\tilde{\phi}_r^l), \notag$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\alpha}_0^j &= \begin{cases} 0, & \hspace{-0.2cm} j<n+m+1 \\
\alpha_0, & \hspace{-0.2cm}j= n+m+1\end{cases}, \hspace{0.15cm}
\tilde{\alpha}_0^l = \begin{cases} 0, & \hspace{-0.2cm}l<n+m+1 \\
\alpha_0, & \hspace{-0.2cm}l= n+m+1\end{cases}, \notag \\
\tilde{\alpha}_r^j &= \alpha_r\left|\frac{\omega_r^{n+m+1-j}}{\bar{A}^2(i\omega_r)}\right|, \hspace{0.85cm} \tilde{\phi}_r^j = \phi_r + \angle\left[ \frac{(i\omega_r)^{n+m+1-j}}{\bar{A}^2(i\omega_r)}\right] \notag \\
\tilde{\alpha}_r^l &= \alpha_r \left|\frac{\omega_r^{n+m+1-l}}{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)A^*(i\omega_r)}\right|, \hspace{0.24cm} \tilde{\phi}_r^l = \phi_r + \angle\left[\frac{(i\omega_r)^{n+m+1-l}}{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)A^*(i\omega_r)}\right]. \notag
\end{aligned}$$
The coefficient $\tilde{\alpha}_r^j$ can be equivalently expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\alpha}_r^j &= \frac{\alpha_r \omega_r^{n+m+1-j}}{\textnormal{Re}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}^2+\textnormal{Im}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}^2} \notag \\
\label{ch5:alphar}
&= \frac{\alpha_r\omega_r^{n+m+1-j}}{\left(1+ \sum\limits_{\substack{1\leq k \leq n \\ k\textnormal{ even}}}
\hspace{-0.2cm}\bar{a}_k \omega_r^k (-1)^{\frac{k}{2}}\right)^{\hspace{-0.1cm}2}+\left(\sum\limits_{\substack{1\leq k \leq n \\ k\textnormal{ odd}}}\hspace{-0.2cm}\bar{a}_k \omega_r^k (-1)^{\frac{k-1}{2}}\right)^{\hspace{-0.1cm}2}}.
\end{aligned}$$
From , we see that the denominator of $\tilde{\alpha}_r^j$ is a multivariate polynomial in the variables $(\bar{a}_1,\hspace{0.1cm} \dots,\hspace{0.1cm}\bar{a}_n)$, which is strictly positive in $\Omega$, since we know that $\bar{A}(p)$ is a stable polynomial for any $(\bar{a}_1,\hspace{0.1cm} \dots,\hspace{0.1cm}\bar{a}_n)\in \Omega$. This shows that the denominator of $\tilde{\alpha}_r^j$ is real analytic in $\Omega$, and since the quotient of real analytic functions is real analytic as long as the denominator does not vanish [@krantz2002primer Proposition 2.2.2], we have that $\tilde{\alpha}_r^j$ is real analytic in $\Omega$.
Similarly, the coefficient $\tilde{\alpha}_r^l$ can be written as $$\tilde{\alpha}_r^l = \frac{\alpha_r\omega_r^{n+m+1-l}}{|A^*(i\omega_r)|\sqrt{\textnormal{Re}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}^2+\textnormal{Im}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}^2}}. \notag$$ Here, the argument of the square root is a real analytic function, and the function $x\rightarrow 1/\sqrt{x}$ is real analytic for $x\in(0,\infty)$. Thus, by [@krantz2002primer Proposition 2.2.8], which states that the composition of real analytic functions is real analytic, we conclude that $\tilde{\alpha}_r^l$ is real analytic in $\Omega$.[^3]
Finally, note that $$\phi_r^j-\phi_r^l = \frac{\pi}{2}(l-j)+\angle A^*(i\omega_r)-\angle \bar{A}(i\omega_r), \notag$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\cos(\phi_r^j-\phi_r^l) &= \frac{\textnormal{Re}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}}{|\bar{A}(i\omega_r)|} \cos\left(\frac{\pi}{2}(l-j)+\angle A^*(i\omega_r)\right) \notag \\
&\hspace{-0.9cm}+ \frac{\textnormal{Im}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}}{|\bar{A}(i\omega_r)|} \sin\left(\frac{\pi}{2}(l-j)+\angle A^*(i\omega_r)\right). \notag
\end{aligned}$$ By the same justification above, $\textnormal{Re}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}/|\bar{A}(i\omega_r)|$ and $\textnormal{Im}\{\bar{A}(i\omega_r)\}/|\bar{A}(i\omega_r)|$ are real analytic functions for any . Therefore, $\cos(\phi_r^j-\phi_r^l)$ is real analytic for any $(\bar{a}_1, \dots,\bar{a}_n)\in \Omega$. Since any function defined by multiplication and addition of real analytic functions is real analytic [@krantz2002primer], we conclude that $\bar{\Phi}_{jl}$ is real analytic in the variables $(\bar{a}_1, \dots,\bar{a}_n)$, in the domain $\Omega$.
Hence, by Lemma A2.3 of [@soderstrom1983instrumental] and its corollary, the matrix $\bar{\Phi}$ is generically non-singular.
[^1]: In this context, generically non-singular means that the set $M=\{\theta_j\in \mathbb{R}^n\colon A_j(p)$ is a stable polynomial, $E\{\hat{\varphi}(t_k)\varphi^\top(t_k)\}$ is singular$\}$ has Lebesgue measure zero in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
[^2]: If no offset is considered, then at least $(n+m+1)/2$ sinusoids are required for our results.
[^3]: Note that the coefficients in $A^*(i\omega_r)$ do not play a role in the analyticity of $\tilde{\alpha}_r^l$, since $\tilde{\alpha}_r^l$ is viewed as a function of $(\bar{a}_1,\hspace{0.1cm} \dots,\hspace{0.1cm}\bar{a}_n)$ only.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the $1+1$ dimensional ${\cal N} = (8,8)$ supersymmetric matrix field theory obtained from a dimensional reduction of ten dimensional ${\cal N} = 1$ super Yang-Mills. The gauge groups we consider are U($N$) and SU($N$), where $N$ is finite but arbitrary. We adopt light-cone coordinates, and choose to work in the light-cone gauge. Quantizing this theory via Discretized Light-Cone Quantization (DLCQ) introduces an integer, $K$, which restricts the light-cone momentum-fraction of constituent quanta to be integer multiples of $1/K$. Solutions to the DLCQ bound state equations are obtained for $K=2,3$ and $4$ by discretizing the light-cone super charges, which preserves supersymmetry manifestly. We discuss degeneracies in the massive spectrum that appear to be independent of the light-cone compactification, and are therefore expected to be present in the decompactified limit $K \rightarrow \infty$. Our numerical results also support the claim that the SU($N$) theory has a mass gap.'
---
OHSTPY-HEP-T-98-011\
hep-th/9806133
[The DLCQ Spectrum of ${\cal N} =(8,8)$ Super Yang-Mills ]{}\
\
.25in
Introduction
============
The non-perturbative properties of super Yang-Mills theories have received a lot of attention lately. In a seminal paper by Witten [@witt95], it was shown that the low energy dynamics of $N$ coincident D$p$-branes could be described by $p+1$ dimensional U($N$) super Yang-Mills. This insight was instrumental in motivating the M(atrix) theory conjecture [@bfss97], and also played a role in the AdS/CFT correspondence recently proposed by Maldacena [@mald97].
In summary, theorists are now grappling with the rather surprising fact that Yang-Mills theories seem to know more about the dynamics of string theory than previously conceived. Moreover, physics in many space-time dimensions may be described consistently by low dimensional Yang-Mills theories. There is therefore renewed interest in studying the non-perturbative properties of low dimensional super Yang-Mills theories.
Motivated by these developments, we consider the $1+1$ dimensional supersymmetric matrix field theory obtained from a dimensional reduction of ten dimensional ${\cal N} = 1$ super Yang-Mills, which results in a two dimensional gauge theory with ${\cal N} = (8,8)$ supersymmtery. The possible gauge groups are U($N$) and SU($N$), where $N$ is finite but arbitrary. A similar theory with ${\cal N} = (1,1)$ supersymmtery was studied recently in [@alp98].
After introducing light-cone coordinates, and adopting the light-cone gauge, it is a straightforward procedure to implement Discrete Light-Cone Quantization (DLCQ) in order to extract numerical bound state solutions [@pb85]. As was pointed out in the earlier work [@sakai95], exact supersymmtery may be preserved in the DLCQ spectrum if we choose to discretize the light-cone supercharges rather than the light-cone Hamiltonian.
The complexity of the ${\cal N} = (8,8)$ model far exceeds any other two dimensional theories studied in the context of DLCQ (see [@bpp98] for an extensive review), since there are now eight boson and eight fermion fields that propagate as physical modes. In practice, this means we can only probe the theory for rather crude discretizations ($K\leq 4$, where $1/K$ is the smallest unit of light-cone momentum). Despite this shortcoming, we are able to resolve some interesting features of the decompactified ($K \rightarrow \infty$) theory. In particular, we are able to count degeneracies of certain states in the massive spectrum, and establish evidence for the existence of a mass gap in the SU($N$) theory.
The organization of the paper may be summarized as follows; in Section \[dlcqformulation\] we introduce the $1+1$ dimensional ${\cal N} = (8,8)$ supersymmetric gauge theory, which we formulate in light-cone coordinates. Explicit expressions for the quantized light-cone supercharges are written down, followed by a discussion on the DLCQ formulation of the theory. In Section \[numericalresults\] we tabulate the results of our numerical DLCQ analysis, highlighting the degeneracies observed in the spectrum. We also argue why the numerical results are consistent with the existence of a mass gap; i.e. there are no [*normalizable*]{} massless states in the SU($N$) theory other than the light-cone vacuum. A summary of our observations, and further discussion, appears in Section \[conclusions\]. The formulation of ten-dimensional super Yang-Mills theory in light-cone coordinates is presented in Appendix \[ymills10\].
Light-Cone Quantization and DLCQ at Finite $N$ {#dlcqformulation}
==============================================
The two dimensional ${\cal N} = (8,8)$ supersymmetric gauge theory we are interested in may be formally obtained by dimensionally reducing $9+1$ dimensional ${\cal N}=1$ super Yang-Mills to $1+1$ dimensions. For the sake of completeness, we review the underlying ten dimensional light-cone Yang-Mills theory in Appendix \[ymills10\] – in perhaps more detail than is customary – although the ideas should be familiar to many readers.
Dimensional reduction of the ten dimensional Yang-Mills action (\[LCversion\]) given in Appendix \[ymills10\] is carried out by stipulating that all fields are independent of the (eight) transverse coordinates[^1] $x^I$, $I=1,\dots,8$. We may therefore assume that the fields depend only on the light-cone variables $\sigma^{\pm}
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0 \pm x^9)$. The resulting two dimensional theory may be described by the action $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1+1}^{LC} & = & \int d\sigma^+ d\sigma^- \hspace{1mm}
\mbox{tr} \left( \frac{1}{2}D_\alpha X_I D^\alpha X_I + \frac{g^2}{4}
[X_I,X_J]^2 - \frac{1}{4} F_{\alpha \beta} F^{\alpha \beta}
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{20mm}
+ \hspace{1mm}
{\rm i} \theta_R^T D_+ \theta_R + {\rm i}\theta_L^T D_- \theta_L
- \sqrt{2}g\theta_L^T \gamma^I[X_I,\theta_R] \left. \frac{}{} \right),
\label{LCversionreduced}\end{aligned}$$ where the repeated indices $\alpha,\beta$ are summed over light-cone indices $\pm$, and $I,J$ are summed over transverse indices $1,\dots,8$. The eight scalar fields $X_I(\sigma^+,\sigma^-)$ represent $N \times N$ Hermitian matrix-valued fields, and are remnants of the transverse components of the ten dimensional gauge field $A_\mu$, while $A_{\pm}(\sigma^+,\sigma^-)$ are the light-cone gauge field components of the residual two dimensional U($N$) or SU($N$) gauge symmetry. The spinors $\theta_R$ and $\theta_L$ are remnants of the right-moving and left-moving projections of a sixteen component real spinor in the ten dimensional theory. The components of $\theta_R$ and $\theta_L$ transform in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. $F_{\alpha \beta} =
\partial_{\alpha} A_\beta - \partial_\beta A_\alpha
+{\rm i}g[A_\alpha, A_\beta]$ is the two dimensional gauge field curvature tensor, while $D_\alpha = \partial_\alpha + {\rm i}g[A_\alpha,\cdot]$ is the covariant derivative for the (adjoint) spinor fields. The eight $16 \times 16$ real symmetric matrices $\gamma^I$ are defined in Appendix \[ymills10\].
Since we are working in the light-cone frame, it is natural to adopt the light-cone gauge $A_- = 0$. With this gauge choice, the action (\[LCversionreduced\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde S}_{1+1}^{LC}&=&
\int d\sigma^+d\sigma^- {\rm {tr}} \Bigg(\partial_+X_I\partial_-X_I +
{\rm i}
\theta_R^T\partial_+ \theta_R + {\rm i}\theta_L^T\partial_- \theta_L
\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{1}{2}(\partial_-A_+)^2 +gA_+J^+
-\sqrt{2}g \theta_L^T \gamma^I [X_I, \theta_R ]
+\frac{g^2}{4}[X_I, X_J ]^2\Bigg),
\label{EQ6}\end{aligned}$$ where $J^+ ={\rm i}[X_I, \partial_-X_I]+2\theta_R^T\theta_R$ is the longitudinal momentum current. The (Euler-Lagrange) equations of motion for the $A_+$ and $\theta_L$ fields are now $$\begin{aligned}
&&\partial_-^2A_+=gJ^+, \label{firstc}\\
&& \sqrt2 {\rm i}\partial_-\theta_L=g\gamma^I [X_I,\theta_R].
\label{secondc} \end{aligned}$$ These are evidently constraint equations, since they are independent of the light-cone time $\sigma^+$. The “zero mode” of the constraints above provide us with the conditions $$\int d\sigma^- J^+=0, \mbox{ and }
\int d\sigma^- \gamma^I [X_I,\theta_R] =0,
\label{EQ4}$$ which will be imposed on the Fock space to select the physical states in the quantum theory. The first constraint above is well known in the literature, and projects out the colorless states in the quantized theory[@dak93]. The second (fermionic) constraint is perhaps lesser well known, but certainly provides non-trivial relations governing the small-$x$ behavior of light-cone wave functions[^2] [@abd97].
At any rate, equations (\[firstc\]),(\[secondc\]) permit one to eliminate the non-dynamical fields $A_+$ and $\theta_L$ in the theory, which is a particular feature of light-cone gauge theories. There are no ghosts. We may therefore write down explicit expressions for the light-cone momentum $P^+$ and Hamiltonian $P^-$ in terms of the physical degrees of freedom of the theory, which are denoted by the eight scalars $X_I$, and right-moving spinor $\theta_R$: $$\begin{aligned}
P^+&=&\int d\sigma^- \hspace{1mm}
\mbox{tr}
\left( \partial_-X_I\partial_-X_I+{\rm i}
\theta_R^T \partial_-\theta_R \right), \label{P+}
\\
P^- &=&g^2
\int d\sigma^- {\rm {tr}}\Bigg(-\frac{1}{2} J^+\frac{1}{\partial_-^2}J^+
-\frac{1}{4}[X_I, X_J ]^2 \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{15mm}+\frac{{\rm i}}{2}
(\gamma^I [X_I, \theta_R])^T
\frac{1}{\partial_-} \gamma^J [X_J, \theta_R]\Bigg).
\label{P-}\end{aligned}$$ The light-cone Hamiltonian propagates a given field configuration in light-cone time $\sigma^+$, and contains all the non-trivial dynamics of the interacting field theory.
In the representation for the $\gamma^I$ matrices specified by (\[gamma9\]) in Appendix \[ymills10\], we may write $$\theta_R = { u \choose 0}, \label{spin8}$$ where $u$ is an eight component real spinor. In terms of their Fourier modes, the fields may be expanded at light-cone time $\sigma^+=0$ to give[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
&&X^I_{pq}(\sigma^-)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dk^+}{\sqrt{2 k^+}}\Big(a^I_{pq}(k^+)
e^{-{\rm i}k^+\sigma^-}
+ {a^I_{qp}}^{\dagger}(k^+)e^{{\rm i}k^+\sigma^-}\Big),
\hspace{4mm} I=1,\dots,8; \hspace{3mm} \label{Xexp}\\
&&u^{\alpha}_{pq}(\sigma^-)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\int_0^{\infty}
\frac{dk^+}{\sqrt{2}}
\Big(b^{\alpha}_{pq}(k^+)e^{-{\rm i}k^+\sigma^-}
+ {b^\alpha_{qp}}^{\dagger}(k^+)e^{{\rm i}k^+\sigma^-}\Big),
\hspace{4mm} \alpha=1,\dots,8. \label{uexp}\end{aligned}$$ For the gauge group U($N$), the (anti)commutation relations take the form $$\begin{aligned}
&&[a^I_{pq}(k^+), {a^J_{rs}}^{\dagger}(k'^+)]=
\delta^{IJ}\delta_{pr}\delta_{qs}
\delta(k^+- k'^+), \\
&&\{ b^{\alpha}_{pq}(k^+), {b^{\beta}_{rs}}^{\dagger}(k'^+)\}=
\delta^{\alpha\beta}
\delta_{pr}\delta_{qs}\delta(k^+- k'^+),\end{aligned}$$ while for SU($N$), we have the corresponding relations $$\begin{aligned}
&&[a^I_{pq}(k^+), {a^J_{rs}}^{\dagger}(k'^+)]=
\delta^{IJ}(\delta_{pr}\delta_{qs} - \frac{1}{N}\delta_{pq} \delta_{rs})
\delta(k^+- k'^+), \\
&&\{ b^{\alpha}_{pq}(k^+), {b^{\beta}_{rs}}^{\dagger}(k'^+)\}=
\delta^{\alpha\beta}
(\delta_{pr}\delta_{qs}
- \frac{1}{N}\delta_{pq} \delta_{rs})
\delta(k^+- k'^+).\end{aligned}$$ An important simplification of the light-cone quantization is that the light-cone vacuum is the Fock vacuum $\vert 0 \rangle$, defined by $$a^I_{pq}(k^+)\vert 0 \rangle =b^{\alpha}_{pq}(k^+)\vert 0 \rangle=0,$$ for all positive longitudinal momenta $k^+ > 0$. We therefore have $P^+\vert 0 \rangle= P^-\vert 0 \rangle=0$.
The “charge-neutrality” condition (first integral constraint from (\[EQ4\])) requires that all the color indices must be contracted for physical states. Thus physical states are formed by color traces of the boson and fermion creation operators ${a^I}^{\dagger},{b^{\alpha}}^{\dagger}$ acting on the light-cone vacuum. A single trace of these creation operators may be identified as a single closed string, where each creation operator (or ‘parton’), carrying some longitudinal momentum $k^+$, represents a ‘bit’ of the string. A product of traced operators is then a multiple string state, and the quantity $1/N$ is analogous to a string coupling constant.
At this point, we may determine explicit expressions for the quantized light-cone operators $P^{\pm}$ by substituting the mode expansions (\[Xexp\]),(\[uexp\]) into equations (\[P+\]),(\[P-\]). The mass operator $M^2 \equiv 2 P^+ P^-$ may then be diagonalized to solve for the bound state mass spectrum. However, as was pointed out in [@sakai95], it is more convenient to determine the quantized expressions for the supercharges, since this leads to a regularization prescription for $P^-$ that preserves supersymmetry even in the discretized theory.
In order to elaborate upon this last remark, first note that the continuum theory possesses sixteen supercharges, which may be derived from the dimensionally reduced form of the ten dimensional ${\cal N} = 1$ supercurrent: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^+_{\alpha} & = & 2^{1/4} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\sigma^- \hspace{1mm}
\mbox{tr} \left( \partial_- X_I \cdot \beta_{I \eta \alpha} \cdot u_{\eta}
\right) \label{Q+}\\
Q^-_{\alpha} & = & g \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\sigma^- \hspace{1mm}
\mbox{tr} \left( -2^{3/4} \cdot J^+ \frac{1}{\partial_-}
u_{\alpha} + 2^{-1/4} {\rm i} [X_I,X_J] \cdot
(\beta_I \beta_J^T)_{\alpha \beta} \cdot u_{\beta} \right),
\label{Q-}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=1,\dots,8$, and repeated indices are summed. The eight $8 \times 8$ real matrices $\beta_I$ are discussed in Appendix \[ymills10\]. By explicit calculation or otherwise, these charges satisfy the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\{ Q^+_{\alpha}, Q^+_{\beta} \} & = &
\delta_{\alpha \beta} \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} P^+
\label{superQplus} \\
\{ Q^-_{\alpha}, Q^-_{\beta} \} & = &
\delta_{\alpha \beta} \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} P^- \label{superQminus}\end{aligned}$$ If we substitute the mode expansions (\[Xexp\]),(\[uexp\]) into equations (\[Q+\]),(\[Q-\]) for the light-cone supercharges $Q^{\pm}_{\alpha}$, we obtain the following ‘momentum representations’ for these charges: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^+_{\alpha} & = & 2^{-3/4} {\rm i} \int_0^{\infty}
dk \hspace{1mm} \sqrt{k} \cdot \beta_{I\eta \alpha} \cdot
\left( a^{\dagger}_{Iij}(k) b_{\eta ij}(k) -
b^{\dagger}_{\eta ij}(k) a_{I ij}(k) \right),
\label{Qplus}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ Q^-_{\alpha} = \frac{{\rm i} 2^{-1/4} g}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\int_0^{\infty} dk_1 dk_2 dk_3 \hspace{1mm}
\delta( k_1 + k_2 - k_3) \cdot \left\{ \frac{}{} \right. } & &
\nonumber \\
& &
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{k_1 k_2}} \left( \frac{k_2 - k_1}{k_3} \right)
\left[ b^{\dagger}_{\alpha i j}(k_3)a_{I i m}(k_1)a_{I m j}(k_2) -
a_{I i m}^{\dagger}(k_1)a_{I m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
b_{\alpha i j}(k_3) \right] \nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{k_1 k_3}} \left( \frac{k_1 + k_3}{k_2} \right)
\left[ a^{\dagger}_{I i m}(k_1)b_{\alpha m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)a_{I i j}(k_3) -
a_{I i j}^{\dagger}(k_3)a_{I i m}(k_1)
b_{\alpha m j}(k_2) \right] \nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{k_2 k_3}} \left( \frac{k_2 + k_3}{k_1} \right)
\left[ a^{\dagger}_{I i j}(k_3)b_{\alpha i m}(k_1)a_{I m j}(k_2) -
b_{\alpha i m}^{\dagger}(k_1)a_{I m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
a_{I i j}(k_3) \right] \nonumber \\
& - & \frac{1}{k_1} \left[
b^{\dagger}_{\beta i j}(k_3)b_{\alpha i m}(k_1)b_{\beta m j}(k_2) +
b_{\alpha i m}^{\dagger}(k_1) b_{\beta m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
b_{\beta i j}(k_3) \right] \nonumber \\
& - &
\frac{1}{k_2} \left[
b^{\dagger}_{\beta i j}(k_3)b_{\beta i m}(k_1)b_{\alpha m j}(k_2) +
b_{\beta i m}^{\dagger}(k_1) b_{\alpha m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
b_{\beta i j}(k_3) \right] \nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{k_3} \left[
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha i j}(k_3)b_{\beta i m}(k_1)b_{\beta m j}(k_2) +
b_{\beta i m}^{\dagger}(k_1) b_{\beta m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
b_{\alpha i j}(k_3) \right] \nonumber \\
& + & \hspace{8mm} (\beta_I \beta_J^T - \beta_J \beta_I^T )_{\alpha \beta}
\times \left( \frac{}{} \right. \nonumber \\
& & \frac{1}{4\sqrt{k_1 k_2}}
\left[ b^{\dagger}_{\beta i j}(k_3)a_{I i m}(k_1)a_{J m j}(k_2) +
a_{J i m}^{\dagger}(k_1)a_{I m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
b_{\beta i j}(k_3) \right] \nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{4\sqrt{k_2 k_3}}
\left[ a^{\dagger}_{J i j}(k_3)b_{\beta i m}(k_1)a_{I m j}(k_2) +
b_{\beta i m}^{\dagger}(k_1)a_{J m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
a_{I i j}(k_3) \right] \nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{4\sqrt{k_3 k_1}}
\left[ a^{\dagger}_{I i j}(k_3)a_{J i m}(k_1)b_{\beta m j}(k_2) +
a_{I i m}^{\dagger}(k_1)b_{\beta m j}^{\dagger}(k_2)
a_{J i j}(k_3) \right] \left. \frac{}{} \right) \left. \frac{}{}
\right\}, \label{Qminus}\end{aligned}$$ where repeated indices are always summed: $\alpha,\beta = 1,\dots,8$ (SO(8) spinor indices), $I,J=1,\dots , 8$ (SO(8) vector indices), and $i,j,m=1,\dots , N$ (matrix indices).
In order to implement the DLCQ formulation[^4] of the bound state problem – which is tantamount to imposing periodic boundary conditions $\sigma^- \sim \sigma^- + 2 \pi R$ – we simply restrict the momentum variable(s) appearing in the expressions for $Q^{\pm}_{\alpha}$ (equations (\[Qplus\]),(\[Qminus\])) to the following discretized set of momenta: $\{ \frac{1}{K}P^+, \frac{2}{K}P^+, \frac{3}{K}P^+, \dots \}$. Here, $P^+$ denotes the total light-cone momentum of a state, and may be thought of as a fixed constant, since it is easy to form a Fock basis that is already diagonal with respect to the quantum operator $P^+$ [@pb85]. The integer $K$ is called the ‘harmonic resolution’, and $1/K$ measures the coarseness of our discretization – we recover the continuum by taking the limit $K \rightarrow \infty$. Physically, $1/K$ represents the smallest positive[^5] unit of longitudinal momentum-fraction allowed for each parton in a Fock state.
Of course, as soon as we implement the DLCQ procedure, which is specified unambiguously by the harmonic resolution $K$, the integrals appearing in the definitions for $Q^{\pm}_{\alpha}$ are replaced by finite sums, and the eigen-equation $2 P^+ P^- |\Psi \rangle = M^2 |\Psi \rangle$ is reduced to a finite matrix diagonalization problem. In this last step, we use the fact that $P^-$ is proportional to the square of any one of the eight supercharges $Q^-_{\alpha}$, $\alpha=1,\dots,8$ (equation (\[superQminus\])), and so the problem of diagonalizing $P^-$ is equivalent to diagonalizing any one of the eight supercharges $Q^-_{\alpha}$. As was pointed out in [@sakai95], this procedure yields a supersymmetric spectrum for any resolution $K$. In the present work, we are able to perform numerical diagonalizations for $K=2,3$ and $4$ with the help of Mathematica and a desktop PC.
The fact that we may choose any one of the eight supercharges to calculate the spectrum provides a strong test for the correctness of our computer program. As expected, we find that the spectrum we obtain by squaring the eigenvalues of any two different supercharges yields the [*same*]{} massive spectrum. Moreover, the spectrum turns out to be [*exactly supersymmetric*]{}, which is also what we require. Such tests are very convenient when studying complicated models; for example, in the expression for $Q^-_{\alpha}$ (eqn (\[Qminus\])), there are approximately 3500 terms.
DLCQ Bound State Solutions {#numericalresults}
==========================
We consider discretizing the light-cone supercharge $Q^-_{\alpha}$ for a particular $\alpha \in \{1,2,\dots,8\}$, and for the values $K=2,3,4$. For a given resolution $K$, the light-cone momenta of partons in a given Fock state must be some positive integer multiple of $P^+/K$, where $P^+$ is the total light-cone momentum of the state. For example, when $K=2$, there are precisely 256 Fock states in the U($N$) theory that are made up from two partons: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{128 Bosons:} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{2}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{2}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8;
\hspace{3mm} (\alpha \neq \beta); \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8;
\hspace{3mm} (\alpha \neq \beta);
\end{array}
\right. \\
& & \nonumber \\
\mbox{128 Fermions:} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{2}P^+)b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{2}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Of course, there are an additional 16 single particle states: eight bosons of the form $\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(P^+)]|0\rangle$ and eight fermions of the form $\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(P^+)]|0\rangle$. This gives a total of $128+8$ bosons and $128+8$ fermions in the DLCQ Hilbert space for the U($N$) theory. If we calculate the matrix representation of $Q^-_{\alpha}$ (for any $\alpha$) with respect to this finite basis, we find that the masses $M^2 \sim (Q^-_{\alpha})^2$ of all these states are zero. In fact, this is what we expect. First of all, it can be shown that the the light-cone supercharge $Q^-_{\alpha}$ for the U($N$) gauge group is identical to the expression for the SU($N$) supercharge. This is tantamount to saying that the U(1) part of the U($N$) theory decouples completely as a free field theory, and is identically zero for the light-cone Hamiltonian. The U(1) states in the U($N$) DLCQ Fock space are readily identified; they are precisely those states that are made from a product of one-particle Fock states. The remaining states – consisting of 64 bosons and 64 fermions – belong to the SU($N$) Fock space, and must therefore be single-trace states of two partons. Since the supercharge changes the number of partons in a Fock state by one, it must annihilate any SU($N$) Fock state, which can only have two partons when $K=2$.
The decoupling of the U(1) degrees of freedom in the U($N$) theory provides trivial examples of massless states, and implies that all the non-trivial dynamics is contained in the SU($N$) gauge theory. In particular, investigating the existence (or not) of massless states in the SU($N$) theory is a highly non-trivial problem for $K \geq 3$. We will therefore restrict our attention to the SU($N$) gauge theory.
To begin, we list all two parton states in the SU($N$) gauge theory for $K=3$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{128 Bosons:} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{3}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{2}{3}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{2}{3}P^+)]
|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8;
\end{array}
\right. \\
& & \nonumber \\
\mbox{128 Fermions:} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{3}P^+)b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
(\frac{2}{3}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{2}{3}P^+)b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
(\frac{1}{3}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there are 128 bosons and 128 fermions that consist of two partons. For three parton states, where the momentum is shared equally among each parton, the states take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{688 Bosons:} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{3}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_K(\frac{1}{3}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J,K=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,\alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8;
\end{array}
\right. \\
& & \nonumber \\
\mbox{688 Fermions:} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\gamma}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)]
|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta,\gamma=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ More specifically, there are 176 boson states of the form[^6] $\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{3}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_K(\frac{1}{3}P^+)]
|0\rangle$, and $8\times 8 \times 8 = 512$ states of the form $\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{3}P^+)
]|0\rangle$. Therefore, the SU($N$) $K=3$ DLCQ Hilbert space consists of 816 bosons and 816 fermions. It is indeed satisfying to find that our computer algorithm generates precisely this number of states. The results of our DLCQ numerical diagonalization of $(Q^-_{\alpha})^2$ is summarized in Table \[K3masses\]. To test our numerical algorithms, we diagonalize different supercharges, and find the same spectrum – which is consistent with supersymmetry.
[|c|c|]{}\
$M^2$ & Mass Degeneracy\
0 & $560+560$\
18 & $128+128$\
72 & $112+112$\
126 & $16+16$\
Let us now consider resolution $K=4$. For the sake of definiteness, we enumerate carefully the SU($N$) DLCQ Fock space. Firstly, bosonic Fock states with only two partons take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{192 bosons (2 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{3}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{3}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{2}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{2}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8; \hspace{3mm}
(\alpha \neq \beta);
\end{array} \nonumber
\right.\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to verify that there are $64+64+36+28=192$ such states. Similarly, bosonic Fock states with three partons take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{2048 bosons (3 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_K(\frac{2}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J,K=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,\alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,\alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,\alpha,\beta=1,2,\dots,8,
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and it is easily shown that there are $4\times 8^3 = 2048$ such states. Enumerating all four parton bosonic Fock states requires additional effort. Firstly, we consider all single-trace bosonic Fock states with four partons; these are listed below:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{8192 bosons (4 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_K(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_L(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J,K,L=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha,\beta=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha,\beta=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\gamma}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\delta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta=1,\dots,8.
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The total number of such states is 8192, and decomposes as follows; there are 1044 states of the first type listed above[^7], $8\times 8\times 8\times 8 = 4096$ states of the second type, 2016 states of the third type[^8], and finally, 1036 states of the fourth type[^9].
The remaining four-parton bosonic Fock states are formed from a product of two two-parton Fock states:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{4096 bosons (4 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_K(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_L(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J,K,L=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha,\beta=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha,\beta=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\gamma}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\delta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta=1,\dots,8.
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Straightforward counting techniques yield 666 states of the first type listed above, 1008 states of the second type, 2016 states of the third type, and 406 states of the fourth type, giving a total of 4096 bosons.
We therefore conclude that there are 10432 single-trace bosonic Fock states, and 4096 double-trace bosonic Fock states, yielding 14528 bosons in total.
We now enumerate all the fermions, which turns out to be a much simpler calculation. To begin, all two-parton fermionic states have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{192 fermions (2 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
(\frac{3}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{3}{4}P^+)b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{2}{4}P^+)b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
(\frac{2}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha=1,2,\dots,8,
\end{array} \nonumber
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and it is straightforward to check that there are $64+64+64=192$ such states. Note that this equals the number of two-parton bosonic states. The enumeration of all three-parton fermionic states is listed below: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{2048 fermions (3 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\gamma}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & \alpha,\beta, \gamma =1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha =1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_{J}(\frac{2}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,J,\alpha = 1,\dots,8,
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and it is easy to verify that there are $4\times 8^3=2048$ such states. Once again, this precisely matches the number of three-parton bosonic states. Four-parton fermionic states may consist of a single trace or a product of two traces. The single-trace Fock states take the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{8192 fermions (4 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
a^{\dagger}_K(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J,K,\alpha=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\gamma}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,\alpha,\beta, \gamma =1,\dots,8,
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and there are $2 \times 8^4 = 8192$ such states. This number agrees exactly with the number of single-trace bosonic states with four partons, although we recall that the counting of bosonic states was significantly more complicated.
Finally, four-parton fermionic states with two traces take the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{4096 fermions (4 partons):} & &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_I(\frac{1}{4}P^+)a^{\dagger}_J(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{K}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
|0\rangle & I,J,K,\alpha=1,\dots,8; \\
\mbox{tr}[a^{\dagger}_{I}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)]
\mbox{tr}[b^{\dagger}_{\beta}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
b^{\dagger}_{\gamma}(\frac{1}{4}P^+)
]|0\rangle & I,\alpha,\beta,\gamma=1,\dots,8.
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
One may now verify that there are $36\times 64=2304$ states of the first type, and $64 \times 28=1792$ states of the second type, yielding 4096 states overall. This of course agrees with the number of double-trace bosonic states calculated earlier.
We have thus verified that there are precisely an equal number of bosons and fermions in the $K=4$ DLCQ Hilbert space of the SU($N$) theory. The total number of states is precisely $14528+14528 = 29056$. This reflects an important feature of DLCQ; namely, [*DLCQ preserves supersymmetry*]{}.
We remark here that the computer algorithm we use for constructing the DLCQ Fock states involves choosing an arbitrary set of input Fock states, and then repeatedly acting on this set by a preassigned number of supercharges until no new states are formed. These supercharges may then be diagonalized on this sub-space of Fock states. It is reassuring to find that this algorithm generates precisely the number of states that we counted above.
In order to determine the bound state spectrum, we need to diagonalize a particular supercharge $Q^-_{\alpha}$ on the DLCQ Hilbert space. Fortunately, because of the sixteen supersymmetries, we can reduce the problem of diagonalizing a $29056 \times 29056$ matrix to the problem of diagonalizing sixteen $1816 \times 1816$ block matrices. These block matrices may be reduced further; the double-trace states are already diagonal with respect to the mass-squared operator $M^2$, and are massless, so they decouple from the dynamics of single-trace Fock states. Therefore, the block matrix involving only single trace Fock states has dimensions $1304 \times 1304$, and is easily handled by a desk top PC.
The results of our numerical diagonalizations are presented in Table \[K4masses\]. Note that there are $4096+4096$ massive states; for $K=3$, there were $256+256$ massive bound states.
[|c|c|]{}\
$M^2$ & Mass Degeneracy\
0 & $10432+10432$\
24 & $560+560$\
29.668 & $128+128$\
32 & $432+432$\
$53.0605^{\ast}$ & $128+128$\
56 & $16+16$\
72 & $768+768$\
73.7982 & $16+16$\
80 & $768+768$\
88 & $336+336$\
$90.3875^{\ast}$ & $112 + 112$\
96 & $336+336$\
114.332 & $128+128$\
120 & $112+112$\
141.612 & $112 + 112$\
$151.091^{\ast}$ & $16+16$\
157.606 & $128+128$\
Discussion {#conclusions}
==========
It is evident from the DLCQ bound state masses summarized in Tables \[K3masses\] and \[K4masses\] that there are a large number of massless states. At first, this seems to be at odds with the claim that the SU($N$) gauge theory is expected to have a mass gap [@witt95]. However, to determine whether there is a mass gap or not, we need to investigate whether there are normalizable states with zero mass in the [*continuum limit*]{} $K \rightarrow \infty$. In our present study, we only considered the values $K=2,3$ and $4$, and so it would seem hopeless at first to make any statements about the continuum theory. It turns out, however, that there is already suggestive evidence of a mass gap which can be obtained at these low resolutions.
The crucial observation is that all the massless states in the DLCQ spectrum are made up of partons carrying the smallest positive unit of light-cone momentum allowed at the given resolution. For example, at $K=2$, we saw that the SU($N$) Hilbert space consisted of two-parton Fock states – 64 bosons and 64 fermions (all massless) – where each parton carried the smallest integer unit of light-cone momentum. For $K=3$, we find that all the massless states are a superposition of only three-parton Fock states, so each parton carries one unit of light-cone momentum. The states made from a superposition of two-parton Fock states, which were massless at $K=2$, acquire a mass at the higher resolution $K=3$. Similarly, after studying carefully the DLCQ bound states at resolution $K=4$, we find that the massless states are superpositions of only four-parton Fock states. Each parton in these Fock states carries precisely one unit of light-cone momentum. There are no massless states involving Fock states with two or three partons at $K=4$, so the massless states we observe at $K=2$ and $K=3$ have evidently acquired a mass at the higher resolution.
This pattern is very suggestive; namely, we expect that at a given resolution $K$, the massless states in the DLCQ spectrum will be a superposition of [*only*]{} $K$-parton Fock states, so that each parton carries a single unit of light-cone momentum. It is clear, then, that as we take the continuum limit $K \rightarrow \infty$, these massless states do not converge to any well-defined massless state in the continuum, which contrasts what is observed in a two dimensional supersymmetric model with $(1,1)$ supersymmetry [@alp98]. Of course, this assumption is not enough to establish the existence of a mass gap, since it is possible that lighter massive states may appear at higher resolutions, and possibly converge to zero in the limit $K \rightarrow \infty$ [@alp98]. However, we note that the lightest massive states at $K=4$ are heavier than the ones observed at $K=3$, and so increasing the resolution does not appear to introduce lighter massive states. Evidently, it would be desirable to probe larger values of $K$ to help clarify this issue, and we leave this for future work. Nevertheless, our results clearly support the existence of a mass gap in the continuum SU($N$) supersymmetric gauge theory.
There is also additional information about the continuum theory that emerges from our DLCQ results. First of all, the massive states observed at $K=3$ (see Table \[K3masses\]) are also observed at $K=4$ (Table \[K4masses\]) with the same mass degeneracy. We therefore expect these degeneracies to be preserved for all values of $K$, including the continuum limit $K \rightarrow \infty$. Our numerical results therefore indicate mass degeneracies that are expected to be present in the spectrum of the continuum theory.
We finally comment on possible connections between the DLCQ ${\cal N}=(8,8)$ model studied here and various string-related models. It has already been claimed that at resolution $K$ one finds massless states made up of $K$-parton Fock states, so that each parton carries precisely one unit of light-cone momentum. If one thinks of $K$ as being large but finite, then these states become string-like states made up of many ‘bits’. One also finds that the lightest massive states at $K=4$ are composed of mainly three and four-parton Fock states, and so, in general, one expects the low energy spectrum to be dominated by string-like states – a property that is in fact observed for two dimensional $(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills [@alp98]. This suggests that the DLCQ model studied here might be closely related to the ‘string-bit’ models originally proposed by Thorn [@thorn]. Perhaps more intriguing is the possible connection with matrix string theory [@dvv]. In the DLCQ model we compactify a light-like direction, while for matrix string theory, one works with the same Lagrangian, but chooses instead to compactify a space-like coordinate, which originates from the geometry of closed strings in Type IIA string theory. It would be very interesting to compare these two schemes, and possibly relate them. Perhaps understanding the origin of quantized electric flux in the context of light-cone quantized gauge theories [@pin97a; @mrp97] will pave the way to a better understanding of the significance of the DLCQ model studied here and the dynamics of non-perturbative string theory.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
F.A. is grateful to Jungil Lee for assistance with computer work. S.T. is grateful for hospitality during his visit at Ohio State.
Appendix: Super Yang-Mills in Ten Dimensions {#ymills10}
============================================
Let’s start with ${\cal N}=1$ super Yang-Mills theory in 9+1 dimensions with gauge group U($N$): $$S_{9+1}=\int d^{10}x \hspace{1mm} \mbox{tr} \Bigg
(-\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{ \mu\nu}+\frac{{\rm i}}{2}
\bar{\Psi}\Gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\Psi\Bigg) ,
\label{EQ1}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mu\nu}&=&\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}
+{\rm i}g[A_{\mu}, A_{\nu}] , \\
D_{\mu}\Psi &=& \partial_{\mu}\Psi+{\rm i}g[A_\mu, \Psi], \end{aligned}$$ and $\mu,\nu = 0,\dots,9$. The Majorana spinor $\Psi$ transforms in the adjoint representation of U($N$). The (flat) space-time metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ has signature $(+,-,\dots,-)$, and we adopt the normalization $\mbox{tr}(T^aT^b) = \delta^{a b}$ for the generators of the U($N$) gauge group.
In order to realize the ten dimensional Dirac algebra $\{\Gamma_\mu, \Gamma_\nu\}=2g_{\mu\nu}$ in terms of Majorana matrices, we use as building blocks the reducible ${\bf 8}_s + {\bf 8}_c$ representation of the spin(8) Clifford Algebra. In block form, we have $$\gamma^I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \beta_I\\
\beta_I^T & 0
\end{array}\right), \hspace{7mm} I=1,\dots,8,$$ where the $8 \times 8$ real matrices, $\beta_I$, satisfy $\{\beta_I,\beta_J^T \} = 2\delta_{IJ}$. This automatically ensures the spin(8) algebra $\{\gamma^I,\gamma^J \} = 2\delta^{IJ}$ for the $16 \times 16$ real-symmetric matrices $\gamma^I$. An explicit representation for the $\beta_I$ algebra may be given in terms of a tensor product of Pauli matrices [@schwarz]. In the present context, we may choose a representation such that a ninth matrix, $\gamma^9 = \gamma^1 \gamma^2 \cdots \gamma^8$, which anti-commutes with the other eight $\gamma^I$’s, takes the explicit form $$\gamma^9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf 1}_{8} & 0\\
0 & -{\bf 1}_{8} \end{array}\right). \label{gamma9}$$ We may now construct $32 \times 32$ pure imaginary (or Majorana) matrices $\Gamma^\mu$ which realize the Dirac algebra for the Lorentz group SO($9,1$): $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Gamma^0=\sigma_2 \otimes {\bf 1}_{16}, \\
&& \Gamma^I={\rm i}\sigma_1 \otimes \gamma^I, \hspace{6mm} I=1,\dots,8;\\
% && \Gamma_{11}= \Gamma^0 \cdots \Gamma^9=\sigma_3\otimes {\bf 1}_{16} .
&& \Gamma^9= {\rm i}\sigma_1 \otimes \gamma^9.\end{aligned}$$ The Majorana spinor therefore has 32 real components, and since it transforms in the adjoint representation of U($N$), each of these components may be viewed as an $N \times N$ Hermitian matrix.
An additional matrix $\Gamma_{11}=
\Gamma^0 \cdots \Gamma^9$, which is equal to $\sigma_3\otimes {\bf 1}_{16}$ in the representation specified by (\[gamma9\]), is easily seen to anti-commute with all other gamma matrices, and satisfies $(\Gamma_{11})^2 = 1$. It is also real, and so the Majorana spinor field $\Psi$ admits a chiral decomposition via the projection operators $\Lambda_{\pm} \equiv
\frac{1}{2}(1 \pm \Gamma_{11})$: $$\Psi = \Psi_+ + \Psi_-, \hspace{5mm} \Psi_{\pm} = \Lambda_{\pm} \Psi.$$ We will therefore consider only spinors with positive chirality $\Gamma_{11} \Psi = +\Psi$ (Majorana-Weyl): $$\Psi= 2^{1/4} { \psi \choose 0}, \label{spin16}$$ where $\psi$ is a sixteen component real spinor, and the numerical factor $2^{1/4}$ is introduced for later convenience.
Since $\gamma^9$ anti-commutes with the other eight $\gamma^I$’s, and satisfies $(\gamma^9)^2 = 1$, we may construct further projection operators $P_R \equiv \frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma^9)$ and $P_L \equiv \frac{1}{2}(1-\gamma^9)$ which project out, respectively, the right-moving and left-moving components of the sixteen component spinor $\psi$ defined in (\[spin16\]): $$\psi = \psi_R + \psi_L, \hspace{5mm} \psi_R = P_R \psi, \hspace{3mm}
\psi_L = P_L \psi.$$ This decomposition is particularly useful when working with light-cone coordinates, since in the light-cone gauge one can express the left-moving component $\psi_L$ in terms of the right-moving component $\psi_R$ by virtue of the fermion constraint equation. We will derive this result shortly. In terms of the usual ten dimensional Minkowski space-time coordinates, the light-cone coordinates are given by $$\begin{aligned}
x^+ & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0 + x^9), \hspace{10mm}
\mbox{``time coordinate''} \\
x^- & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0 - x^9), \hspace{10mm}
\mbox{``longitudinal space coordinate''} \\
{\bf x}^{\perp} & = & (x^1,\dots,x^8).
\hspace{13mm} \mbox{``transverse coordinates''} \end{aligned}$$ Note that the ‘raising’ and ‘lowering’ of the $\pm$ indices is given by the rule $x^{\pm} = x_{\mp}$, while $x^I = -x_I$ for $I=1,\dots,8$, as usual. It is now a routine task to demonstrate that the Yang-Mills action (\[EQ1\]) for the positive chirality spinor (\[spin16\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
S_{9+1}^{LC} & = & \int dx^+ dx^- d{\bf x}^{\perp} \hspace{1mm}
\mbox{tr} \left( \frac{1}{2}F_{+-}^2 + F_{+I}F_{-I} - \frac{1}{4}F_{IJ}^2
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{20mm}
+ \hspace{1mm}
{\rm i} \psi_R^T D_+ \psi_R + {\rm i}\psi_L^T D_- \psi_L +
{\rm i}\sqrt{2}\psi_L^T \gamma^I D_I \psi_R \left.
\frac{}{} \right),
\label{LCversion}\end{aligned}$$ where the repeated indices $I,J$ are summed over $(1,\dots,8)$. Some surprising simplifications follow if we now choose to work in the [*light-cone gauge*]{} $A^+ = A_- = 0$. In this gauge $D_- \equiv \partial_-$, and so the (Euler-Lagrange) equation of motion for the left-moving field $\psi_L$ is simply $$\partial_- \psi_L = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma^I D_I \psi_R,
\label{fermioncon}$$ which is evidently a non-dynamical constraint equation, since it is independent of the light-cone time. We may therefore eliminate any dependence on $\psi_L$ (representing unphysical degrees of freedom) in favor of $\psi_R$, which carries the eight physical fermionic degrees of freedom in the theory. In addition, the equation of motion for the $A_+$ field yields Gauss’ law: $$\partial_{-}^2 A_{+}=\partial_{-}\partial_{I}A_{I}+gJ^+
\label{apluscon}$$ where $J^+={\rm i}[A_{I},\partial_{-}A_{I}]+2\psi_{R}^T\psi_{R}$, and so the $A_+$ field may also be eliminated to leave the eight bosonic degrees of freedom $A_I$, $I=1,\dots,8$. Note that the eight fermionic degrees of freedom exactly match the eight bosonic degrees of freedom associated with the transverse polarization of a ten dimensional gauge field, which is of course consistent with the supersymmetry. We should emphasize that unlike the usual covariant formulation of Yang-Mills, the light-cone formulation here permits one to remove [*explicitly*]{} any unphysical degrees of freedom in the Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian); there are no ghosts.
[9999]{} E.Witten, [*Bound States Of Strings And $p$-Branes*]{}, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B460**]{}, (1996), 335-350, hep-th/9510135. T.Banks, W.Fischler, S.Shenker and L.Susskind, [*M Theory As A Matrix Model: A Conjecture*]{}, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, (1997), 5112-5128, hep-th/9610043. Juan M. Maldacena, [*The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity*]{}, hep-th/9711200. F.Antonuccio, O.Lunin, S.Pinsky, [*Non-Perturbative Spectrum of Two Dimensional (1,1) Super Yang-Mills at Finite and Large $N$*]{}, hep-th/9803170 (to appear in [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D**]{}); F.Antonuccio, O.Lunin, S.Pinsky, [*Bound States of Dimensionally Reduced $\mbox{SYM}_{2+1}$ at Finite $N$*]{}, hep-th/9803027, (To appear in [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**B**]{}). H.-C. Pauli and S.J.Brodsky, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D32**]{} (1985) 1993, 2001. Yoichiro Matsumura, Norisuke Sakai, Tadakatsu Sakai, [*Mass Spectra of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories in $1 + 1$ Dimensions*]{}, hep-th/9504150, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{} (1995) 2446. S.J. Brodsky, H.C. Pauli, and S.S. Pinsky, [*Quantum Chromodynamics and Other Field Theories on the Light Cone*]{} (To appear in Phys.Rept.), hep-ph/9705477. F.Antonuccio, S.Brodsky and S.Dalley, [*Light-cone Wavefunctions at Small $x$*]{}, [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**B412**]{} (1997) 104-110. hep-ph/9705413. S.Dalley and I.Klebanov, [*String Spectrum of 1+1-Dimensional Large $N$ QCD with Adjoint Matter*]{}, hep-th/9209049, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D47**]{} (1993) 2517-2527; G. Bhanot, K.Demeterfi and I. Klebanov, [*$1+1$-Dimensional Large $N$ QCD coupled to Adjoint Fermions*]{}, hep-th/9307111, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D48**]{} (1993) 4980-4990. M.B.Green, J.H.Schwarz, and E.Witten, [ *Superstring Theory*]{}, Vol.1, CUP (1987). F. Antonuccio, S.S. Pinsky, [*Phys.Lett*]{} [**B397**]{}:42-50,1997, hep-th/9612021. S. Pinsky, [*“The Analog of the t’Hooft Pion with Adjoint Fermions”*]{} Invited talk at New Nonperturbative Methods and Quantization of the Light Cone, Les Houches. France, 24 Feb - 7 Mar 1997. hep-th/9705242 S. Pinsky, [*Phys.Rev*]{} [**D56**]{}:5040-5049,1997 hep-th/9612073 S. Pinsky and D. Robertson, [*Phys.Lett* ]{} [**B 379**]{} (1996) 169-178; G. McCartor, D. G. Robertson and S. Pinsky [*Phys.Rev*]{} [**D56**]{}:1035-1049,1997 hep-th/9612083 C.B.Thorn, [*Phys.Rev*]{} [**D19**]{} (1979) 639; C.B Thorn, [*Reformulating String Theory with the $1/N$ Expansion*]{}, hep-th/9405069. L.Motl, [*Proposals on Non-Perturbative Superstring Interactions*]{}, hep-th/9701025; T.Banks and N.Seiberg, [*Strings from Matrices*]{}, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [*B497*]{} (1997) 41, hep-th/9702187; R.Dijkgraaf, E.Verlinde, H.Verlinde, [*Matrix String Theory*]{}, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B500**]{} (1997) 43, hep-th/9703030.
[^1]: The space-time points in ten dimensional Minkowski space are parametrized by coordinates $(x^0,x^1,\dots,x^9)$.
[^2]: If we introduce a mass term, such relations become crucial in establishing finiteness conditions. See [@abd97], for example.
[^3]: The symbol $\dagger$ denotes quantum conjugation, and does not transpose matrix indices.
[^4]: It might be useful to consult [@sakai95; @dak93; @anp97; @pin97] for an elaboration of DLCQ in models with adjoint fermions.
[^5]: We exclude the zero mode $k^+=0$ in our analysis; the massive spectrum is not expected to be affected by this omission, but there are issues concerning the light-cone vacuum that involve $k^+=0$ modes [@pin97a; @mrp97].
[^6]: We use Polya Theory to count these states; we think of a necklace with three beads, where each bead may be colored in eight distinct ways. The permutation symmetry involving only rotations is ${\bf Z}_3$, and the ‘cyclic index polynomial’ is therefore $\frac{1}{3}[x_1^3 + 2x_3]$. Hence there are $\frac{1}{3}[8^3 + 2\cdot 8]=176$ distinct configurations modulo cyclic rotations.
[^7]: We use Polya theory as before: The cyclic permutation symmetry of a necklace with four beads, each of which can be colored in eight distinct ways, is ${\bf Z}_4$, and gives rise to the cyclic index polynomial $\frac{1}{4}[x_1^4+x_2^2+2x_4]$. Thus, there are $\frac{1}{4}[8^4+8^2+2\cdot 8]=1044$ distinct configurations
[^8]: The symmetry here is the subgroup ${\bf Z}_2$ of ${\bf Z}_4$, and the resulting cyclic index polynomial is $\frac{1}{2}[
x_1^4+x_2^2]$. Thus, there are $\frac{1}{2}[8^4+8^2]=
2080$ distinct states modulo cyclic permutations. However, 64 of these states have zero norm, and may be identified as those states for which $(I,\alpha)=(J,\beta)$. Subtracting these states, we are left with $2080-64=2016$ distinct states of the third type.
[^9]: The counting here is the same as in the first type because of the ${\bf Z}_4$ cyclic symmetry, but we must also subtract zero-norm states, which are precisely those states with $\alpha=\beta=\gamma=\delta$. There can only be 8 such states, and so we have $1044-8=1036$ distinct states overall.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We derive and analyze a hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin (HDG) method for approximating weak solutions to the equations of time-harmonic linear elasticity on a bounded Lipschitz domain in three dimensions. The real symmetry of the stress tensor is strongly enforced and its coefficients as well as those of the displacement vector field are approximated simultaneously at optimal convergence with respect to the choice of approximating spaces, wavenumber, and mesh size. Sufficient conditions are given so that the system is indeed transferable onto a global hybrid variable that, for larger polynomial degrees, may be approximated via a smaller-dimensional space than the original variables. We construct several variants of this method and discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and give a systematic approach to the error analysis for these methods. We touch briefly on the application of this error analysis to the time-dependent problem, and finally, we examine two different implementations of the method over various polynomial degrees and numerically demonstrate the convergence properties proven herein.\
[**AMS Subject classification.**]{} 65N30, 65M50\
[**Keywords.**]{} Hybridizable DG methods, elastic wave equation, time-harmonic solutions, optimal convergence.
author:
- |
Allan Hungria${}^{(1)}$, Daniele Prada${}^{(2)}$, & Francisco–Javier Sayas${}^{(1)}$[^1]\
(1) Dept of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, USA\
(2) Dept of Mathematical Sciences, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, USA\
[[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ]{}
bibliography:
- 'HDGpaperBibliography.bib'
title: HDG methods for elastodynamics
---
Dedicated to Peter Monk on his 60th birthday
Introduction
============
We are concerned with numerical methods for the evolution of elastic waves on general (heterogeneous anisotropic) linearly elastic solids. It is well known that elastodynamics, in the time and frequency domains, has multiple applications in the fields of geophysics, material science, structural engineering, oil exploration, aerospace, etc. This work is a first contribution on the use of the Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin (HDG) method to the three-dimensional linear elastic wave equation in the time-harmonic regime, including some insights on energy conservation properties when these ideas are applied to evolutionary cases.
Mathematical literature contains a plethora of numerical methods for dealing with the elastic wave equation, each with its own virtue and applications: spectral elements [@Cohen:2001], particle-based methods such as the Hamiltonian Particle method (HPM) [@GoMaMiTa:2012], as well as the more finite element styled Continuous Galerkin (CG) methods [@Joly10:2008] and Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) methods [@CoNgPe:2011]. CG is well-known for its accuracy and reliability with smooth data and simple meshes. The DG framework is praised for its capacity to handle all sorts of complicated meshes and discontinuous data, to provide high-order accurate solutions, to perform $h/p$ adaptivity, and to retain very good scalability properties. However, DG methods have been criticized because, for the same mesh and the same polynomial degree, the number of globally coupled degrees of freedom is much larger than those of CG methods.
Certain DG methods, however, including the ones we shall explore here, have the key property of being *hybridizable*, i.e., the global system can be recast in terms of (statically condensed onto) a single “hybrid" variable that represents the trace of the solution on the boundaries of the elements. These form a family of methods that are, naturally, called the Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin (HDG) methods [@CoGoLa:2009]. The main idea for devising these methods is to: (i) use a characterization of the exact solution in terms of solutions of local problems and transmission conditions; (ii) use discontinuous approximations for both the solution inside each element and its trace on the element boundary; (iii) define the local solvers with the DG method; (iv) define a global problem by weakly imposing the transmission conditions. This creates a global linear system for only the hybrid variable, which is solved, after which the unknowns are recovered locally, again in parallel. This is similar to the hybridized implementation of mixed methods such as the Raviart-Thomas elements (see [@CoGoLa:2009], [@MoScSi:2010] and [@Sayas:2013] for more on this), except that the HDG method uses different polynomial spaces and a stabilization function instead of a stable mixed finite element pair. In certain cases, the hybrid space is smaller than that of the displacement/stress spaces [@KiMoShYa2015], and this has resulted in renewed interest in HDG.
The HDG methodology was successfully applied to time-harmonic acoustic waves by Roland Griesmaier and Peter Monk [@GrMo:2011]. Their analysis involves first rephrasing the classical system as first order in frequency before moving to the weak formulation. Testing the equations with the projected errors leads to a G[å]{}rding-type identity, and, combined with the dual equations to the classical system, the projected errors of both amplitude and its gradient can be bounded. This last bound requires a rather involved bootstrapping argument which is indispensable within our argument here.
Hybridizable DG methods have lately enjoyed further exposure in time-domain wave problems. For example, Cockburn and Quenneville-B[é]{}lair’s work on HDG for the acoustic wave equation [@CoQu:2014] provides much of the framework for the insights on the time-domain elastic problem at the end of this work. Nguyen, Peraire, and Cockburn implement an implicit HDG numerical scheme for both time-dependent acoustic and elastic equations [@CoNgPe:2011], and more recently, Stanglmeier, Nguyen, Peraire, and Cockburn explore an explicit scheme for the acoustic case [@CoNgPeSt:2016].
The vector field formulation of elasticity introduces several distinct complications in both the analysis and the implementation of HDG. Cockburn, Soon, and Stolarski give a numerical implementation of HDG for planar elasticity, along with a proof of existence and uniqueness of a solution to their particular HDG formulation [@CoSoSt:2009]. Cockburn, Fu, and Stolarski go on to analyze the convergence of this last method, which uses degree $k$ polynomial bases for displacement, stress, and hybrid spaces. They prove convergence at an order of $k+1$ for displacement and $k+1/2$ for the stress [@CoFuSt:2014], which is suboptimal; this has prompted the exploration of optimally convergent HDG methods.
One issue is that the tailored HDG projections often used in the analysis may not play well with the symmetry of the approximate stress tensor. Another is that using bases of the same polynomial degree for displacement, stress, and hybrid spaces leads to a suboptimal method. One method for addressing both of these issues is to introduce special divergence-free symmetric “bubble matrices" as in [@CoGoGu:2010], providing an extra control on the stress-associated approximation space. This yields a weakly-enforced symmetry of the approximate stress as well as optimal convergence of a postprocessed solution, taking advantage of some superconvergent quantities.
Another approach entirely is that of Weifeng Qiu, Jiguang Shen, and Ke Shi for the steady-state elasticity problem [@QiSh:2014]. The special tailored HDG projections are left behind for simpler $L^2$ projections, and the displacement-associated approximation space is expanded by one polynomial degree. While this does then require some extra terms to be bounded in the analysis, the net result is shown to achieve optimal convergence directly. (Note that due to the disparity of polynomial degrees for the stress and displacement, optimal convergence of this method yields the same quality of the solution as a postprocessed method based on a superconvergent scheme.) An important feature of this approach is the strong symmetry of the approximate stress. See the introduction of [@QiSh:2014] for more on this. Expanding the polynomial degree of the primal unknown by one is an idea that can be traced back to Lehrenfeld and Schoberl [@LeSc:2015], but Qiu, Shen and Shi compensate by adjusting the order of the primal unknown piece of the stabilization function to $O(h^{-1})$ as well as a projection operator from primal approximation space onto hybrid space.
Our choice of polynomial approximating spaces and projections is that of Qiu, Shen, and Shi in order to be able to work on the most general polyhedral mesh possible. However, the frequency-domain problem, unlike the steady-state problem, is not coercive, so we wind up with a Gårding-type identity similar to that of Griesmaier and Monk’s [@GrMo:2011], after following their example and first phrasing the classical system as first order in both frequency and space. The two analytical recipes from [@QiSh:2014] and [@GrMo:2011] are here carefully blended to approach the time-harmonic elasticity case, which has implications on the choice of numerical flux and its dependence on the wavenumber.
The following treatment of HDG for time-harmonic elasticity, however, comes with its own complications, not only with regard to the hybridization of the DG scheme, but also in consideration of the dependence on the wavenumber. We have also developed a simplified system for dealing with the double-bootstrapping process, which is now even messier due to the use of $L^2$ projections rather than tailored HDG projections. By varying the numerical flux, we wind up with several different HDG methods for the time-harmonic linear elastic problem. We proceed to show how some of these methods can be used to produce semi-discretizations in the time domain and that one of them is actually conservative.
What follows is a rigorous treatment of the error analysis and well-posedness of HDG methodology as applied to the problem of three-dimensional time-harmonic elasticity on a polyhedron with mixed boundary conditions and strong symmetric stresses. We explore how this analysis can shape the stability mechanism for a method of numerically integrating the time-dependent system, in particular for the second-order-in-frequency case. Numerical experiments are carried out to demonstrate convergence of both the first-order method and a second-order variant. We then compare, using various polynomial degrees and tetrahedrizations, the sizes of the global linear systems involved in HDG and Lagrange element CG, demonstrating an advantage of HDG at large polynomial degrees.
#### Notation.
Given an open set $\Omega$, we will write $$(u,v)_\Omega:=\int_\Omega u\, v,
\quad
(\mathbf u,\mathbf v)_\Omega:=\int_\Omega \mathbf u\cdot\mathbf v,
\quad
({\boldsymbol}\xi,{\boldsymbol}\chi)_\Omega:=\int_\Omega {\boldsymbol}\xi:{\boldsymbol}\chi:=\int_\Omega \mathrm{trace}({\boldsymbol}\chi^\top {\boldsymbol}\xi),$$ for real square-integrable scalar, vector-valued, and matrix-valued functions. The symbol $\top$ will be used for real transposition of matrices. When used for complex-valued fields, all brackets will still be defined in the same way, and will be therefore bilinear and not sesquilinear. In the same spirit, $\top$ will denote transposition and the colon will be defined as above, even when applied to complex matrices. The set of symmetric real $3\times 3$ matrices will be denoted ${{\mathbb R}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}$ and the set of symmetric (not Hermitian) complex $3\times 3$ matrices will be denoted ${{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}$. Similarly, the set of antisymmetric real $3\times 3$ matrices will be denoted ${{\mathbb R}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{skw}}$ and the set of antisymmetric complex $3\times 3$ matrices will be denoted ${{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{skw}}$.
Problem setting and HDG discretization {#sec:2}
======================================
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb R^3$ be a polyhedron with Lipschitz boundary $\Gamma$. We assume that $\Gamma$ is divided into two non-overlapping parts $\Gamma_D$ and $\Gamma_N$, where we will respectively impose Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. For simplicity we will assume that each of $\Gamma_D$ and $\Gamma_N$ are made up of full faces of $\Gamma$. We will be looking for a displacement field $\mathbf u:\Omega\to {{\mathbb C}}^3$ and for the associated stress tensor $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}:\Omega\to {{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}$. The stress field is given by a general linear non-homogeneous anisotropic law: $$\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}=\mathcal C{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u),
\qquad{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u):=\tfrac12 (\nabla\mathbf u+(\nabla \mathbf u)^\top),$$ where for almost every $\mathbf x\in \Omega$, the linear operator $\mathcal C(\mathbf x)$ transforms real symmetric matrices into real symmetric matrices, satisfies the symmetry condition $$(\mathcal C(\mathbf x){\boldsymbol}\xi):{\boldsymbol}\chi
={\boldsymbol}\xi : (\mathcal C(\mathbf x){\boldsymbol}\chi) \quad \forall {\boldsymbol}\xi,{\boldsymbol}\chi\in \mathbb R^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}$$ and the positivity condition $$(\mathcal C(\mathbf x) {\boldsymbol}\xi):{\boldsymbol}\xi
\ge C_0\, {\boldsymbol}\xi:{\boldsymbol}\xi \qquad \forall {\boldsymbol}\xi\in {{\mathbb R}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}},$$ for some $C_0>0$. Moreover, we assume that the components of the tensor $\mathcal C$ with respect to the canonical basis of $\mathbb R^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}$ are $L^\infty(\Omega)$ functions. The other physical parameter in the equations to follow is the strictly positive bounded density $\rho:\Omega \to {{\mathbb R}}$, so that the weighted norm is equivalent $$C_1 \|\mathbf u\|_\Omega^2 \le \|\mathbf u\|_\rho^2:=(\rho\mathbf u,\overline{\mathbf u})_\Omega
\le C_2 \|\mathbf u\|_\Omega^2.$$ In strong primal form, our problem is the search of $\mathbf u$ such that
\[eq:2.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\nabla\cdot\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma} + \kappa^2\rho\,\mathbf u
&= \widetilde{\mathbf f} &\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
\mathbf u &=\mathbf g_D & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}\,\mathbf n &=\widetilde{\mathbf g}_N & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_N$},\end{aligned}$$
where: $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}=\mathcal C{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u)$, the divergence operator is applied to the rows of $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}$, $\widetilde{\mathbf f}\in \mathbf L^2(\Omega)=L^2(\Omega)^3$, $\mathbf g_D\in \mathbf H^{1/2}(\Gamma_D)=H^{1/2}(\Gamma_D)^3$, $\widetilde{\mathbf g}_N \in \mathbf L^2(\Gamma_N)=L^2(\Gamma_N)^3$, $\mathbf n$ is the unit outward-pointing normal vector field on $\Gamma_N$, and $\kappa > 0$ is the wave number. In the weak primal formulation (where problem is typically studied), the Dirichlet condition is understood in the sense of traces, while the Neumann condition holds in a dual space with negative Sobolev index on the boundary $\Gamma_N$. We will assume that $\kappa^2$ is not an eigenvalue for the associated Navier-Lamé operator $\mathbf u\mapsto -\nabla\cdot (\mathcal C{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u))$ with the given boundary conditions, i.e., we assume that the only solution of with zero right-hand side is the trivial solution.
The discretization will be done for a first order (in space and frequency) reformulation of . We first need to invert the elastic law $\mathcal C$. With the hypothesis given for $\mathcal C$, we can assert that for almost every $\mathbf x\in \Omega$, there exists a linear operator $\mathcal A(\mathbf x)=\mathcal C(\mathbf x)^{-1}$, transforming real symmetric matrices into real symmetric matrices. On the set of matrix-valued ${\boldsymbol}\xi:\Omega \to \mathbb C^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}$ functions with $L^2(\Omega)$ components, we define the elastic potential norm $$C_1\| {\boldsymbol}\xi\|_\Omega^2 \le \| {\boldsymbol}\xi\|_{\mathcal A}^2 :=
(\mathcal A {\boldsymbol}\xi,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\xi})_{\Omega}=(\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\xi_{\mathrm{re}}+\imath \mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\xi_{\mathrm{im}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\xi})_\Omega
\le C_2 \| {\boldsymbol}\xi\|_\Omega^2.$$ We emphasize that we will always use bilinear (not sesquilinear) brackets for $L^2$-type products, and that the symbol used for the Frobenius product of matrices (the colon) will not include conjugation. We then introduce the new unknown and data $${\boldsymbol}\sigma:=\frac\imath\kappa \widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}=\frac\imath\kappa \mathcal C {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u),
\qquad
\mathbf f:=\frac\imath\kappa \widetilde{\mathbf f},
\qquad
\mathbf g_N:=\frac\imath\kappa \widetilde{\mathbf g}_N,$$ and write as the equivalent first order system
\[eq:2.2\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\imath\kappa\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\sigma +{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u) &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\sigma +\imath\kappa\,\rho\,\mathbf u &=\mathbf f
&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
\mathbf u &=\mathbf g_D
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
{\boldsymbol}\sigma\mathbf n &=\mathbf g_N
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_N$}.\end{aligned}$$
A similar formulation can be found using the original data and the stress tensor $\widetilde{\bf\sigma}$, so that the equations are $\mathcal A\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}-{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u)=\mathbf 0$ and $\nabla\cdot\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}+\kappa^2 \,\rho\,\mathbf u=\widetilde{\mathbf f}$. (This will be discussed in Section \[sec:6\].)
We next introduce the HDG discretization of . Since the method we use is Qiu & Shi’s [@QiSh:2014], we will not repeat the derivation. We start with a shape-regular conforming tetrahedrization ${{\mathcal T_h}}$ of the domain $\Omega$. The set of all faces of elements of ${{\mathcal T_h}}$ is denoted $\mathcal E_h$, and we will sometimes understand that $\mathcal E_h$ is the geometric skeleton of the triangulation, i.e., the union of all the faces of all elements. The method involves three discrete spaces
\[eq:2.3\] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb V_h}}&:=& \{ {\boldsymbol}\xi:\Omega\to {{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}\,:\, {\boldsymbol}\xi|_K \in \mathcal P_k(K;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}) \quad \forall K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}\},\\
{{\mathbf W_h}}&:=& \{ \mathbf u:\Omega\to {{\mathbb C}}^3\,:\, \mathbf u|_K \in \mathcal P_{k+1}(K;{{\mathbb C}}^3)\quad
\forall K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}\},\\
{{\mathbf M_h}}&:=& \{ {\boldsymbol}\mu:\mathcal E_h \to {{\mathbb C}}^3\,:\, {\boldsymbol}\mu|_F\in \mathcal P_k(F;{{\mathbb C}}^3)\quad
\forall K\in \mathcal E_h\}.\end{aligned}$$
In , $\mathcal P_r(K;S)$ is the set of polynomials of total degree up to $r$ defined on $K$ and with values in $S\in \{{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}},{{\mathbb C}}^3\}$, while $\mathcal P_k(F;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ are vector valued polynomials on the tangential coordinates defined on the face $F$ and of degree not greater than $k$. We will also use the orthogonal projector $$\label{eq:2.4new}
{{\mathbf P_M}}: \prod_{K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}} L^2(\partial K) \longrightarrow \prod_{K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}} \prod_{F\in \mathcal E(K)} \mathcal P_k(F;{{\mathbb C}}^3),$$ where $\mathcal E(K)$ is the set of faces of $\partial K$. Note that ${{\mathbf M_h}}$ can be identified with the subspace of the set of the right-hand side of consisting of functions that are single-valued on internal faces.
Stabilization is carried out through a function ${\boldsymbol}\tau$ defined as follows: for each element $K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}$, a function ${\boldsymbol}\tau_K:\partial K \to \mathbb R^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}$ satisfying (a) ${\boldsymbol}\tau_K|_{F}$ is constant on each $F\in \mathcal E(K)$; (b) there exist two positive constants such that $$\label{eq:tau}
C_1 h_K^{-1} \|{\boldsymbol}\mu\|_{\partial K}^2 \le \langle{\boldsymbol}\tau_K {\boldsymbol}\mu,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\mu}\rangle_{\partial K}
\le C_2 h_K^{-1} \|{\boldsymbol}\mu\|_{\partial K}^2
\quad \forall {\boldsymbol}\mu\in \mathbf L^2(\partial K), \quad \forall K\in {{\mathcal T_h}},$$ where $h_K$ is the diameter of $K$. The symbol ${\boldsymbol}\tau$ will be used to denote the function defined on the set of boundaries of all elements as above, understanding that ${\boldsymbol}\tau$ can be double-valued on interior faces. The numerical fluxes follow the pattern of HDG methods: the one corresponding to the displacement will be an unknown $\widehat{\mathbf u}_h \in {{\mathbf M_h}}$, while the one related to the (normal) stress is given elementwise with a formula in terms of all the unknowns $$\label{eq:2.4}
\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n:={\boldsymbol}\sigma_h\mathbf n+{\boldsymbol}\tau_K ({{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u_h-\widehat{\mathbf u}_h)
\,:\, \partial K\to {{\mathbb C}}^3.$$ Here the normal vector field $\mathbf n:\partial K\to {{\mathbb R}}^3$ is unitary and points to the exterior of $K$. At this time, we can write the HDG discrete equations for . We look for $({\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,\mathbf u_h,\widehat{\mathbf u}_h)\in {{\mathbb V_h}}\times {{\mathbf W_h}}\times {{\mathbf M_h}}$ satisfying
\[eq:2.5\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\label{eq:2.5a}
\imath\kappa (\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{{\mathcal T_h}}}
-(\mathbf u_h,\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\langle\widehat{\mathbf u}_h,{\boldsymbol}\xi\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
& = 0 & \qquad & \forall {\boldsymbol}\xi\in {{\mathbb V_h}},\\
\label{eq:2.5b}
-({\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,\nabla\mathbf w)_{{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle \widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n,\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\imath\kappa (\rho\,\mathbf u_h,\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}&=(\mathbf f,\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}& & \forall \mathbf w\in {{\mathbf W_h}},\\
\label{eq:2.5c}
\langle\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
&=\langle\mathbf g_N,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_N} & & \forall {\boldsymbol}\mu \in {{\mathbf M_h}},\\
\label{eq:2.5d}
\langle\widehat{\mathbf u}_h,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D} &=\langle\mathbf g_D,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D}
& &\forall {\boldsymbol}\mu\in {{\mathbf M_h}},\end{aligned}$$
with as the definition of $\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n$ and brackets defined as follows: $$(\mathbf u,\mathbf v)_{{\mathcal T_h}}:=\sum_{K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}} (\mathbf u,\mathbf v)_K, \qquad
\langle \mathbf u,\mathbf v\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}:=\sum_{K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}} \langle \mathbf u,\mathbf v\rangle_{\partial K}
:=\sum_{K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}}\int_{\partial K}\mathbf u\cdot\mathbf v,$$ and $$\langle \mathbf u,\mathbf v\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
:=\sum_{K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}} \langle \mathbf u,\mathbf v\rangle_{\partial K\setminus\Gamma_D}.$$ Equations and can be added together as a single equation tested against ${{\mathbf M_h}}$, which shows that is a square system of linear equations. The discrete momentum equation can be equivalently written as $$\label{eq:2.5bnew}
(\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau ({{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u_h-\widehat{\mathbf u}_h),{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\imath\kappa (\rho\,\mathbf u_h,\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}=(\mathbf f,\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}\quad \forall\mathbf w\in {{\mathbf W_h}}.$$ We note that the degree of the polynomial space used for $\mathbf u_h$ is one higher than the one used for the other unknowns and the fact that ${{\mathbf P_M}}$ has been introduced in the definition of the flux so that $\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n \in
\prod_{F\in \mathcal E(K)} \mathcal P_k(F;{{\mathbb C}}^3).$
Main results {#sec:3}
============
#### Regularity assumptions.
From now on we will assume that $\rho$ and the coefficients of $\mathcal C$ are in $W^{1,\infty}({{\mathcal T_h}})$. Let us now consider the coercive problem
\[eq:3.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\nabla\cdot(\mathcal C {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf w))-\rho\,\mathbf w
&= \mathbf r &\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
\mathbf w &={\boldsymbol}0 & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
(\mathcal C {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf w))\,\mathbf n
&={\boldsymbol}0 & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_N$}.\end{aligned}$$
We will also assume that the solution of for arbitrary $\mathbf r\in L^2(\Omega;\mathbb R^3)$ is in $H^2(\Omega;\mathbb R^3)$ and that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{eq:3.2}
\| \mathbf w\|_{2,\Omega} \le C \|\mathbf r\|_\Omega.$$ For the time-harmonic problem, we will denote by $C_\kappa>0$ the constant such that the solution of
\[eq:3.3\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\nabla\cdot(\mathcal C {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf w))+\kappa^2\rho\,\mathbf w
&= \mathbf r &\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
\mathbf w &={\boldsymbol}0 & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
(\mathcal C {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf w))\,\mathbf n
&={\boldsymbol}0 & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_N$}.\end{aligned}$$
can be bounded by $$\label{eq:3.4}
\| \mathbf w\|_{1,\Omega}\le C_\kappa \|\mathbf r\|_\Omega.$$ Note that we have assumed the unique solvability of .
#### Error quantities.
The error analysis will be carried out by comparing numerical solutions and orthogonal projections. Let ${{\Pi_V}}: L^2(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}})\to {{\mathbb V_h}}$ and ${{\Pi_W}}:L^2(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^3)\to{{\mathbf W_h}}$ be the orthogonal projections onto the discrete spaces. Consider the errors $${{e_h^\sigma}}:={{\Pi_V}}{\boldsymbol}\sigma-{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,
\qquad
{{\mathbf e_h^u}}:={{\Pi_W}}\mathbf u-\mathbf u_h,
\qquad
{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}:={{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u-\widehat{\mathbf u}_h,$$ and the best approximation errors $${{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}:={{\Pi_V}}{\boldsymbol}\sigma-{\boldsymbol}\sigma,
\qquad
{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}}:={{\Pi_W}}\mathbf u-\mathbf u.$$ For convenience, we introduce the skeleton norm $$\| {\boldsymbol}\mu\|_\tau:=\langle {\boldsymbol}\tau {\boldsymbol}\mu,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\mu}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}^{1/2}.$$ For the error analysis we will allow constants to depend on the density $\rho$ and on the coefficients of $\mathcal A$. While the influence of these physical coefficients in the inequalities can be tracked with careful arguments, the results seem to be too involved to obtain precise conclusions on how $h$ and $\kappa$ interact with them. However, we will pay attention to the maximum spectral value of the inverse compliance tensor, i.e., to the positive bounded function such that for almost every $\mathbf x\in \Omega$ $$\label{eq:5.3new}
(\mathcal A(\mathbf x){\boldsymbol}\xi):{\boldsymbol}\xi\le c_{\mathcal A}(\mathbf x) \,
{\boldsymbol}\xi :{\boldsymbol}\xi \qquad \forall {\boldsymbol}\xi \in {{\mathbb R}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}}.$$
\[the:3.1\] There exist $C_1, C_2>0$, dependent only on the shape-regularity of ${{\mathcal T_h}}$, the density $\rho$ and the coefficients of the inverse compliance tensor $\mathcal A$ such that if $h (1+\kappa)^{3/2}(1+\kappa C_\kappa+C_\kappa)$ is small enough, then the errors can be bounded by $$\| {{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}+\kappa^{-1/2} \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau
\le C_1 (1+\kappa^{-1/2}) \big( h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega}+h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big)$$ and $$\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega\le C_2 (1+\kappa C_\kappa) \kappa^{-1/2}(1+\kappa)^2
\big( h^{t+1} |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega}+h^{s} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big),$$ if $k\ge 1$, $\mathbf u\in H^s(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ with $1\le s\le k+2$, and ${\boldsymbol}\sigma\in H^t(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3})$ with $1\le t\le k+1$.
Optimal error estimates are $$\| {\boldsymbol}\sigma-{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h\|_\Omega=\mathcal O(h^{k+1}),
\qquad
\| \mathbf u-\mathbf u_h\|_\Omega=\mathcal O(h^{k+2}).$$ With some additional scaling inequalities, keeping in mind that ${\boldsymbol}\tau$ scales like $h^{-1}$ elementwise, it is possible to show that $$\| \mathbf u-\widehat{\mathbf u}_h\|_\tau =\mathcal O(h^{k+1}).$$ The estimates of Theorem \[the:3.1\] can also be written in terms of the original physical variables. If we denote $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h:=-\imath\kappa{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h$, then $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\| {{\Pi_V}}\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}-\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\|_\Omega+
\kappa^{1/2} \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau
& \le
C_1 (1+\kappa^{-1/2}) \big( h^t |\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}|_{t,\Omega}+h^{s-1}\kappa |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big),\\
\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega
&\le C_2 (1+\kappa C_\kappa) \kappa^{-3/2}(1+\kappa)^2
\big( h^{t+1} |\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}|_{t,\Omega}+h^{s} \kappa|\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big).\end{aligned}$$
#### Unique solvability.
Theorem \[the:3.1\] can be used to prove existence and uniqueness of solution of for $h$ small enough (depending on the wave number $\kappa$). The argument is as follows. Consider the system with homogeneous data: $\mathbf f={\boldsymbol}0$, $\mathbf g_N={\boldsymbol}0$, and $\mathbf g_D={\boldsymbol}0$. Let $({\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,\mathbf u_h,\widehat{\mathbf u}_h)$ be any solution of this homogeneous set of linear equations. Theorem \[the:3.1\] applied to this solution and the exact zero solution shows that $({\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,\mathbf u_h,\widehat{\mathbf u}_h)$ has to vanish. Therefore, the linear system (with as many equations as unknowns) is uniquely solvable for any right-hand side. The logic of the use of Theorem \[the:3.1\] is slightly warped: it assumes the existence of a discrete solution, which we know to happen at least for the homogeneous case, and then it uses the error estimates to show that the system is actually uniquely solvable.
Local solvability and energy identity
=====================================
\[lemma:5.1\] There exists $C>0$, depending only on the shape regularity of the grid, such that $$\|\mathbf v\|_K \le C h_K \|{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf v)\|_K$$ for all $\mathbf v\in H^1(K;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:5.1}
\langle \mathbf v,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial K}=0 \qquad \forall {\boldsymbol}\mu\in \prod_{F\in \mathcal E(K)} \mathcal P_0(F;{{\mathbb C}}^3).$$
A scaling argument, using only that $\int_{\partial K}\mathbf v=\mathbf 0$ and a Poincaré inequality on the reference element prove that $$\|\mathbf v\|_K \le C h_K \|\nabla\mathbf v\|_K.$$ On the other hand, by a straightforward extension of [@QiSh:2014 Lemma 4.1] to our complex-valued fields, we have the local Korn inequality $$\label{eq:5.2}
\inf_{{\boldsymbol}\xi\in \mathbb C^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{skw}}}\| \nabla\mathbf v+{\boldsymbol}\xi\|_K
\le C \|{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf v)\|_K \quad\forall\mathbf v\in H^1(K;{{\mathbb C}}^3).$$ The constant in depends only on the shape-regularity constant of the mesh. Finally, if ${\boldsymbol}\xi\in {{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3}$, then $$(\nabla\mathbf v,{\boldsymbol}\xi)_K=\langle \mathbf v,{\boldsymbol}\xi\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial K}=0,$$ since $\mathbf v$ satisfies . Therefore $$\inf_{{\boldsymbol}\xi\in \mathbb C^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{skw}}}\| \nabla\mathbf v+{\boldsymbol}\xi\|_K=\|\nabla\mathbf v\|_K$$ and the proof is finished.
The following result shows that the local equations associated to - are uniquely solvable, i.e., given the data functions and $\widehat{\mathbf u}_h$, we can compute ${\boldsymbol}\sigma_h$ and $\mathbf u_h$ element by element. This is the key ingredient to show that the HDG method is actually hybridizable, that is, it can be recast as a linear system where $\widehat{\mathbf u}_h\in {{\mathbf M_h}}$ is the only variable. To simplify the proof, we introduce the weighted norms $$\| {\boldsymbol}\xi\|_{\mathcal A,K}^2:=(\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\xi,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\xi})_K,
\qquad
\| \mathbf v\|_{\rho,K}^2:=(\rho\,\mathbf v,\overline{\mathbf v})_K.$$
\[prop:5.2\] If $C>0$ is the constant of Lemma \[lemma:5.1\] and $$\label{eq:5.4new}
\kappa\, h_K < \frac1{C\,\| c_{\mathcal A}\|_{L^\infty(K)}^{1/2} \| \rho\|_{L^\infty(K)}^{1/2}},$$ then the local solver associated to the element $K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}$ is well defined. In other words, if $({\boldsymbol}\sigma,\mathbf u)\in \mathcal P_k(K;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times3}_{\mathrm{sym}})\times \mathcal P_{k+1}(K;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ satisfies
$$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\label{eq:5.3a}
\imath\kappa (\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\sigma,{\boldsymbol}\xi)_K -(\mathbf u,\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\xi)_K
&=0
&\qquad &\forall {\boldsymbol}\xi\in \mathcal P_k(K;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times3}_{\mathrm{sym}}),\\
\label{eq:5.3b}
(\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\sigma,\mathbf w)_K+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u,\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial K}
+\imath\kappa(\rho\mathbf u,\mathbf w)_K
&=0
&\qquad & \forall\mathbf w\in \mathcal P_{k+1}(K;{{\mathbb C}}^3),
\end{aligned}$$
then $({\boldsymbol}\sigma,\mathbf u)=(\mathbf 0,\mathbf 0)$.
Note that we only need to prove that $\mathbf u=\mathbf 0$. Testing with $\overline{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}$, conjugating and testing it with $\overline{\mathbf u}$, and adding the result of these two equations, it follows that $$\imath\kappa\left(\|{\boldsymbol}\sigma\|_{\mathcal A,K}^2-\|\mathbf u\|_{\rho,K}^2\right)
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}\overline{\mathbf u},{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u\rangle_{\partial K}=0.$$ By it follows that ${{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u=\mathbf 0$ and $\|{\boldsymbol}\sigma\|_{\mathcal A,K}=\|\mathbf u\|_{\rho,K}$. Going back to , integrating by parts, and using that ${{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u=\mathbf 0$, it follows that $$\label{eq:5.4}
\imath\kappa (\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\sigma,{\boldsymbol}\xi)_K+(\nabla\mathbf u,{\boldsymbol}\xi)_K=0 \quad \forall {\boldsymbol}\xi\in \mathcal P_k(K;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times3}_{\mathrm{sym}}).$$ Testing with ${\boldsymbol}\xi={\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{\mathbf u})$, it follows that $$\| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon( \mathbf u)\|_K^2
= (\nabla\mathbf u,{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{\mathbf u}))_K
= \kappa | (\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\sigma,{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{\mathbf u}))_K| \le
\kappa \| c_{\mathcal A}\|_{L^\infty(K)}^{1/2} \|{\boldsymbol}\sigma\|_{\mathcal A,K} \| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon( \mathbf u)\|_K,$$ where we have used . Note that $\mathbf u$ satisfies , given the fact that ${{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u=\mathbf 0$. Therefore, by Lemma \[lemma:5.1\], if ${\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u)=\mathbf 0$, then $\mathbf u=\mathbf 0$ and the proof is finished. Otherwise $\mathbf u\neq \mathbf 0$ and, by Lemma \[lemma:5.1\] and the equality $\|{\boldsymbol}\sigma\|_{\mathcal A,K}=\|\mathbf u\|_{\rho,K}$, we can bound $$\begin{aligned}
\| \mathbf u\|_K & \le & C h_K \| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\mathbf u)\|_K
\le C \kappa\, h_K \| c_{\mathcal A}\|_{L^\infty(K)}^{1/2} \|{\boldsymbol}\sigma\|_{\mathcal A,K}
= C \kappa\, h_K \| c_{\mathcal A}\|_{L^\infty(K)}^{1/2} \|\mathbf u\|_{\rho,K} \\
&\le & C \kappa\, h_K \| c_{\mathcal A}\|_{L^\infty(K)}^{1/2} \| \rho\|_{L^\infty(K)}^{1/2}
\|\mathbf u\|_K\end{aligned}$$ and we arrive at a contradiction if holds.
\[prop:5.3\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
& \imath\kappa (\|{{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}^2-\|{{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\rho^2)+\|{{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau^2 \\
& \hspace{5pt} =\imath\kappa\left( (\mathcal A{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},\overline{{e_h^\sigma}})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-(\rho \overline{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\mathbf e_h^u}})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right)
+\langle\overline{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau \, \overline{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}}, {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting $({{\Pi_V}}{\boldsymbol}\sigma,{{\Pi_W}}\mathbf u,{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u)$, where $({\boldsymbol}\sigma,\mathbf u)$ is the exact solution of in the left-hand side of discrete equations, and subtracting the actual discrete equations (with better written in the form ), it is simple to prove that the errors $({{e_h^\sigma}},{{\mathbf e_h^u}},{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}) \in {{\mathbb V_h}}\times {{\mathbf W_h}}\times {{\mathbf M_h}}$ satisfy
\[eq:5.7\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\label{eq:5.7a}
\imath\kappa (\mathcal A {{e_h^\sigma}},{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}-({{\mathbf e_h^u}},\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\langle {{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\xi\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&=\imath\kappa (\mathcal A {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}},\\
\nonumber
(\nabla\cdot{{e_h^\sigma}},\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\imath\kappa (\rho{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}\\
\label{eq:5.7b}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&=\imath\kappa(\rho{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}\\
\nonumber
&\phantom{=}+\langle {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}},\\
\label{eq:5.7c}
\langle {{e_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n+{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
&=\langle{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau {{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}\\
\label{eq:5.7d}
\langle{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D} &=0,\end{aligned}$$
for all $({\boldsymbol}\xi,\mathbf w,{\boldsymbol}\mu)\in{{\mathbb V_h}}\times {{\mathbf W_h}}\times {{\mathbf M_h}}$. Clearly is equivalent to ${{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}=\mathbf 0$ on $\Gamma_D$. We now (i) test with ${\boldsymbol}\xi=\overline{{e_h^\sigma}}$, (ii) conjugate and test the result with $\mathbf w=\overline{{\mathbf e_h^u}}$, (iii) conjugate and test the result with ${\boldsymbol}\mu=-\overline{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}$. The results of these three steps are added and reorganized ( is used for this) to prove the proposition.
We next bound the last two terms in the right-hand side of the identity in Proposition \[prop:5.3\]. From this moment on, we will frequently use, without additional warning, approximation properties of the $L^2$ projections onto the space of piecewise polynomial functions.
\[prop:5.4\] If $k\ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{4}
\left|\langle\overline{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau \, \overline{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}}, {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}\right|
& \le C_1
\left( h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma |_{t,\Omega} + h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\right) \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau \\
& \phantom{\le}
+C_2 \kappa h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega}
\left(h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega} +\|{{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}\right),\end{aligned}$$ if ${\boldsymbol}\sigma\in H^t(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3})$ for $1\le t \le k+1$ and $\mathbf u\in H^s(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ for $1\le s\le k+2$.
Following [@QiSh:2014 Lemma 4.3], it is possible to show that
\[eq:5.8\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:5.8a}
\left|\langle\overline{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}\right|
& \le & C h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma |_{t,\Omega}
\left( \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau + \| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({{\mathbf e_h^u}})\|_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right) \\
\left| \langle{\boldsymbol}\tau \, \overline{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}}, {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}\right|
&\le & C h^{s-1}|\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau.
\label{eq:5.8b}\end{aligned}$$
We recall that the argument leading to the proof of needs the traces of rigid motions to be in ${{\mathbf M_h}}$, which is where the additional hypothesis $k\ge 1$ is used.
We next test the first error equation with ${\boldsymbol}\xi={\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{{\mathbf e_h^u}})$ restricted to $K$ to obtain $$\label{eq:5.9}
\| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({{\mathbf e_h^u}})\|_K^2 = (\nabla {{\mathbf e_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{{\mathbf e_h^u}}))_K
=\imath\kappa ( \mathcal A({{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}-{{e_h^\sigma}}),{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{{\mathbf e_h^u}}))_K
+\langle {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{{\mathbf e_h^u}})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial K}.$$ The scaling hypothesis on ${\boldsymbol}\tau$ given in and a scaling argument using the fact that ${\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({{\mathbf e_h^u}})$ is a polynomial on $K$ show then $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\langle {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{{\mathbf e_h^u}})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial K}\right|
&\le & \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_{\partial K} \| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({{\mathbf e_h^u}})\|_{\partial K} \\
&\le & C \| {\boldsymbol}\tau_K^{1/2} ({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}})\|_{\partial K}
h_K^{1/2} \| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({{\mathbf e_h^u}})\|_{\partial K} \\
&\le & C' \| {\boldsymbol}\tau_K^{1/2} ({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}})\|_{\partial K} \| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({{\mathbf e_h^u}})\|_K.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting these bounds in the right-hand side of , and adding over all elements, using (the spectral bounds on the inverse compliance tensor) it follows that $$\label{eq:5.10}
\| {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({{\mathbf e_h^u}})\|_{{\mathcal T_h}}\le C \kappa \left( \| {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}+\| {{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}\right)
+ C \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau.$$ Plugging in , the proposition is proved.
Dual problem and bootstrapping process
======================================
We consider the adjoint system to :
\[eq:6.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
-\imath\kappa\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\psi -{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({\boldsymbol}\phi) &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
-\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\psi -\imath\kappa\,\rho\,{\boldsymbol}\phi &={{\mathbf e_h^u}}&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
{\boldsymbol}\phi &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
{\boldsymbol}\psi\mathbf n &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_N$}.\end{aligned}$$
This problem is uniquely solvable if , or equivalently, , is. If we assume regularity for the coercive problem , expressed in the bound , and assume the local smoothness of the coefficients given at the beginning of Section \[sec:3\], then it is easy to see that ${\boldsymbol}\phi\in H^2(\Omega;\mathbb C^3)$ and ${\boldsymbol}\psi\in H^1(\Omega;\mathbb C^{3\times3})$. Morever, we can bound $$\label{eq:6.2}
\| {\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{1,\Omega} + \| \rho{\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}}+\| \mathcal A {\boldsymbol}\psi\|_{1,\Omega}+ \|{\boldsymbol}\psi\|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\kappa^{-1} \|{\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{2,\Omega} \le D_\kappa\|{{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega,$$ where $D_\kappa:= C\,(1+\kappa C_\kappa+C_\kappa)$, $C_\kappa$ being the constant in and $C$ being allowed to depend on the regularity constant as well as on the physical coefficients. Here the norm $\|\cdot\|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}}$ is the natural norm of the broken Sobolev space $\prod_{K\in {{\mathcal T_h}}} H^1(K)$. We note that, while the regularity requirement can be somewhat relaxed, the analysis in this paper (see also [@QiSh:2014] and [@GrMo:2011]) needs a certain amount of regularity for the solution of the dual problem (which can be translated to regularity of the solution of ) due to the need of having square integrable normal traces of ${\boldsymbol}\psi$ on the faces of the elements.
\[prop:6.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega^2
&=& \imath\kappa \left( (\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\mathcal A{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right)\\
& & +\imath\kappa \left((\rho\,{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\rho\,{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right)\\
& & +\langle {{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},(\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}\\
& & +\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}})-{\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+ \langle {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\mathbf P_M}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof is similar to duality arguments in [@QiSh:2014] (and related references). We give here a very systematic approach to help understand the logic of the argument. We first conjugate equations and then test them with the discrete errors $({{e_h^\sigma}},{{\mathbf e_h^u}},{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}})$:
\[eq:6.2D\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\label{eq:6.2a}
\imath\kappa(\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\nabla\cdot{{e_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\langle{{e_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}} &=0,\\
\label{eq:6.2b}
-({{\mathbf e_h^u}},\nabla\cdot{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\langle {{\mathbf e_h^u}},({{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\imath\kappa (\rho\,{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}& = \| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega^2,\\
\label{eq:6.2c}
\langle {{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}} &=0.\end{aligned}$$
Note that to reach and we need to integrate by parts and introduce projections wherever possible. Also, reflects the fact that ${\boldsymbol}\psi$ does not jump across interelement faces as well as the equality ${{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}=\mathbf 0$ on $\Gamma_D$. The second ingredient for the proof is the set of error equations tested with $({{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi},{{\mathbf P_M}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})$, to yield
\[eq:6.3\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\imath\kappa (\mathcal A {{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-({{\mathbf e_h^u}},\nabla\cdot {{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\langle {{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&=\ell_1({\boldsymbol}\psi),\\
(\nabla\cdot{{e_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\imath\kappa (\rho{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}&=\ell_2({\boldsymbol}\phi),\\
-\langle {{e_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&=\ell_3({\boldsymbol}\phi),\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_1({\boldsymbol}\psi)&:=&\imath\kappa \left(
(\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\mathcal A {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right)
+\langle{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},(\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}},\\
\ell_2({\boldsymbol}\phi) &:=& \imath\kappa\left(
(\rho{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\rho{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right)\\
& & +\langle {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
-\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}} \\
\ell_3({\boldsymbol}\phi) &:=& -\langle{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\mathbf P_M}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
-\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau {{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle {\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that in we have kept in the left-hand side of the error equations only those terms that appear in the left-hand side of . We have also eliminated some redundant projections and applied that ${\boldsymbol}\phi=\mathbf 0$ on $\Gamma_D$. The proof of the result is now straightforward: add equations and substitute equations in the result.
The next step in the proof of the error estimates is a bound for $\|{{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega$ obtained by carefully working on the right-hand side of the duality identity in Proposition \[prop:6.1\]. To alleviate the proof from an excess of constants, we will use the convention that $a\lesssim b$, whenever there exists a positive constant $C$ independent of $h$ and $\kappa$ such that $a\le C \, b$.
\[prop:6.2\] If $h \kappa D_\kappa$ is small enough if ${\boldsymbol}\sigma\in H^t(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3})$ for $1\le t \le k+1$ and if $\mathbf u\in H^s(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ for $1\le s\le k+2$, then $$\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega \lesssim h (\kappa+1) D_\kappa
\left( \| {{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}+\| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau
+ h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega}
+h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\right).$$
As already mentioned, we first estimate the right-hand side of the equality in Proposition \[prop:6.1\]. Let ${[ f ]_h}$ be the best $L^2(\Omega)$ projection of $f$ on the space of piecewise constant functions, i.e., ${[ f ]_h}=\frac1{|K|}\int_K f$ in $K$ for every $K$.
Notice that $$(\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\mathcal A{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}= (\mathcal A({\boldsymbol}\sigma-{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h),\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+ ({{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},\mathcal A\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{[ \mathcal A\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi} ]_h})_{{\mathcal T_h}},$$ and then we can bound $$\label{eq:6.5}
|(\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\mathcal A{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}|
\lesssim h \|{\boldsymbol}\sigma-{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h\|_{\mathcal A} |{\boldsymbol}\psi|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+ h \|{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\|_\Omega |\mathcal A {\boldsymbol}\psi|_{1,\Omega}.$$ Similarly, the equality $$(\rho\,{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\rho\,{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}=(\rho(\mathbf u-\mathbf u_h),\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+({{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\rho\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{[ \rho\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi} ]_h})_{{\mathcal T_h}}$$ can be used to estimate $$\label{eq:6.6}
|(\rho\,{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\rho\,{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}|
\lesssim h \|\mathbf u-\mathbf u_h\|_\Omega | {\boldsymbol}\phi|_{1,\Omega}
+ h \|{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}}\|_\Omega |\rho\,{\boldsymbol}\phi|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}}$$ Using with ${\boldsymbol}\psi$ in place of ${\boldsymbol}\sigma$ and $t=1$ and , we can estimate $$\label{eq:6.7}
|\langle {{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},(\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}|
\lesssim h \left( \| {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}+\| {{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}+ \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau\right)
|{\boldsymbol}\psi|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}}.$$ Using with ${\boldsymbol}\phi$ in place of $\mathbf u$ and $s=2$, we bound $$\label{eq:6.8}
|\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}|
\lesssim h \|{{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau | {\boldsymbol}\phi|_{2,\Omega}.$$ With a scaling argument and the bound (stating the size of the stabilization paraneter), we can bound on every $K$ $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle {\boldsymbol}\tau {{\mathbf P_M}}(\mathbf u-{{\Pi_W}}\mathbf u),\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial K}|
&\lesssim & h_K^{-1} \| \mathbf u-{{\Pi_W}}\mathbf u\|_{\partial K}
\| {\boldsymbol}\phi-{{\Pi_W}}{\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{\partial K}\\
& \lesssim & h_K^s |\mathbf u|_{s,K}|{\boldsymbol}\phi|_{2,K}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\label{eq:6.9}
|\langle {\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}|
\lesssim h^s |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega} |{\boldsymbol}\phi|_{2,\Omega}.$$ Similarly $$\label{eq:6.10}
|\langle {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\mathbf P_M}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}|
\lesssim h^{t+1} |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega} |{\boldsymbol}\phi|_{2,\Omega}.$$ Collecting the estimates - to bound the right-hand side of the identity in Proposition \[prop:6.1\], and using the regularity bound , we can bound $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega^2
\lesssim \, & h \kappa D_\kappa \| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega
\left( \| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega + \|{{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A} +\| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau \right) \\
& + h (1+\kappa ) D_\kappa\left(h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega} + h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega} \right)\end{aligned}$$ The proposition is now a simple consequence of the latter inequality.
The proof of Theorem \[the:3.1\] follows from the energy identity (Proposition \[prop:5.3\]) and the estimates of Propositions \[prop:5.4\] and \[prop:6.2\] by a careful bootstrapping process.
To simplify the algebra involved in this final step, let us give symbols for the quantities we want to bound $$\Sigma:=\| {{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}, \qquad
\mathrm T:=\kappa^{-1/2}\| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau, \qquad
\mathrm U:=\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega,$$ and for the approximation terms $$\Sigma_h:= h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega},\qquad
\mathrm U_h:=h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}.$$ With this shorthand, Propositions \[prop:5.3\] and \[prop:5.4\] yield $$\label{eq:6.11}
|\Sigma^2-\imath \mathrm T^2|
\lesssim \Sigma\,\Sigma_h + \mathrm U\,\mathrm U_h
+ \kappa^{-1/2} (\Sigma_h+\mathrm U_h) \mathrm T +\Sigma_h^2+\mathrm U^2.$$ If $\alpha:=h (1+\kappa) (1+\kappa C_\kappa)=D_\kappa h (1+\kappa)$, Proposition \[prop:6.2\] can then be rephrased as $$\label{eq:6.12}
\mathrm U \lesssim \alpha (\Sigma+\Sigma_h+\mathrm U_h +\kappa^{1/2}\mathrm T).$$ Substituting in the right-hand side of , and reordering terms, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:6.13}
\nonumber
\Sigma^2+\mathrm T^2
& \lesssim &
\alpha^2\Sigma^2+\Sigma(\Sigma_h+\alpha \mathrm U_h)\\
&& +\alpha^2 \kappa \mathrm T^2
+\mathrm T(\kappa^{-1/2}\mathrm U_h+\alpha \kappa^{1/2}\mathrm U_h
+\kappa^{-1/2} \Sigma_h)\\
\nonumber
& &
+(1+ \alpha^2) \Sigma_h^2
+ (\alpha+\alpha^2)\mathrm U_h^2.\end{aligned}$$ Let now $C$ be the constant that is hidden in the symbol $\lesssim$, and let us assume that $$\label{eq:hypo}
C \alpha^2\le \tfrac14 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad C \alpha^2\kappa\le \tfrac14.$$ We now use Young’s inequality $ab\le \frac14 a^2+ b^2$ in to get $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^2+\mathrm T^2
& \le & \tfrac12\Sigma^2+\tfrac12 \mathrm T^2 \\
& & + C^2(\Sigma_h+\alpha \mathrm U_h)^2
+C^2(\kappa^{-1/2}\mathrm U_h+\alpha \kappa^{1/2}\mathrm U_h+\kappa^{-1/2} \Sigma_h)^2\\
& & +C(1+ \alpha^2) \Sigma_h^2
+ C(\alpha+\alpha^2)\mathrm U_h^2.\end{aligned}$$ We can now simplify this expression using to obtain $\Sigma^2+\mathrm T^2 \lesssim (1+\kappa^{-1})(\Sigma_h^2+\mathrm U_h^2)$, or equivalently $$\label{eq:6.14}
\Sigma+\mathrm T
\lesssim
(1+\kappa^{-1/2})(\Sigma_h+\mathrm U_h).$$ Using in , we can finally prove that $$\label{eq:6.15}
\mathrm U \lesssim \alpha(1+\kappa^{1/2}+\kappa^{-1/2})(\Sigma_h+\mathrm U_h).$$ This finishes the proof.
Variants and insights {#sec:6}
=====================
#### Matrix form.
We first give a matrix representation of the method of Section \[sec:3\]. Equations and suggest the following orthogonal decomposition ${{\mathbf M_h}}={{\mathbf M_h^{nD}}}\oplus {{\mathbf M_h^{D}}}$, where ${{\mathbf M_h^{nD}}}=\{{\boldsymbol}\mu\,:\,{\boldsymbol}\mu|_{\Gamma_D}=0\}\equiv \{ {\boldsymbol}\mu|_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}\,:\,{\boldsymbol}\mu\in {{\mathbf M_h}}\}$. We now take real-valued bases for the spaces ${{\mathbb V_h}}$, ${{\mathbf W_h}}$, ${{\mathbf M_h^{nD}}}$, and ${{\mathbf M_h^{D}}}$ and identify the unknowns ${\boldsymbol}\sigma_h\in{{\mathbb V_h}}$, ${\mathbf}u_h\in{{\mathbf W_h}}$, $\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h|_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}\in {{\mathbf M_h^{nD}}}$, and $\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h|_{\Gamma_D}\in {{\mathbf M_h^{D}}}$, with respective complex column vectors $\underline\sigma$, $\underline u$, $\underline{\widehat u}^{{nD}}$, and $\underline{\widehat u}^{{D}}$. We then consider [*real matrices*]{} associated to the following [*bilinear forms*]{} that are understood as functionals acting on the unknowns: $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
(\mathcal A {\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}& \qquad & {\boldsymbol}\xi\in {{\mathbb V_h}}& \qquad & & \mathrm A \underline\sigma, \\
(\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h,{\mathbf}w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}& & {\mathbf}w\in {{\mathbf W_h}}& & & \mathrm D\underline\sigma, \\
\langle{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h{\mathbf}n,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D} & & {\boldsymbol}\mu\in {{\mathbf M_h^{nD}}}
& & &\mathrm N \underline\sigma,\\
\langle{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h{\mathbf}n,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D} & & {\boldsymbol}\mu\in {{\mathbf M_h^{D}}}
& & &\mathrm N_{{D}} \underline\sigma,\\
(\rho{\mathbf}u_h,{\mathbf}w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}& & {\mathbf}w\in {{\mathbf W_h}}& & & \mathrm M\underline u,\\
\langle {\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}{\mathbf}u_h,{{\mathbf P_M}}{\mathbf}w\rangle_{{{\mathcal T_h}}} & & {\mathbf}w\in {{\mathbf W_h}}& & & \mathrm T_{11} \underline u,\\
\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h,{\mathbf}w_h\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D} & & {\mathbf}w\in {{\mathbf W_h}}& & & \mathrm T_{12}\underline u^{{nD}},\\
\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h,{\mathbf}w_h\rangle_{\Gamma_D} & & {\mathbf}w\in {{\mathbf W_h}}& & & \mathrm T_{D}\underline u^{{D}},\\
\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D} & & {\boldsymbol}\mu\in {{\mathbf M_h^{nD}}}
& & & \mathrm T_{22}\underline u^{{nD}},\\
\langle\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D} & &{\boldsymbol}\mu\in {{\mathbf M_h^{D}}}
& & & \mathrm M_{{D}} \underline{\widehat u}^{{D}}.\end{aligned}$$Note that the matrices $\mathrm A$, $\mathrm M$, and $\mathrm T_{22}$ are symmetric and positive definite, while $\mathrm T_{11}$ is symmetric and positive semidefinite. The method given by equations is then equivalent to the linear system $$\label{eq:7.0}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\imath\kappa \mathrm A & -\mathrm D^\top & \mathrm N^\top & \mathrm N_{{D}}^\top \\
\mathrm D & \imath\kappa\mathrm M+\mathrm T_{11} & -\mathrm T_{12} & -\mathrm T_{D} \\
-\mathrm N & -\mathrm T_{12}^\top & \mathrm T_{22} & \mathrm O \\
\mathrm O & \mathrm O &\mathrm O & \mathrm M_{{D}}
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{l}
\underline\sigma \\ \underline u\\ \underline{\widehat u}^{{nD}} \\ \underline{\widehat u}^{{D}}
\end{array}\right]
=
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\underline 0 \\ \underline f \\ -\underline g_N \\ \underline g_D
\end{array}\right],$$ where the definition of the vectors $\underline f$, $\underline g_N$ and $\underline g_D$ is self-evident. Equations are equivalent to the following system $$\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\mathrm A & \mathrm D^\top & -\mathrm N^\top & -\mathrm N_{{D}}^\top \\
-\mathrm D & -\kappa^2\mathrm M-\imath\kappa\mathrm T_{11} &
\imath\kappa\mathrm T_{12} & \imath\kappa\mathrm T_{D} \\
\mathrm N & -\imath\kappa\mathrm T_{12}^\top & \imath\kappa\mathrm T_{22} & \mathrm O \\
\mathrm O & \mathrm O &\mathrm O & \mathrm M_{{D}}
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde{\underline\sigma} \\ \underline u\\ \underline{\widehat u}^{{nD}} \\ \underline{\widehat u}^{{D}}
\end{array}\right]
=
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\underline 0 \\ \widetilde{\underline f} \\ \widetilde{\underline g}_N \\ \underline g_D
\end{array}\right],$$ where $\widetilde{\underline\sigma}=-\imath\kappa\underline\sigma$, $\widetilde{\underline f}=-\imath\kappa \underline f$, and $\widetilde{\underline g}_N=-\imath\kappa\underline g_N$. This change of variables in the first unknown and in the right-hand side reverts the system to the original physical variables (the ones with a tilde in Section \[sec:2\]) so that the equations are second-order-in-frequency. It is clear how the stabilization terms are the only complex-valued ones in the system.
#### Hybridization.
The four matrices in the upper left $2\times 2$ block of the matrix of are elementwise block diagonal. The hybridization process consists of solving the system $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\left( \left[\begin{array}{cc} \mathrm N & \mathrm T_{12}^\top \end{array}\right] \mathrm C^{-1}
\left[\begin{array}{c} \mathrm N^\top \\ - \mathrm T_{12} \end{array}\right]+\mathrm T_{22} \right) \underline{\widehat u}^{{nD}}
= & -\underline g_N +
\left[\begin{array}{cc} \mathrm N & \mathrm T_{12}^\top \end{array}\right] \mathrm C^{-1}
\left[\begin{array}{c} \underline 0 \\ \underline f \end{array}\right] \\
& - \left[\begin{array}{cc} \mathrm N & \mathrm T_{12}^\top \end{array}\right] \mathrm C^{-1}
\left[\begin{array}{c} \mathrm N_D^\top \\ - \mathrm T_D \end{array}\right]\mathrm M_D^{-1} \underline g_D,\end{aligned}$$ where the invertibility of $$\mathrm C:=
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\imath \kappa \mathrm A & -\mathrm D^\top \\
\mathrm D & \imath \kappa\mathrm M+\mathrm T_{11}
\end{array}\right]$$ was the object of Proposition \[prop:5.2\].
#### Variant \# 1: time reversal.
While we are not making any claims about the behavior of the method for high frequency problems, we have kept $\kappa$ visible everywhere. We next explore some variants of the method that can be obtained by changing to second-order-in-frequency form and exploring different choices of the stabilization parameter. The energy identity of Proposition \[prop:5.3\] is the trigger for the analysis of the method. It is there clear that the sign of the boundary term is not relevant and a method based on the numerical flux $$\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n:={\boldsymbol}\sigma_h\mathbf n-{\boldsymbol}\tau_K ({{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u_h-\widehat{\mathbf u}_h)
\,:\, \partial K\to {{\mathbb C}}^3$$ has the same convergence properties as the method presented in Section \[sec:2\]. As we will see later in this section, this method corresponds to time reversal.
#### Variant \# 2: $\kappa$-scaled stabilization.
The factor $\kappa^{-1/2}$ in the error estimate of Theorem \[the:3.1\] suggests the following variant of the numerical method: we still use equations by change the definition of the numerical flux to be $$\label{eq:7.1}
\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n:={\boldsymbol}\sigma_h\mathbf n+\kappa {\boldsymbol}\tau_K ({{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u_h-\widehat{\mathbf u}_h)
\,:\, \partial K\to {{\mathbb C}}^3.$$ (Note that, as shown in [@GoLaNiPe:2015] for the acoustic wave equation, making the stabilization parameter depend on $\kappa$ is a must when we want to deal with complex frequencies. This dependence has also some desirable properties.) The proof of Theorem \[the:3.1\] can be easily adapted to deal with the method whose stabilization term is given by . The error estimate is given in the following theorem.
There exist $C_1, C_2>0$, dependent only on the shape-regularity of ${{\mathcal T_h}}$, the density $\rho$ and the coefficients of the inverse compliance tensor $\mathcal A$ such that if $h (1+\kappa)^{3/2}(1+\kappa C_\kappa)$ is small enough, then the errors can be bounded by $$\| {{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}+ \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau
\le C_1 \big((1+\kappa^{-1}) h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega}+h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big)$$ and $$\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega\le C_2 (1+\kappa C_\kappa) (1+\kappa)
\big((\kappa+\kappa^{-1}) h^{t+1} |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega}+h^{s} (1+\kappa) |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big),$$ if $k\ge 1$, $\mathbf u\in H^s(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ with $1\le s\le k+2$, and ${\boldsymbol}\sigma\in H^t(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3})$ with $1\le t\le k+1$.
#### Second-order-in-frequency formulations.
Since all methods presented above are based in a first-order-in-frequence formulation, defining ${\boldsymbol}\sigma:=(\imath/\kappa)\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}$, where $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}$ is the physical stress for the displacement field ${\mathbf}u$. Consider now the following family of HDG schemes based on a second-order-in-frequency formulation: the spaces are unchanged and $\alpha_\kappa$ is a fixed parameter that is allowed to depend on the frequency:
\[eq:7.2\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
(\mathcal A\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h,{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+(\mathbf u_h,\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\langle\widehat{\mathbf u}_h,{\boldsymbol}\xi\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
& = 0 & \qquad & \forall {\boldsymbol}\xi\in {{\mathbb V_h}},\\
(\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h,\nabla\mathbf w)_{{{\mathcal T_h}}}
- \langle \widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h{\mathbf}n,\mathbf w\rangle_{{\boldsymbol}\tau}
-\kappa^2 (\rho\,\mathbf u_h,\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}&=-(\widetilde{\mathbf f},\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}& & \forall \mathbf w\in {{\mathbf W_h}},\\
\langle\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h{\mathbf}n,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
&=\langle\widetilde{\mathbf g}_N,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_N} & & \forall {\boldsymbol}\mu \in {{\mathbf M_h}},\\
\langle\widehat{\mathbf u}_h,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D} &=\langle\mathbf g_D,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D}
& &\forall {\boldsymbol}\mu\in {{\mathbf M_h}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h{\mathbf}n:=\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h{\mathbf}n-\alpha_\kappa {\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{\mathbf}u_h-\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h).$$
Note that the equations are written in terms of the original data in . The choice $\alpha_\kappa=1$ is the direct application of the method in [@QiSh:2014] to the equation $\nabla\cdot\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}+\kappa^2\rho{\mathbf}u=\widetilde{{\mathbf}f}$. This choice of the parameter $\alpha_\kappa$ yields a method that transitions smoothly (analytically) to the zero-frequency limit. Methods based on the first-order-in-frequency formulation can be rewritten in the form with the relation $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h=-\imath\kappa{\boldsymbol}\sigma_h$ and the parameter $\alpha_\kappa:=\imath\kappa$ (for the method of Section \[sec:3\]), $\alpha_\kappa:=-\imath\kappa$ (time reversed method) or $\alpha_\kappa=\imath\kappa^2$ (for the method with the flux defined in .
#### Variant \# 3: conservative method.
The error estimate for the method in with the choice $\alpha_\kappa=1$ is given in the next theorem. Not surprisingly the estimates hold as $\kappa\to 0$, since we end up with a smooth perturbation of the discretization of the steady-state equations. Note that when $\kappa\to 0$ and we are not dealing with the pure Neumann problem, the quantity $C_\kappa$ converges to a finite value. Later in this section we will see that this choice corresponds to a conservative method in the time domain.
\[the:7.2\] There exist $C_1, C_2>0$, dependent only on the shape-regularity of ${{\mathcal T_h}}$, the density $\rho$ and the coefficients of the inverse compliance tensor $\mathcal A$ such that if $h (1+\kappa) E_\kappa$ is small enough, then the errors can be bounded by $$\| {{\Pi_V}}\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}-\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h \|_{\mathcal A}+ \| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau
\le C_1 \big( h^t |\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}|_{t,\Omega}+(1+\kappa) h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big)$$ and $$\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega\le C_2 E_\kappa (1+\kappa)
\big( h^{t+1} |\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}|_{t,\Omega}+h^{s} (1+\kappa) |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}\big),$$ if $k\ge 1$, $\mathbf u\in H^s(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^3)$ with $1\le s\le k+2$, and $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}\in H^t(\Omega;{{\mathbb C}}^{3\times 3})$ with $1\le t\le k+1$. Here $E_\kappa\le C (1+\kappa C_\kappa+ C_\kappa+\kappa C_\kappa^{1/2})$.
See Section \[sec:A\].
#### Methods in the time domain.
Let us now write some HDG-semidiscrete methods for the transient elastic wave equation. The data functions are $\widetilde{{\mathbf}f}:[0,\infty)\to L^2(\Omega;{{\mathbb R}}^3)$, ${\mathbf}g_D:[0,\infty)\to H^{1/2}(\Gamma_D;{{\mathbb R}}^3)$, and $\widetilde{{\mathbf}g}_N:[0,\infty)\to L^2(\Gamma_N;{{\mathbb R}}^3)$. We then look for ${\mathbf}u:[0,\infty)\to H^1(\Omega;{{\mathbb R}}^3)$ and ${\boldsymbol}\sigma:[0,\infty)\to H(\mathrm{div},\Omega;{{\mathbb R}}^{3\times 3}_{\mathrm{sym}})$ satisfying
\[eq:6.4\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\mathcal A \widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}(t)-{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon (\mathbf u)(t)&={\boldsymbol}0&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$}, \quad\forall t\ge 0,\\
\nabla\cdot\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma} -\rho\,\ddot{\mathbf u}(t)
&= \widetilde{\mathbf f}(t) &\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$}, \quad\forall t\ge 0,\\
\mathbf u(t) &=\mathbf g_D(t) & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_D$}, \quad\forall t\ge 0,\\
\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}(t)\,\mathbf n &=\widetilde{\mathbf g}_N(t) & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_N$}, \quad\forall t\ge 0,\end{aligned}$$
and initial conditions ${\mathbf}u(0)={\mathbf}u_0$, $\dot{{\mathbf}u}(0)={\mathbf}v_0$. The HDG semidiscretization consists of the search for $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h:[0,\infty)\to {{\mathbb V_h}}$, ${\mathbf}u_h:[0,\infty)\to {{\mathbf W_h}}$, and $\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h:[0,\infty)\to {{\mathbf M_h}}$ satisfying
\[eq:7.5\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\label{eq:7.5a}
(\mathcal A \widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t),{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+(\mathbf u_h(t),\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\langle\widehat{\mathbf u}_h(t),{\boldsymbol}\xi\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
& = 0 & \\
\label{eq:7.5b}
(\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t),\nabla\mathbf w)_{{{\mathcal T_h}}}
- \langle \widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t){\mathbf}n,\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+ (\rho\,\ddot{\mathbf u}_h(t),\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}&=-(\widetilde{\mathbf f}(t),\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}& & \\
\label{eq:7.5c}
\langle\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t){\mathbf}n,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
&=\langle\widetilde{\mathbf g}_N(t),{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_N} & & \\
\label{eq:7.5d}
\langle\widehat{\mathbf u}_h(t),{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D} &=\langle\mathbf g_D(t),{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D}
& &\end{aligned}$$
for all $({\boldsymbol}\xi,{\mathbf}w,{\boldsymbol}\mu)\in {{\mathbb V_h}}\times {{\mathbf W_h}}\times {{\mathbf M_h}}$ amd $t\ge 0$. The numerical flux $\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h$ can be defined in different ways which influence the choice of initial conditions. If we take the inverse Fourier transform of equations with $\alpha_\kappa=\pm \imath\kappa$, we obtain the following proposals for the numerical flux $$\label{eq:7.6}
\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t){\mathbf}n:=\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t){\mathbf}n\pm {\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}\dot{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)-\dot{\widehat{{\mathbf}u}}_h(t)).$$ Note the positive sign corresponds to the method of Section \[sec:3\] while the negative sign is the one obtained by time reversal. (It is clear from this why the sign change in the parameter $\alpha_\kappa$ corresponded to time reversal.) For equations with $\alpha_\kappa=1$ we obtain the flux $$\label{eq:7.7}
\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t){\mathbf}n:=\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t){\mathbf}n+{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{\mathbf}u_h(t)-\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)).$$ The following result shows that: the method with flux given by with positive sign accumulates energy over time, the method with flux with negative sign is dissipative, and the method with flux is conservative. The build-up or dissipation of energy happens at the interfaces, while the conservative method needs to add a potential energy term in the interfaces.
Assume that the problem is unforced ($\widetilde{\mathbf f}=\mathbf 0$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf g}|_N=\mathbf 0$) and the Dirichlet boundary conditions are static $(\dot{\mathbf g}_D=\mathbf 0$). Then the solution to the HDG-semidiscrete equations with flux defined by satisfy $$\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}
\left(\frac12 \| \widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t)\|_{\mathcal A}^2+\frac12 \| \dot{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)\|_\rho^2 \right)
=\pm \| {{\mathbf P_M}}\dot{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)-\dot{\widehat{{\mathbf}u}}_h(t)\|_\tau^2 \qquad \forall t.$$ The solution to the HDG equations with flux defined by satisfy $$\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}
\left(\frac12 \| \widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t)\|_{\mathcal A}^2+\frac12 \| \dot{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)\|_\rho^2
+\frac12 \|{{\mathbf P_M}}{\mathbf}u_h(t)-\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)\|_\tau^2\right)=0 \qquad \forall t.$$
It follows from a simple argument: (a) differentiate and test with $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h(t)$, (b) test with $\dot{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)$, (c) test with $\dot{\widehat{{\mathbf}u}}_h(t)$; finally add the result of (a)-(c) using the fact that $\widehat{{\mathbf}u}_h(t)$ is constant in time on the Dirichlet faces.
Numerical experiments
=====================
In order to have a good collection of meshes of the domain, we will conduct all the experiments in the unit cube $\Omega=(0,1)^3$. The cube will be partitioned in a sequence of tetrahedrizations obtained as follows: we first divide the cube along the coordinate planes into $n^3$ equally sized cubes (for $n=1,\ldots,7$), and then partition the cubes into six tetrahedra. We will tag the triangulation as ${{\mathcal T_h}}$, where we can consider that $h=1/n$. The partitions corresponding to $n_1$ and $n_2$, where $n_2$ is a multiple of $n_1$, are nested.
Tests will be run for constant and variable coefficients. In all cases we will consider isotropic materials, with $\mathcal C {\boldsymbol}\varepsilon=2\mu{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon+\lambda({\mathrm{tr}\,}{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon) I_{3\times3}$, for constant or variable Lamé parameters $\lambda$ and $\mu$. In the case of constant coefficients we will take $\rho=\lambda=\mu=1$. In the variable case we take $$\begin{aligned}
{6}\label{eq:coeffsvar}
& \rho(\mathbf x) = 1+|\mathbf x|^2,\\
& \lambda(\mathbf x) = 2 + 0.2x_1^2 + 0.3x_2^2 + 0.04x_3^2,\\
& \mu(\mathbf x)= 3 + 0.5x_2^2 + 0.03x_3^2.\end{aligned}$$
The code expands the three dimensional HDG Matlab package of [@FuGaSa:2013]. The code is written for the second-order-in-frequency form given in , which allows for easy comparisons with the physical quantities of interest and for almost straightforward changes to have all the methods we have considered in this paper. All the element-by-element operations (needed for building the local solvers and recovering displacement and stress after the hybridized system has been solved) are carried out in parallel.
#### A problem with variable coefficients. {#sec:7.2}
We imbue the domain with the variable density and material coefficients given by . Dirichlet boundary conditions are imposed on the top and bottom faces of the cube, while Neumann conditions are given on the remaining faces of $\Omega$. Data are built so that $$\mathbf u(\mathbf x) =
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos(\pi x_1) \sin (\pi x_2) \cos (\pi x_3) \\
5x_1^2x_2x_3+4x_1x_2x_3+3x_1x_2x_3^2 + 17 \\
\cos(2x_2)\cos(3x_2)\cos(x_3)
\end{bmatrix}$$ is the exact solution. Figure \[fig:test1-fo\] shows approximation errors for the method that is equivalent to the one applied to first-order-in-frequency formulation, i.e., we set $\alpha_\kappa := \imath \kappa, \tau = h^{-1}$ in . We measure errors for the displacement and the ‘physical’ stress $$\label{eq:errors}
\|\mathbf u-\mathbf u_h\|_\Omega,
\qquad
\|\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}-\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\|_\Omega.$$ Error plots in Figure \[fig:test1-fo\] are shown for the method for different values of the polynomial degree (recall that ${\boldsymbol}\sigma$ is approximated with piecewise $\mathcal P_k$ functions, while $\mathbf u$ is approximated with piecewise $\mathcal P_{k+1}$ functions). The lowest order method ($k=0$), for which we do not have theoretical support shows a quite bad performance in practice and the corresponding results are not shown.
\
\
We next explore the method based on the pure second-order in frequency formulation ($\alpha_\kappa = 1, \tau = h^{-1}$ in ). Approximation errors for several values of the polynomial degree $k$ are shown in Figure \[fig:test1-so\].
\
\
#### Plane wave solutions. {#pwave}
We now test a problem with constant coefficients and plane-wave solutions as exact data, with Dirichlet conditions imposed on the entire boundary. Plane waves for the time-harmonic elastic wave equation are functions of the form: $$\mathbf u(\mathbf x) = a\, \mathbf e \exp \left( (-\imath\kappa/c) \mathbf x \cdot \mathbf d \right),$$ where $\mathbf d$ (direction of propagation) and $\mathbf e$ (direction of elastic displacement) are unit vectors, $a$ is a constant and: (a) either $\mathbf d = \mathbf e$ and the wavespeed is $c = \sqrt{(\lambda + 2 \mu)/\rho}$ (pressure wave), or (b) $\mathbf d \cdot \mathbf e = 0$ and $c = \sqrt{\mu/\rho}$ (shear wave).
We use amplitude $a=0.3$ and frequency $\kappa = 1$ and tetrahedrizations of the cube each with $6n^3$ elements. Convergence results for pressure and shear waves with the first-order-in-frequency formulation ($\alpha_\kappa = i\kappa, \tau = h^{-1}$ in ) are shown in Figure \[fig:pressurewave-1\]. Both show the same pattern of optimal order $\mathcal O(h^{k+2})$ for the displacement variable and $\mathcal O(h^{k+1})$ for the stress variable.
\
\
#### Increasing the frequency $\kappa$. {#sec:7.4}
In a final test, we look for the behavior of the method as the frequency increases $h\to 0$ while $h \kappa$ remains constant. We will take $\kappa$-dependent plane waves as exact solutions. In order to play with different values of $\kappa$ without hitting elastic modes, we impose an impedance boundary condition $$\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}\,\mathbf n -\imath \kappa \mathbf u =\widetilde{\mathbf g}_R \qquad \mbox{on $\Gamma$}.$$ Note that we have not carried out the analysis for these boundary conditions, but that convergence estimates can be obtained with uncomplicated modifications of what we have done in the previous sections. The HDG equation corresponding to the boundary conditions and interelement stress balance become $$\langle\widehat{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\mathbf n - {\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf u_h - \widehat{\mathbf u}_h),{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}-\imath\kappa\langle \widehat{\mathbf u}_h, {\boldsymbol}\mu \rangle_\Gamma
= \langle \widetilde{\mathbf g}_R, {\boldsymbol}\mu \rangle_\Gamma \qquad \forall {\boldsymbol}\mu \in {{\mathbf M_h}}.$$ This is just a slight perturbation of the pure Neumann problem, so the linear system (with coefficient representations as in Section \[sec:6\]) may be represented by $$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathrm A & \mathrm D^\top & -\mathrm N^\top \\
-\mathrm D & -\kappa^2\mathrm M-\imath\kappa\mathrm T_{11} & \imath\kappa\mathrm T_{12} \\
\mathrm N & -\imath\kappa\mathrm T_{12}^\top & \imath\kappa\mathrm T_{22} -\imath\kappa \mathrm C
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde{\underline\sigma} \\ \underline u\\ \underline{\widehat u}
\end{array}\right]
=
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\underline 0 \\ \widetilde{\underline f} \\ \widetilde{\underline g}_R
\end{array}\right],$$ where $\mathrm C$ is a boundary mass matrix related to the space ${{\mathbf M_h}}$ restricted to $\Gamma$. We are going to plot relative errors $$\|\mathbf u-\mathbf u_h\|_\Omega/\|\mathbf u\|_\Omega,
\qquad
\|\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}-
\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}_h\|_\Omega/\|\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}\|_\Omega,$$ for a given exact plane pressure wave solution. We will fix the value $h\kappa$ and use finer grids on the cube, thus automatically increasing the frequency. Note that for plane waves $\| \mathbf u\|_\Omega=\mathcal O(1)$ but $\|\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}\|_\Omega=\mathcal O(\kappa)=\mathcal O(h^{-1})$. We are expecting errors to stay bounded as $h\to 0$ (notice that we do not have a theory supporting this and we do not go very far with the frequency). Some experiments are reported in Figure \[fig:hk-constant-a\], using the lowest order method ($\mathcal P_1$ approximation for the stress, $\mathcal P_2$ for the displacement) with different values of $h\kappa$. That the error for the displacement seems to be declining as $h\to 0$, which shows the numerical method doing somewhat better than expected for the displacement.
\
\
\
#### Some conclusions.
We have introduced and analyzed a family of Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin methods for the equations of time-harmonic linear elastodynamics in three dimensions. Convergence orders are shown to be optimal in both variables (displacement and stress), even if different polynomial degrees are used for their approximation, which means that the lower approximation order of the stress does not pollute the approximation for the displacement. We have transferred the methods to an HDG semidiscretization in space of the transient model equations and shown that one of the choices leads to a conservative method. The experiments show that the methods behave well for fixed moderate frequences and that for increasing frequencies the scheme has good asymptotic properties.
Some additional proofs {#sec:A}
======================
The dual adjoint problem is equivalent to
\[eq:Y.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\label{eq:Y.1a}
\nabla\cdot\mathcal C{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({\boldsymbol}\phi) + \kappa^2\rho\,{\boldsymbol}\phi
&= \imath\kappa {{\mathbf e_h^u}}&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
{\boldsymbol}\phi &={\boldsymbol}0 & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
\mathcal C{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({\boldsymbol}\phi)\,\mathbf n &={\boldsymbol}0 & & \mbox{on $\Gamma_N$},\end{aligned}$$
and therefore $\|{\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{1,\Omega} \le \kappa C_\kappa \| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega$. From a variational formulation of we can prove the identity $$\| \kappa {\boldsymbol}\phi\|_\rho^2=\imath(\kappa {{\mathbf e_h^u}}, \overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_\Omega+
(\mathcal C{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({\boldsymbol}\phi),{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon(\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}))_\Omega,$$ and therefore, using Young’s inequality and hiding constants only related to the equation’s coefficients, we can prove that $$\|\kappa {\boldsymbol}\phi\|_\Omega \lesssim (1+C_\kappa\kappa) \| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega.$$ We now rewrite as $$\nabla\cdot\mathcal C{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({\boldsymbol}\phi)-\rho{\boldsymbol}\phi=\imath\kappa{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-(\kappa^2+1)\rho{\boldsymbol}\phi$$ and use the regularity estimate to bound $\|{\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{2,\Omega}$.
The first order in space, second order in frequency system is
$$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\mathcal A\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma} -{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({\mathbf}u) &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
\nabla\cdot\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma} +\kappa^2\,\rho\,{\mathbf}u &=\widetilde{{\mathbf}f}
&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
{\mathbf}u &=\mathbf g_D
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
\widetilde{{\boldsymbol}\sigma}\mathbf n &=\widetilde{\mathbf g}_N
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_N$}.\end{aligned}$$
From this moment on, we will drop all tildes in the formulas. It has to be understood though that the stress that we are computing with this method is the physical stress and not the one scaled by $\imath/\kappa$. The error equations are
\[eq:X.3\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
(\mathcal A {{e_h^\sigma}},{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}+({{\mathbf e_h^u}},\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\langle {{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\xi\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&= (\mathcal A {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{\boldsymbol}\xi)_{{\mathcal T_h}},\\
\nonumber
-(\nabla\cdot{{e_h^\sigma}},\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\kappa^2 (\rho{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}\\
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&=-\kappa^2(\rho{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\mathbf w)_{{\mathcal T_h}}\\
\nonumber
&\phantom{=}-\langle {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\mathbf P_M}}\mathbf w\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}},\\
\langle {{e_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n-{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
&=\langle{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}
-\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau {{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}\setminus\Gamma_D}\\
\langle{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},{\boldsymbol}\mu\rangle_{\Gamma_D} &=0,\end{aligned}$$
and a simple argument shows the new energy identity $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\label{eq:X.0}
& \|{{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}^2-\kappa^2\|{{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\rho^2+\|{{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau^2 \\
& \hspace{5pt} = (\mathcal A{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},\overline{{e_h^\sigma}})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\kappa^2(\rho \overline{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\mathbf e_h^u}})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\langle\overline{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau \, \overline{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}}, {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The adjoint problem has to be written as
\[eq:X.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
\mathcal A{\boldsymbol}\psi +{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon({\boldsymbol}\phi) &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
-\nabla\cdot{\boldsymbol}\psi +\kappa^2\,\rho\,{\boldsymbol}\phi &= -{{\mathbf e_h^u}}&\qquad &\mbox{in $\Omega$},\\
{\boldsymbol}\phi &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_D$},\\
{\boldsymbol}\psi\mathbf n &=\mathbf 0
&\qquad &\mbox{on $\Gamma_N$},\end{aligned}$$
where the negative sign in the right hand side is added for convenience. With the usual regularity hypotheses, the scaled regularity inequalities for the solution of this problem are: $$\kappa(\| {\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{1,\Omega} + \| \rho{\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}})+\| \mathcal A {\boldsymbol}\psi\|_{1,\Omega}+ \|{\boldsymbol}\psi\|_{1,{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+ \|{\boldsymbol}\phi\|_{2,\Omega} \le E_\kappa\|{{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega,$$ with $E_\kappa$ bounded as in the statement of the theorem. The proof of this inequality is very similar to the proof of above. After integration by parts and introduction of projections it can be shown that the solution of satisfies the following identities
\[eq:X.4\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
(\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-(\nabla\cdot{{e_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\langle{{e_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}} &=0,\\
({{\mathbf e_h^u}},\nabla\cdot{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+\langle {{\mathbf e_h^u}},({{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
-\kappa^2 (\rho\,{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}& = \| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega^2,\\
\langle {{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}} &=0.\end{aligned}$$
Testing the error equations with the conjugates of the projections of the adjoint problem and rearranging terms, we prove
\[eq:X.5\] $$\begin{aligned}
{6}
(\mathcal A {{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+({{\mathbf e_h^u}},\nabla\cdot {{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\langle {{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&=\ell_1({\boldsymbol}\psi),\\
-(\nabla\cdot{{e_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\kappa^2 (\rho{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}&=\ell_2({\boldsymbol}\phi),\\
\langle {{e_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
&=\ell_3({\boldsymbol}\phi),\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_1({\boldsymbol}\psi)&:=&
(\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\mathcal A {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}-\langle{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},(\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}},\\
\ell_2({\boldsymbol}\phi) &:=& -\kappa^2\left(
(\rho{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\rho{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right)\\
& & -\langle {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
-\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}} \\
\ell_3({\boldsymbol}\phi) &:=& \langle{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\mathbf P_M}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
-\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau {{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
+\langle {\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}),\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}.\end{aligned}$$ The sum of equations can then be compared with the sum of equations to prove the duality identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:X.6}
\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega^2
&=& ( (\mathcal A{{e_h^\sigma}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\mathcal A{{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}},{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\\
\nonumber
& & -\kappa^2 \left((\rho\,{{\mathbf e_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}+(\rho\,{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi})_{{\mathcal T_h}}\right)\\
\nonumber
& & +\langle {{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}},(\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi}-{{\Pi_V}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\psi})\mathbf n\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}\\
\nonumber
& & +\langle{\boldsymbol}\tau({{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}})-{\boldsymbol}\tau{{\mathbf P_M}}{{{\boldsymbol}\varepsilon_h^u}},\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}
- \langle {{\varepsilon_h^\sigma}}\mathbf n,{{\Pi_W}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}-{{\mathbf P_M}}\overline{{\boldsymbol}\phi}\rangle_{\partial{{\mathcal T_h}}}.\end{aligned}$$ What is left now is the proof of bounds for the right-hand sides of and . This process requires just going carefully over the proofs of Proposition and . Nothing essential is changed. We can write the results with our shorthand notation for errors $\Sigma:=\| {{e_h^\sigma}}\|_{\mathcal A}$, $\mathrm T:=\| {{\mathbf P_M}}{{\mathbf e_h^u}}-{{\widehat{\mathbf e}_h^u}}\|_\tau$, $\mathrm U:=\| {{\mathbf e_h^u}}\|_\Omega$, and approximation terms $\Sigma_h:= h^t |{\boldsymbol}\sigma|_{t,\Omega}$, $\mathrm U_h:=h^{s-1} |\mathbf u|_{s,\Omega}$. The bounds we obtain are: $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^2+ \mathrm T^2
& \lesssim \Sigma\,\Sigma_h + \kappa^2 \mathrm U\,\mathrm U_h
+ (\Sigma_h+\mathrm U_h) \mathrm T +\Sigma_h^2+\kappa^2\mathrm U^2, \\
\mathrm U & \lesssim \alpha^2 (\Sigma+\Sigma_h+\mathrm U_h +\mathrm T),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha:=E_\kappa h (1+\kappa)$. The condition that allows us to bootstrap is $C(\alpha\kappa)^2 \le 1/4$, where $C$ is a constant related to the constants hidden in the symbols $\lesssim$ above. After simplification, we prove $$\Sigma+\mathrm T \lesssim \Sigma_h+(1+\kappa) \mathrm U_h \qquad
\mathrm U \lesssim \alpha (\Sigma_h+(1+\kappa)\mathrm U_h),$$ which is the statement of the theorem.
[^1]: Part of this work was developed while AH and FJS partially funded by NSF grant DMS 1216356.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper the relaxed micromorphic model proposed in [@NeffRelaxed; @Ghiba] has been used to study wave propagation in unbounded continua with microstructure. By studying dispersion relations for the considered relaxed medium, we are able to disclose precise frequency ranges (band-gaps) for which propagation of waves cannot occur. These dispersion relations are strongly nonlinear so giving rise to a macroscopic dispersive behavior of the considered medium. We prove that the presence of band-gaps is related to a unique elastic coefficient, the so-called *Cosserat couple modulus* $\mu_{c}$, which is also responsible for the loss of symmetry of the Cauchy force stress tensor. This parameter can be seen as the trigger of a bifurcation phenomenon since the fact of slightly changing its value around a given threshold drastically changes the observed response of the material with respect to wave propagation. We finally show that band-gaps cannot be accounted for by classical micromorphic models as well as by Cosserat and second gradient ones. The potential fields of application of the proposed relaxed model are manifold, above all for what concerns the conception of new engineering materials to be used for vibration control and stealth technology.
**Keywords:** relaxed micromorphic continuum, Cosserat couple modulus, wave band-gaps, phononic crystals, lattice structures.
author:
- 'Angela Madeo$^{1,5}$[^1], Patrizio Neff$^{2,5}$, Ionel-Dumitrel Ghiba$^{2,3}$, Luca Placidi$^{4,5}$, Giuseppe Rosi$^{5,6}$'
title: 'Wave propagation in relaxed micromorphic continua: modelling metamaterials with frequency band-gaps'
---
> “Sans la curiosité de l’ésprit, que serions-nous?” Marie Curie
1\. Université de Lyon-INSA, 20 Av. Albert Einstein, 69100 Villeurbanne Cedex, France.
2\. Lehrstuhl für Nichtlineare Analysis und Modellierung, Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Campus Essen, Thea-Leymann Str. 9, 45127 Essen, Germany.
3\. Department of Mathematics, University A.I. Cuza, Blvd. Carol I, no. 11, 700506 Iaşi, Romania; Octav Mayer Institute of Mathematics, Romanian Academy, 700505 - Iaşi; Institute of Solid Mechanics, Romanian Academy, 010141-Bucharest, Romania.
4\. Università Telematica Internazionale Uninettuno, Corso V. Emanuele II 39, 00186 Roma, Italy.
5\. International Center M&MOCS Mathematics and Mechanics of Complex Systems, Palazzo Caetani, Cisterna di Latina, Italy.
6\. Laboratoire de Modelisation Multi Echelle, MSME UMR 8208 CNRS, Université Paris-Est, 61 Avenue du Général De Gaulle, Créteil Cedex 94010, France
Introduction
============
Engineering metamaterials showing exotic behaviors with respect to wave propagation are recently attracting growing attention from the scientific community for what concerns both modelling and experiments. Indeed, there are multiple experimental evidences supporting the fact that engineering microstructured materials such as phononic crystals and lattice structures can inhibit wave propagation in particular frequency ranges (see e.g. [@Vasseur; @Vasseur1]). Both phononic crystals and lattice structures are artificial materials which are characterized by periodic microstructures in which strong contrasts of the material properties can be observed. Also suitably ordered granular assemblies with defects (see e.g. [@Merkel; @Merkel1; @Kafesaki]) and composites ([@Economou]) have shown the possibility of exhibiting band-gaps in which wave propagation cannot occur under particular loading conditions. In all these cases, the basic features of the observed band-gaps are directly related to the presence of an underlying microstructure in which strong contrasts of the elastic properties may occur. Indeed, the rich dynamic behavior of such materials stems mainly from their hierarchical heterogeneity at the microscopic level which produces the mixing of the longitudinal and the transverse components of travelling waves. It is clear that the applications of such metamaterials would be very appealing for what concerns vibration control in engineering structures. These materials could be used as an alternative to currently used piezo-electric materials which are commonly employed for structural vibration control and for this reason are widely studied in the literature (see, among many others, [@Piezo1; @isola2; @isola6; @isola1; @isola3; @Piezo]).
Motivation and originality of the present work
----------------------------------------------
Different modelling efforts were recently made trying to account for the observed band-gaps in a reliable manner. The most common models are based on homogenization procedures on simple periodic microstructures with strong contrast giving rise to Cauchy-type equivalent continua. Often, it is remarked that the equivalent continua obtained by means of these homogenization techniques are able to predict band-gaps when the equivalent mass of the macroscopic system becomes negative (see e.g.[@BoutinNegM; @Huang0; @Huang]). Homogenized systems with negative equivalent mass can be successfully replaced by suitable generalized continua. Indeed, it is known that homogenization of strongly heterogeneous periodic systems may lead to generalized continua as equivalent macroscopic medium (see e.g.[@isolaHomog]). Some rare papers (see e.g. [@HuangMicrostr; @Huang; @Vasiliev]) can be found in the literature in which lattice models with enriched kinematics are used to model band-gaps without the need of introducing negative equivalent masses. Nevertheless, to the authors’ knowledge, a systematic treatment of band-gap modelling based on the spirit of micromorphic continuuum mechanics is still lacking and deserves attention. Indeed, the idea of using generalized continuum theories to describe microstructured materials needs to be fully developed in order to achieve a simplified modeling and more effective conception of engineering devices allowing to stop wave propagation in suitable frequency bands. Continuum models are, in fact, suitable to be used as input in finite element calculations, which are for sure one of the main basis of engineering design.
In this paper, we propose to use the relaxed micromorphic continuum model presented in [@NeffRelaxed] to study wave propagation in microstructured materials exhibiting exotic properties with respect to wave propagation. The used kinematics is enhanced with respect to the one used for classical Cauchy continua by means of supplementary kinematical fields with respect to the macroscopic displacement. The introduced supplementary kinematical fields allow to account for the presence of microstructure on the overall mechanical behavior of considered continua. The considered extended kinematics has a similar form as the one used to describe phenomena of energy trapping in internal degrees of freedom (see e.g. [@Carcaterra] and references there cited). However, the aforementioned papers deal with damped systems differently from what done in the present paper where only conservative systems are considered.
It is well known that the mechanical behavior of isotropic Mindlin-Eringen media is, in general, described by means of 18 elastic constants (see [@Mindlin; @EringenBook; @NeffRelaxed]). Nevertheless, the set of 18 parameters introduced by Mindlin in [@Mindlin] and Eringen in [@EringenBook] is not suitable to disclose the main features of micromorphic media mainly because of unavoidable computational difficulties. We propose here to consider the relaxed micromorphic model presented in [@NeffRelaxed] which only counts 6 parameters and which, nevertheless, is fully able to describe the main characteristic features of micromorphic continua. Indeed, in [@NeffRelaxed] we showed that the linear isotropic microvoid model, the linear Cosserat model and the linear microstretch model are special cases of our relaxed micromorphic model in dislocation format. A direct identification of the coefficients gave us that the coefficient of the Cowin-Nunziato theory [@CowinNunziato], the Mindlin-Eringen theory [@Mindlin; @EringenBook] and the microstretch theory [@EringenBook; @Iesan] can be expressed in terms of our constitutive coefficients (see also [@Neff; @constants; @NeffRelaxed]). Using these identifications one could compare all the qualitative results obtained using our relaxed micromorphic model with those already available in the literature (see for instance [@Mindlin; @EringenBook; @Ghiba; @Ghiba1; @Ghiba2; @Ghiba3; @Ghiba4; @Ghiba5; @Ghiba6] and references therein) concerning classical theories of elastic materials with microstructure.
By studying dispersion relations in the proposed relaxed model, we show that wave propagation in such simplified micromorphic media is affected by the presence of microstructure in a quite controllable manner. More precisely, we show that, if only longitudinal waves are allowed to propagate in the considered medium (no displacements and micro-deformations allowed in the direction orthogonal to the direction of wave propagation), then the presence of band-gaps can be forecasted only with 5 parameters. The main features of these longitudinal band gaps are seen to be directly related to the absolute rotations of the microstructure. Nevertheless, the proposed 5-parameters relaxed model is not able to account for the presence of band-gaps when also transverse waves are allowed to propagate in the considered material. In order to treat the more general case, we hence consider a slightly generalized relaxed model by introducing only one extra elastic parameter, the so-called *Cosserat couple modulus* $\mu_{c}$, which is related to the relative deformation of the microstructure with respect to the macroscopic matrix. We hence end up with a relaxed micromorphic model with only 6 parameters (5+1) which is able to account for the prediction of band-gaps when generic waves can travel in the considered medium.
Moreover, we consider the so-called “classical micromorphic medium”, i.e. a micromorphic continuum in which the whole gradient of the micro-deformation tensor plays a role (instead of only its Curl). We show that also the classical micromorphic continuum is not suitable to account for the decription of band-gaps. Finally, a particular second gradient material is obtained as limit case of the proposed classical micromorphic continuum by letting $\mu_{e}\rightarrow\infty$ and $\mu_{c}\rightarrow\infty$. Also in this case, we will show that the existence of band-gaps cannot be accounted for.
We can summarize by saying that the proposed relaxed micromorphic model (6 elastic coefficients) accounts for the description of frequency band-gaps in microstructured media which are “switched on” by the only parameter $\mu_{c}$ related to relative rotations of the microstucture with respect to the solid macroscopic matrix. These band gaps cannot be predicted by means of classical micromorphic or Cosserat and second gradient media, as it will be extensively pointed out in the body of the paper. Moreover, band gaps are impossible to observe in the purely one-dimensional situation, since, among others, the Curl operator vanishes in this simplified case. This absence of band gaps is confirmed by the results found in [@berezowski] in which a one-dimensional micromorphic model is presented together with a detailed analysis of wave propagation.
We finally remark that there are some similarities between dispersion relations for micromorphic continua (including the proposed relaxed model) and dispersion relations of various type of plates models, see [@Victor1] where Kirchhoff, Mindlin, Reissner types of plates including consideration of rotatory inertia are investigated. In particular, for almost all models of plates there are optical branches of dispersion relations and linear asymptotes when the wave number tends to infinity. On the other hand, in the theory of plates there are no band gaps discovered within the considered models. Also porous media with strong contrast between the solid and fluid phases show a marked dispersive behavior (see e.g. [@Steeb; @Steeb1]), but band gaps are not observed in such media.
Notations
---------
Let $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$ be two vectors and $\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}$ be two second order tensors of components $x_{i},y_{i}$ and $X_{ij},Y_{ij}$, $i,j=\{1,2,3\}$, respectively. We let[^2] $\text{<}\mathbf{x},\,\mathbf{y}>_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}=x_{i}y_{i}$ and $\text{<}\mathbf{X},\,\mathbf{Y}>_{\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}}=X_{ij}Y_{ij}$ denote the scalar product on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}$ with associated vector norms $\left\Vert \mathbf{x}\right\Vert _{\mathbb{R}^{3}}^{2}=\text{<}\mathbf{x},\,\mathbf{x}>_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}$ and $\left\Vert \mathbf{X}\right\Vert _{\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}}^{2}=\text{<}\mathbf{X},\,\mathbf{X}>_{\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}}$, respectively. In what follows, we omit the subscripts $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}$ if no confusion can arise. We define the standard divergence, gradient and curl operators for vectors and second order tensors respectively as[^3] $$\begin{gathered}
\mathrm{Div}\,\mathbf{x}=x_{i,i},\quad\left(\,\nabla\,\mathbf{x}\,\right)_{ij}=x_{i,j},\quad\left(\,\mathrm{Curl}\,\mathbf{x}\,\right)_{i}=x_{a,b}\,\epsilon_{iab},\\
\\
\left(\,\mathrm{Div}\,\mathbf{X}\,\right)_{i}=X_{ij,j},\quad\left(\,\nabla\,\mathbf{X}\,\right)_{ijk}=X_{ij,k},\quad\left(\,\mathrm{Curl}\,\mathbf{X}\,\right)_{ij}=X_{ia,b}\epsilon_{jab},\end{gathered}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ is the standard Levi-Civita tensor.
For any second order tensor $\mathbf{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}$ we introduce its symmetric, skew-symmetric, spheric and deviatoric part respectively as $$\mathrm{sym}\:\mathbf{X}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{X}^{T}\right),\quad\mathrm{skew}\:\mathbf{X}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{X}-\mathbf{X}^{T}\right),\quad\mathrm{sph}\:\mathbf{X}=\frac{1}{3}\,\mathrm{tr}\,\mathbf{X}\:\mathds1,\quad\mathrm{dev}\,\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{X}-\mathrm{sph}\:\mathbf{X},$$ or equivalently, in index notation $$\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace\left(\mathrm{sym}\:\mathbf{X}\right)_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(X_{ij}+X_{ji}\right),\ \ \left(\mathrm{skew}\:\mathbf{X}\right)_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(X_{ij}-X_{ji}\right),\ \ \left(\mathrm{sph}\:\mathbf{X}\right)_{ij}=\frac{1}{3}\, X_{kk}\:\delta_{ij},\ \ \left(\mathrm{dev}\,\mathbf{X}\right)_{ij}=X_{ij}-\left(\mathrm{sph}\:\mathbf{X}\right)_{ij},$$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecher delta tensor which is equal to $1$ when $i=j$ and equal to $0$ if $i\neq j$. The *Cartan-Lie-algebra decomposition* for the tensor $\mathbf{X}$ is introduced as $$\mathbf{X}=\mathrm{dev\: sym}\,\mathbf{X}+\mathrm{skew}\,\mathbf{X}+\mathrm{sph}\,\mathbf{X}.\label{CartanLie}$$
Equations of motion in strong form
==================================
We describe the deformation of the considered continuum by introducing a Lagrangian configuration $B_{L}\subset\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and a suitably regular kinematical field $\boldsymbol{\chi}(\mathbf{X},t)$ which associates to any material point $\mathbf{X}\in B_{L}$ its current position $\mathbf{x}$ at time $t$. The image of the function $\boldsymbol{\chi}$ gives, at any instant $t$ the current shape of the body $B_{E}(t)$ which is often referred to as Eulerian configuration of the system. Since we will use it in the following, we also introduce the displacement field $\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{X},t)=\boldsymbol{\chi}(\mathbf{X},t)-\mathbf{X}$. The kinematics of the continuum is then enriched by adding a second order tensor field $\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{X},t)$ which accounts for deformations associated to the microstructure of the continuum itself. Hence, the current state of the considered continuum is identified by 12 independent kinematical fields: 3 components of the displacement field and 9 components of the micro-deformation field. Such a theory of a continuum with microstructure has been derived in [@Mindlin] for the linear-elastic case and re-proposed e.g. in [@EringenI; @Eringen; @II; @Forest0; @Forest] for the case of non-linear elasticity.
Once the used kinematics has been made clear, we can introduce the action functional of the considered micromorphic system as $$\mathcal{A}=\int_{0}^{T}\int_{B_{L}}\left(T-W\right)d\mathbf{X}\, dt$$ where $T$ and $W$ are the kinetic and potential energies of the considered system respectively. Denoting by $\rho$ and $\text{\ensuremath{\eta}}$ the macroscopic and microscopic mass densities respectively, we choose the kinetic energy of the system to be $$\begin{gathered}
T=\frac{1}{2}\,\rho\left\Vert \,\mathbf{u}_{t}\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\,\eta\left\Vert \,\mathbf{P}_{t}\,\right\Vert ^{2},\label{Kinetic}\end{gathered}$$ where we denote by a subscript $t$ partial derivative with respect to time. We remark that, since the micro-deformation tensor $\mathbf{P}$ is dimensionless, the micro-density $\eta$ has the dimensions of a bulk density ($Kg/m^{3}$) times the square of a length. This means that, if $\rho'$ is the true density (per unit of macro volume) of the material constituting the underlying microstructure of the medium one can think to write the homogenized density $\eta$ as (see also [@Mindlin]) $$\eta=d^{2}\:\rho',$$ where we denoted by $d$ the characteristic length of the microscopic inclusions[^4].
On the other hand, we will specify the choice of the strain energy density $W$ in the next subsections by discussing the cases of the relaxed micromorphic continuum introduced in [@NeffRelaxed] and of the classical micromorphic continuum.
The relaxed micromorphic continuum
----------------------------------
The strain energy density for the relaxed micromorphic continuum can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
W & =\mu_{e}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{sym}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{e}}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\right)^{2}+\mu_{h}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{sym}\,\mathbf{P}\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{h}}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}\,\mathbf{P}\right)^{2}\label{KinPot}\\
& +\mu_{c}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{skew}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\alpha_{c}}{2}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{\mathrm{Cur}l}\,\mathbf{P}\,\right\Vert ^{2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where all the introduced elastic coefficients are assumed to be constant. This decomposition of the strain energy density, valid in the isotropic, linear-elastic case, has been proposed in [@NeffRelaxed; @Ghiba] where well-posedness theorems have also been proved. It is clear that this decomposition introduces a limited number of elastic parameters and we will show how this may help in the physical interpretation of these latter. Positive definiteness of the potential energy implies the following simple relations on the introduced parameters $$\mu_{e}>0,\qquad\mu_{c}>0,\qquad3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}>0,\qquad\mu_{h}>0,\qquad3\lambda_{h}+2\mu_{h}>0,\qquad\alpha_{c}>0.\label{DefPos}$$ One of the most interesting features of the proposed strain energy density is the reduced number of elastic parameters which are needed to fully describe the mechanical behavior of a micromorphic continuum. Indeed, each parameter can be easily related to specific micro and macro deformation modes. In the following, we use a strengthened set of requirements which implies (\[DefPos\]), namely $$\mu_{e}>0,\qquad\mu_{c}>0,\qquad2\lambda_{e}+\mu_{e}>0,\qquad\mu_{h}>0,\qquad2\lambda_{h}+\mu_{h}>0,\qquad\alpha_{c}>0.\label{DefPos-1}$$
### Comparison with Mindlin and Eringen models
It can be checked that the proposed strain energy density (\[KinPot\]) represents a particular case of the strain energy density proposed by Mindlin (cf. Eq. (5.5) of [@Mindlin]). Indeed, considering that our micro-strain tensor is the transposed of the one introduced by Mindlin ($P_{ij}=\psi_{ji}$) and using the substitutions (cf. also [@Neff_Forest_jel05]): $$\begin{gathered}
\mu=\mu_{h},\quad\lambda=\lambda_{h},\quad b_{1}=\lambda_{e}+\lambda_{h},\quad b_{2}=\mu_{e}+\mu_{h}+\mu_{c},\quad b_{3}=\mu_{e}+\mu_{h}-\mu_{c},\quad g_{1}=-\lambda_{h},\quad g_{2}=-\mu_{h},\label{Identification1}\\
\nonumber \\
a_{10}=\alpha_{c},\quad a_{14}=-\alpha_{c},\qquad a_{1}=a_{2}=a_{3}=a_{4}=a_{5}=a_{8}=a_{11}=a_{13}=a_{15}=0,\label{Identification2}\end{gathered}$$ we are able to recover that our relaxed model can be obtained as a particular case of Mindlin’s one. The relaxed strain energy density (\[KinPot\]) is not positive definite in the sense of Mindlin and Eringen, but it gives rise to a well posed model (see [@NeffRelaxed]). It is evident that the representation of the strain energy density (\[KinPot\]) is more suitable for applications than Mindlin’s one due to the reduced number of parameters. Indeed, if we consider all the terms with the space derivatives of $\mathbf{P}$ to be vanishing ($\alpha_{c}=0$ in our model and $a_{i}=0$ in Mindlin) we have complete equivalence of the two models when using the parameters identification (\[Identification1\]). We can hence start noticing that we use in this model only 5 parameters instead of Mindlin’s 7 parameters. Things become even more interesting when looking at the terms in the energy which involve derivatives of the microstrain tensor $\mathbf{P}$. Indeed, our relaxed model only provides 1 extra parameter, $\alpha_{c}$, instead of Mindlin’s 11 independent parameters ($a_{1},\: a_{2},\: a_{3},\: a_{4},\: a_{5},\: a_{8},\: a_{10},\: a_{11},\: a_{13},\: a_{14},\: a_{15}$). We claim that the proposed relaxed model is able to catch the basic features of observable material behaviours of materials with microstructure.
When considering Eringen model for micromorphic continua (see [@EringenBook] p. 273 for the strain energy density), we can recover that our relaxed model can be obtained from Eringen’s one by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\mu=\mu_{e}-\mu_{c},\quad\lambda=\lambda_{e},\quad\tau=\lambda_{e}+\lambda_{h},\quad\nu=-\lambda_{e},\quad\eta=\mu_{e}+\mu_{h}-\mu_{c},\quad\sigma=\mu_{c}-\mu_{e},\quad k=2\mu_{c},\label{Identification1-1}\\
\nonumber \\
\tau_{7}=\alpha_{c},\quad\tau_{9}=-\alpha_{c},\qquad\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=\tau_{3}=\tau_{4}=\tau_{5}=\tau_{6}=\tau_{8}=\tau_{10}=\tau_{11}=0.\label{Identification2-1}\end{gathered}$$ Also in this case, we replace Eringen’s 7 parameters with only 5 parameters and, when considering terms with derivatives of the microstrain tensor $\mathbf{P}$, we have only one additional parameter $\alpha_{c}$ instead of Eringen’s 11 parameters.
### Governing equations
Imposing the first variation of the action functional to be vanishing (i.e. $\delta\mathcal{A}=0$), integrating by parts a suitable number of times and considering arbitrary variations $\delta\boldsymbol{\chi}$ and $\delta\mathbf{P}$ of the basic kinematical fields, we obtain the strong form of the bulk equations of motion of considered system which read $$\begin{aligned}
\rho\,\mathbf{u}_{tt} & =\mathrm{Div}\left[2\,\mu_{e}\,\mathrm{sym}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)+\lambda_{e}\mathrm{tr}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\mathds1+2\,\mu_{c}\,\mathrm{skew}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\right],\nonumber \\
\label{eq:bulk-mod-3}\\
\eta\,\mathbf{P}_{tt} & =2\,\mu_{e}\,\mathrm{sym}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)+\lambda_{e}\mathrm{tr}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\mathds1-2\,\mu_{h}\,\mathrm{sym}\,\mathbf{P}-\lambda_{h}\mathrm{tr}\,\mathbf{P}\:\mathds1\nonumber \\
& +2\,\mu_{c}\,\mathrm{skew}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)-\alpha_{c}\,\mathrm{\mathrm{Cur}l}\left(\mathrm{\mathrm{Cur}l}\,\mathbf{P}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, in index notation[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho\,\ddot{u}_{i} & =\mu_{e}\left(u_{i,jj}-P_{ij,j}+u_{j,ij}-P_{ji,j}\right)+\lambda_{e}\left(u_{j,ji}-P_{jj,i}\right)\delta_{ij}+\mu_{c}\left(u_{i,jj}-P_{ij,j}-u_{j,ij}+P_{ji,j}\right),\nonumber \\
\label{eq:bulk-mod-3-1}\\
\eta\,\ddot{P}_{ij} & =\mu_{e}\left(u_{i,j}-P_{ij}+u_{j,i}-P_{ji}\right)+\lambda_{e}\left(u_{k,k}-P_{kk}\right)\delta_{ij}-\mu_{h}\left(P_{ij}+P_{ji}\right)-\lambda_{h}P_{kk}\delta_{ij}\nonumber \\
& +\mu_{c}\left(u_{i,j}-P_{ij}-u_{j,i}+P_{ji}\right)+\alpha_{c}\left(P_{ij,kk}-P_{ik,jk}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The classical micromorphic continuum
------------------------------------
From here on, we call classical micromorphic continuum a medium the energy of which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
W & =\mu_{e}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{sym}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{e}}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\right)^{2}+\mu_{h}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{sym}\,\mathbf{P}\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{h}}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}\,\mathbf{P}\right)^{2}\label{KinPot-1-1}\\
& +\mu_{c}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{skew}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\alpha_{g}}{2}\left\Vert \nabla\,\mathbf{P}\right\Vert ^{2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
### Comparison with the Mindlin and Eringen models
Analogously to what done for the relaxed case, we can recover that the classical micromorphic continuum can be seen as a particular case of Mindlin’s model by means of the parameter identification (\[Identification1\]) to which one must add: $$a_{10}=\alpha_{g},\qquad a_{1}=a_{2}=a_{3}=a_{4}=a_{5}=a_{6}=a_{7}=a_{8}=a_{9}=a_{11}=a_{12}=a_{13}=a_{14}=a_{15}=0.$$ Analogously, the classical micromorphic continuum can be obtained from Eringen’s model by means of the parameter identification (\[Identification1-1\]) to which one must add the conditions $$\tau_{7}=\alpha_{g},\qquad\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=\tau_{3}=\tau_{4}=\tau_{5}=\tau_{6}=\tau_{8}=\tau_{9}=\tau_{10}=\tau_{11}=0.$$
### Governing equations
The equations of motion are the same as Eqs. (\[eq:bulk-mod-3\]), except for the gradient term in the second equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho\,\mathbf{u}_{tt} & =\mathrm{Div}\left[2\,\mu_{e}\,\mathrm{sym}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)+\lambda_{e}\mathrm{tr}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\mathds1+2\,\mu_{c}\,\mathrm{skew}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\right],\nonumber \\
\label{eq:bulk-mod-3-2-1}\\
\eta\,\mathbf{P}_{tt} & =2\,\mu_{e}\,\mathrm{sym}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)+\lambda_{e}\mathrm{tr}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\mathds1-2\,\mu_{h}\,\mathrm{sym}\,\mathbf{P}-\lambda_{h}\mathrm{tr}\,\mathbf{P}\:\mathds1\nonumber \\
& +2\,\mu_{c}\,\mathrm{skew}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)+\alpha_{g}\:\mathrm{Div}\left(\nabla\mathbf{P}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The second equation can hence be rewritten in index notation as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta\,\ddot{P}_{ij} & =\mu_{e}\left(u_{i,j}-P_{ij}+u_{j,i}-P_{ji}\right)+\lambda_{e}\left(u_{k,k}-P_{kk}\right)\delta_{ij}-\mu_{h}\left(P_{ij}+P_{ji}\right)-\lambda_{h}P_{kk}\delta_{ij}\label{EqBulkClass}\\
& +\mu_{c}\left(u_{i,j}-P_{ij}-u_{j,i}+P_{ji}\right)+\alpha_{g}P_{ij,kk}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Plane wave propagation in micromorphic media
============================================
In our study of wave propagation in considered micromorphic media, we will limit ourselves to the case of plane waves travelling in an infinite domain. With this end in mind, we can suppose that the space dependence of all the introduced kinematical fields is limited only to the component $X$ of $\mathbf{X}$ which we also suppose to be the direction of propagation of the considered wave. It is immediate that, according to the Cartan-Lie decomposition for the tensor $\mathbf{P}$ (see Eq. (\[CartanLie\])), the component $P_{11}$ of the tensor $\mathbf{P}$ itself can be rewritten as $P_{11}=P^{D}+P^{S}$ where we set $$P^{S}:=\frac{1}{3}\left(P_{11}+P_{22}+P_{33}\right),\qquad P^{D}:=\left(\mathrm{dev\: sym}\,\mathbf{P}\right)_{11}.\label{SpherDev}$$ We also denote the components 12 and 13 of the symmetric and skew-symmetric part of the tensor $\mathbf{P}$ respectively as $$\left(\mathrm{sym}\:\mathbf{P}\right)_{1\xi}=P_{(1\xi)},\qquad\left(\mathrm{skew}\:\mathbf{P}\right)_{1\xi}=P_{\left[1\xi\right]},\quad\xi=1,2.\label{SymSkew}$$ We finally introduce the last new variable $$P^{V}=P_{22}-P_{33}.\label{VolumeVar}$$
The relaxed micromorphic continuum
----------------------------------
We want to rewrite the equations of motion (\[eq:bulk-mod-3-1\]) in terms of the new variables (\[SpherDev\]), (\[SymSkew\]) and, of course, of the displacement variables $u_{i}$. Before doing so, we introduce the quantities[^6] $$\begin{gathered}
c_{m}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{c}}{\eta}},\qquad c_{s}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{e}+\mu_{c}}{\rho}},\qquad c_{p}=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}}{\rho}},\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
\omega_{s}=\sqrt{\frac{2\left(\mu_{e}+\mu_{h}\right)}{\eta}},\qquad\omega_{p}=\sqrt{\frac{\left(3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}\right)+\left(3\lambda_{h}+2\mu_{h}\right)}{\eta}},\qquad\omega_{r}=\sqrt{\frac{2\mu_{c}}{\eta}},\label{Definitions}\\
\nonumber \\
\omega_{l}=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{h}+2\mu_{h}}{\eta}},\qquad\omega_{t}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{h}}{\eta}}.\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ With the proposed new choice of variables and considering definitions (\[Definitions\]) we are able to rewrite the governing equations as different uncoupled sets of equations, namely:
- A set of three equations only involving longitudinal quantities:
$$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{u}_{1} & =c_{p}^{2}u_{1,11}-\frac{2\mu_{e}}{\rho}\, P_{,1}^{D}-\frac{3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}}{\rho}\, P_{,1}^{S},\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}^{D} & =\frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\mu_{e}}{\eta}u_{1,1}+\frac{1}{3}c_{m}^{2}P_{,11}^{D}-\frac{2}{3}c_{m}^{2}P_{,11}^{S}-\omega_{s}^{2}P^{D},\label{Longitudinal}\\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}^{S} & =\frac{3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}}{3\eta}u_{1,1}-\frac{1}{3}c_{m}^{2}P_{,11}^{D}+\frac{2}{3}c_{m}^{2}P_{,11}^{S}-\omega_{p}^{2}P^{S},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
- Two sets of three equations only involving transverse quantities in the $k$-th direction, with $\xi=2,3$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{u}_{\xi} & =c_{s}^{2}u_{\xi,11}-\frac{2\mu_{e}}{\rho}\, P_{\left(1\xi\right),1}+\frac{\eta}{\rho}\omega_{r}^{2}P_{\left[1\xi\right],1},\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}_{\left(1\xi\right)} & =\frac{\mu_{e}}{\eta}u_{\xi,1}+\frac{1}{2}c_{m}^{2}P_{(1\xi)}{}_{,11}+\frac{1}{2}c_{m}^{2}P_{\left[1\xi\right],11}-\omega_{s}^{2}P_{(1\xi)},\label{Transverse}\\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}_{\left[1\xi\right]} & =-\frac{1}{2}\omega_{r}^{2}u_{\xi,1}+\frac{1}{2}c_{m}^{2}P_{(1\xi),11}+\frac{1}{2}c_{m}^{2}P_{\left[1\xi\right]}{}_{,11}-\omega_{r}^{2}P_{\left[1\xi\right]},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
- One equation only involving the variable $P_{\left(23\right)}$:
$$\ddot{P}_{\left(23\right)}=-\omega_{s}^{2}P_{\left(23\right)}+c_{m}^{2}P_{\left(23\right),11},\label{Shear}$$
- One equation only involving the variable $P_{\left[23\right]}$ :
$$\ddot{P}_{\left[23\right]}=-\omega_{r}^{2}P_{\left[23\right]}+c_{m}^{2}P_{\left[23\right],11},\label{Rotations23}$$
- One equation only involving the variable $P^{V}$:
$$\ddot{P}^{V}=-\omega_{s}^{2}P^{V}+c_{m}^{2}P_{,11}^{V}.\label{VolumeVariation}$$
These 12 scalar differential equations will be used to study wave propagation in our relaxed micromorphic media.
It can be checked that, in order to guarantee positive definiteness of the potential energy (\[DefPos\]) , the characteristic velocities and frequencies introduced in Eq.(\[Definitions\]) cannot be chosen in a completely arbitrary way. In the numerical simulations considered in this paper, the values of the elastic parameters are always chosen in order to guarantee positive definiteness of the potential energy according to Eqs.(\[DefPos-1\]).
The classical micromorphic continuum
------------------------------------
For the classical micromorphic continuum, introducing the new characteristic velocity $$c_{g}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{g}}{\eta}},$$ we get the following simplified one-dimensional equations
- Longitudinal
$$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{u}_{1} & =c_{p}^{2}u_{1,11}-\frac{2\mu_{e}}{\rho}\, P_{,1}^{D}-\frac{3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}}{\rho}P_{,1}^{S},\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}^{D} & =\frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\mu_{e}}{\eta}u_{1,1}+c_{g}^{2}P_{,11}^{D}-\omega_{s}^{2}P^{D},\label{Longitudinal-1}\\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}^{S} & =\frac{3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}}{3\eta}u_{1,1}+c_{g}^{2}P_{,11}^{S}-\omega_{p}^{2}P^{S},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
- Two sets of three equations only involving transverse quantities in the $k$-th direction, with $\xi=2,3$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{u}_{\xi} & =c_{s}^{2}u_{\xi,11}-\frac{2\mu_{e}}{\rho}\, P_{\left(1\xi\right),1}+\frac{\eta}{\rho}\omega_{r}^{2}P_{\left[1\xi\right],1},\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}_{\left(1\xi\right)} & =\frac{\mu_{e}}{\eta}\, u_{\xi,1}+c_{g}^{2}P_{(1\xi)}{}_{,11}-\omega_{s}^{2}P_{(1\xi)},\label{Transverse-1}\\
\nonumber \\
\ddot{P}_{\left[1\xi\right]} & =-\frac{1}{2}\omega_{r}^{2}u_{\xi,1}+c_{g}^{2}P_{\left[1\xi\right]}{}_{,11}-\omega_{r}^{2}P_{\left[1\xi\right]},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
- One equation only involving the variable $P_{\left(23\right)}$:
$$\ddot{P}_{\left(23\right)}=-\omega_{s}^{2}P_{\left(23\right)}+c_{g}^{2}P_{\left(23\right),11},\label{Shear-1}$$
- One equation only involving the variable $P_{\left[23\right]}$ :
$$\ddot{P}_{\left[23\right]}=-\omega_{r}^{2}P_{\left[23\right]}+c_{g}^{2}P_{\left[23\right],11},\label{Rotations23-1}$$
- One equation only involving the variable $P^{V}$:
$$\ddot{P}^{V}=-\omega_{s}^{2}P^{V}+c_{g}^{2}P_{,11}^{V}.\label{VolumeVariation-1}$$
Linear waves in micromorphic media
==================================
In this section we study the dispersion relations for the considered relaxed micromorphic continuum, as well as for the Classical micromorphic continuum. We also consider dispersion relations for Cosserat media obtained as a degenerate limit case of our relaxed model. Finally, dispersion relations for a second gradient continuum obtained as a limit case of the classic micromorphic continuum are also presented. It will be pointed out that only our relaxed micromorphic model can disclose the presence of band-gaps.
Micro-oscillations
------------------
We start studying a particular solution of the set of introduced differential equations by setting $$\begin{gathered}
u_{i}=0,\ i=1,2,3,\quad P_{(23)}=Re\left\{ \alpha_{(23)}e^{i\omega t}\right\} ,\quad P_{[23]}=Re\left\{ \alpha_{[23]}e^{i\omega t}\right\} ,\quad P^{V}=Re\left\{ \alpha^{V}e^{i\omega t}\right\} ,\\
\\
P_{(1\xi)}=Re\left\{ \alpha_{(1\xi)}e^{i\omega t}\right\} ,\quad P_{[1\xi]}=Re\left\{ \alpha_{[1\xi]}e^{i\omega t}\right\} ,\ \xi=2,3.\end{gathered}$$ Replacing these expressions for the unknown variables in each of Eqs.(\[Longitudinal\])-(\[VolumeVariation\]), noticing that the space derivatives are vanishing, one gets that the first of Eqs.(\[Longitudinal\]) and (\[Transverse\]) are such that the frequency calculated for the waves $u_{1}$ and $u_{\xi}$ is vanishing, i.e. $$\omega=0.\label{Acoustic}$$ Moreover, from the remaining equations one gets the values of frequency $\text{\ensuremath{\omega}}$ for the waves $P^{D}$, $P^{S}$, $P_{(1\xi)}$, $P_{[1\xi]}$, $P_{(23)}$, $P_{[23]}$ and $P^{V}$ respectively $$\omega^{2}=\omega_{s}^{2},\quad\omega^{2}=\omega_{p}^{2}\quad\omega^{2}=\omega_{s}^{2},\quad\omega^{2}=\omega_{r}^{2},\quad\omega^{2}=\omega_{s}^{2},\quad\omega^{2}=\omega_{r}^{2},\quad\omega^{2}=\omega_{s}^{2}.\label{Optic}$$ It is clear that one gets exactly the same result when considering the complete Mindlin-Eringen model, since the only difference is on the space derivatives of $\mathbf{P}$ which do not intervene when studying micro-oscillations. The characteristic values of the frequencies given in Eq.(\[Optic\]) are fixed once the material parameters of the system are specified (see Eqs.(\[Definitions\])) and they represent the limit values for $k\rightarrow0$ of the eigenvalues $\omega(k)$ associated to propagative waves, as it will be better shown in the next section. This preliminary study of micro-oscillations allows a precise classification of waves which can propagate in a micromorphic medium. More particularly, we can distinguish two types of propagative waves:
- **acoustic waves**, i.e. waves which have vanishing frequency when the wavenumber $k$ is vanishing,
- **optic waves,** i.e. waves which have non-vanishing frequency when the wavenumber $k$ is vanishing.
Indeed, we will see in the following, that a third type of wave may exist in relaxed micromorphic media under suitable hypothesis on the constitutive parameters:
- **standing (or evanescent) waves,** i.e. waves which have imaginary wavenumber $k$ corresponding to some frequency ranges. These waves do not propagate, but keep oscillating in a given, limited region of space.
According to the performed study of micro-oscillations we can conclude that
- For the **uncoupled waves** $P_{(23)}$, $P_{[23]}$ and $P^{V}$, only optic waves are found with cutoff frequencies $\omega_{s}$, $\omega_{r}$ and $\omega_{s}$. Moreover, the structure of the governing equations for $P_{(23)}$ and $P^{V}$ are formally identical (see Eqs. (\[Shear\]) and (\[VolumeVariation\])) so that the associated dispersion relations will give rise to superimposed curves. In the limit $\mu_{c}\rightarrow0$ one has from Eq. (\[Definitions\]) that $\omega_{r}\rightarrow0.$ This means that in this limit case one has one acoustic waves and two superimposed optic waves with cutoff frequency $\omega_{s}$.
- For the **longitudinal waves** $u_{1}$, $P^{D}$, $P^{S}$, we can identify one acoustic wave and two optic waves with cutoff frequencies $\omega_{s}$ and $\omega_{p}$. In the limit $\mu_{c}\rightarrow0$, which implies that $\omega_{r}\rightarrow0$, the situation for longitudinal waves remains unchanged.
- For the **transverse waves** $u_{\xi}$, $P_{(1\xi)}$, $P_{[1\xi]}$, ($\xi=1,2$) we identify one acoustic wave and two optic waves with cutoff frequencies $\omega_{s}$ and $\omega_{r}$. In the limit $\mu_{c}\rightarrow0$ which implies that $\omega_{r}\rightarrow0$, we have two acoustic waves and one optic wave with cutoff frequency $\omega_{s}$.
Planar wave propagation in the relaxed micromorphic continuum
-------------------------------------------------------------
We now look for a wave form solution of the previously derived equations of motion. We start from the uncoupled equations (\[Shear\])-(\[VolumeVariation\]) and assume that the involved unknown variables take the harmonic form $$P_{\left(23\right)}=Re\left\{ \beta_{\left(23\right)}e^{i(kX-\omega t)}\right\} ,\quad P_{\left[23\right]}=Re\left\{ \beta_{\left[23\right]}e^{i(kX-\omega t)}\right\} ,\quad P^{V}=Re\left\{ \beta^{V}e^{i(kX-\omega t)}\right\} ,\label{WaveForm1}$$ where $\beta_{\left(23\right)}$, $\beta_{\left[23\right]}$ and $\beta^{V}$ are the amplitudes of the three introduced waves. It can be remarked that the variables $P_{\left(23\right)}$, $P_{\left[23\right]}$ and $P^{V}$ respectively represent transverse (with respect to wave propagation) micro-shear, transverse micro-rotation and transverse micro-deformations at constant volume. Replacing this wave form in Eqs. (\[Shear\])-(\[VolumeVariation\]) and simplifying one obtains the following dispersion relations respectively: $$\omega(k)=\sqrt{\omega_{s}^{2}+k^{2}c_{m}^{2}},\qquad\omega(k)=\sqrt{\omega_{r}^{2}+k^{2}c_{m}^{2}},\qquad\omega(k)=\sqrt{\omega_{s}^{2}+k^{2}c_{m}^{2}}.\label{Eigen1}$$ We notice that for a vanishing wave number ($k=0$) the dispersion relations for the three considered waves give non-vanishing frequencies which correspond to the ones calculated in the previous subsection for the same waves. This is equivalent to say that the waves associated to the three considered variables $P_{\left(23\right)}$, $P_{\left[23\right]}$ and $P^{V}$ are so-called optic waves. Moreover, we also notice that the dispersion relation for the variables $P_{\left(23\right)}$ and $P^{V}$ are the same: this means that the wave-form solutions for these variables coincide modulo a scalar multiplication factor (see Eqs. (\[WaveForm1\])).
We now want to study harmonic solutions for the differential systems (\[Longitudinal\]) and (\[Transverse\]). To do so, we introduce the unknown vectors $\mathbf{v}_{1}=\left(u_{1},P^{D},P^{S}\right)$ and $\mathbf{v}_{\xi}=\left(u_{\xi},P_{(1\xi)},P_{[1\xi]}\right),\ \xi=2,3$ and look for wave form solutions of equations (\[Longitudinal\]) and (\[Transverse\]) in the form $$\mathbf{v}_{1}=Re\left\{ \boldsymbol{\beta}e^{i(kX-\omega t)}\right\} ,\qquad\mathbf{v}_{\xi}=Re\left\{ \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\xi}e^{i(kX-\omega t)}\right\} ,\ \xi=2,3\label{WaveForm2}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_{1},\beta_{2},\beta_{3})^{T}$ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\xi}=(\gamma_{1}^{\xi},\gamma_{2}^{\xi},\gamma_{3}^{\xi})^{T}$ are the unknown amplitudes of considered waves. Replacing this expressions in equations (\[Longitudinal\]) and (\[Transverse\]) one gets respectively $$\mathbf{A}_{1}\cdot\boldsymbol{\beta}=0,\qquad\mathbf{A}_{\xi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\xi}=0,\qquad\xi=2,3,\label{AlgSys}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbf{A}_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-\omega^{2}+c_{p}^{2}\, k^{2} & \, i\: k\:2\mu_{e}/\rho\ & i\: k\:\left(3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}\right)/\rho\\
\\
-i\: k\,\frac{4}{3}\,\mu_{e}/\eta & -\omega^{2}+\frac{1}{3}k^{2}c_{m}^{2}+\omega_{s}^{2} & -\frac{2}{3}\, k^{2}c_{m}^{2}\\
\\
-\frac{1}{3}\, i\, k\:\left(3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}\right)/\eta & -\frac{1}{3}\, k^{2}\, c_{m}^{2} & -\omega^{2}+\frac{2}{3}\, k^{2}\, c_{m}^{2}+\omega_{p}^{2}
\end{array}\right),\\
\\
\\
\mathbf{A}_{2}=\mathbf{A}_{3}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-\omega^{2}+k^{2}c_{s}^{2}\ & \, i\, k\,2\mu_{e}/\rho\ & -i\, k\,\frac{\eta}{\rho}\omega_{r}^{2},\\
\\
-\, i\, k\,2\mu_{e}/\eta, & -2\omega^{2}+k^{2}c_{m}^{2}+2\omega_{s}^{2} & k^{2}c_{m}^{2}\\
\\
i\, k\,\omega_{r}^{2} & k^{2}c_{m}^{2} & -2\omega^{2}+k^{2}c_{m}^{2}+2\omega_{r}^{2}
\end{array}\right).\end{gathered}$$ In order to have non-trivial solutions of the algebraic systems (\[AlgSys\]), one must impose that $$\mathrm{det}\,\mathbf{A}_{1}=0,\qquad\mathrm{det}\,\mathbf{A}_{2}=0,\qquad\mathrm{det}\,\mathbf{A}_{3}=0,\label{Dispersion}$$ which allow us to determine so-called dispersion relations $\omega=\omega\left(k\right)$ for the longitudinal and transverse waves in the relaxed micromorphic conyinuum. As it will be better explained in the next section, the eigenvalues $\omega(k)$ solutions of (\[Dispersion\]) are associated both to optic waves and to acoustic waves.
Planar wave propagation in the classical micromorphic continuum
---------------------------------------------------------------
We want to deduce in this subsection the dispersion relations for the classical micromorphic model, i.e. for the dispersion relations associated to the energy (\[KinPot-1-1\]). If we replace the wave-form solution (\[WaveForm2\]) in the longitudinal and transverse equations (\[Longitudinal-1\]) and (\[Transverse-1\]) we get $$\mathbf{B}_{1}\cdot\boldsymbol{\beta}=0,\qquad\mathbf{B}_{\xi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\xi}=0,\qquad\xi=2,3,\label{AlgSys-1}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbf{B}_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-\omega^{2}+c_{p}^{2}\, k^{2} & \, i\: k\:2\mu_{e}/\rho\ & i\: k\:\left(3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}\right)/\rho\\
\\
-i\: k\,\frac{4}{3}\mu_{e}/\eta & -\omega^{2}+k^{2}c_{g}^{2}+\omega_{s}^{2} & 0\\
\\
-\frac{1}{3}\, i\, k\:\left(3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}\right)/\eta & 0 & -\omega^{2}+k^{2}\, c_{g}^{2}+\omega_{p}^{2}
\end{array}\right),\\
\\
\\
\mathbf{B}_{2}=\mathbf{B}_{3}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-\omega^{2}+k^{2}c_{s}^{2}\ & \, i\, k\,2\mu_{e}/\rho\ & -i\, k\,\frac{\eta}{\rho}\omega_{r}^{2},\\
\\
-\, i\, k\,2\mu_{e}/\eta, & -2\omega^{2}+2\, k^{2}c_{g}^{2}+2\omega_{s}^{2} & 0\\
\\
i\, k\,\omega_{r}^{2} & 0 & -2\omega^{2}+2\, k^{2}c_{g}^{2}+2\omega_{r}^{2}
\end{array}\right).\end{gathered}$$ In order to have non-trivial solutions of the algebraic systems (\[AlgSys-1\]), one must impose that $$\mathrm{det}\,\mathbf{B}_{1}=0,\qquad\mathrm{det}\,\mathbf{B}_{2}=0,\qquad\mathrm{det}\,\mathbf{B}_{3}=0,\label{Dispersion-1}$$ which allow us to determine so-called dispersion relations $\omega=\omega\left(k\right)$ for the longitudinal and transverse waves in the classical micromorphic continuum.
As for the uncoupled waves, the dispersion relations associated to Eqs.(\[Shear-1\]),(\[Rotations23-1\]) and (\[VolumeVariation-1\]) are respectively: $$\omega(k)=\sqrt{\omega_{s}^{2}+k^{2}c_{g}^{2}},\qquad\omega(k)=\sqrt{\omega_{r}^{2}+k^{2}c_{g}^{2}},\qquad\omega(k)=\sqrt{\omega_{s}^{2}+k^{2}c_{g}^{2}}.\label{Eigen1-1}$$
\[NumericalSim\]The relaxed micromorphic model: numerical results
==================================================================
In this section, following Mindlin [@Mindlin; @EringenBook], we will show the dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ associated to the considered relaxed micromorphic model. The analysis of dispersion relations in [@Mindlin; @EringenBook] was of qualitative nature, due to the huge number of constitutive parameters (18 elastic coefficients) which are assumed to be non-vanishing and to computational difficulties. On the other hand, thanks to the relaxed constitutive assumption (\[KinPot\]), we are able to clearly show precise dispersion relations for the considered cases and to associate to few constitutive parameters the main mechanisms associated to wave propagation in micromorphic media. As principal obtained result, we will clearly point out that band-gaps can be forecast only when considering a non-vanishing Cosserat couple modulus $\mu_{c}$ in our relaxed micromorphic model. This parameter is associated to the relative rotation of the microstructure with respect to the continuum matrix.
Parameter Value Unit
------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------
$\mu_{e}$ $200$ $MPa$
$\lambda_{e}=2\mu_{e}$ 400 $MPa$
$\mu_{c}=2.2\mu_{e}$ $ $440 $MPa$
$\mu_{h}$ 100 $MPa$
$\lambda_{h}$ $100$ $MPa$
$L_{c}\ $ $3$ $mm$
$L_{g}\ $ $3$ $mm$
$\alpha_{c}=\mu_{e}L_{c}^{2}$ $1.8\times10^{-3}$ $MPa\: m^{2}$
$\alpha_{g}=\mu_{e}L_{g}^{2}$ $1.8\times10^{-3}$ $MPa\: m^{2}$
$\rho$ $2000$ $Kg/m^{3}$
$\rho$’ $2500$ $Kg/m^{3}$
$d$ $2$ $mm$
$\eta=d^{2}\,\rho'$ $ $$10^{-2}$ $Kg/m$
: \[ParametersValues\]Values of the parameters of the relaxed model used in the numerical simulations (left) and corresponding values of the Lamé parameters and of the Young modulus and Poisson ratio (right).
Parameter Value Unit
----------- -------- -------
$\lambda$ $82.5$ $MPa$
$\mu$ $66.7$ $MPa$
$E$ $170$ $MPa$
$\nu$ $0.28$ $-$
: \[ParametersValues\]Values of the parameters of the relaxed model used in the numerical simulations (left) and corresponding values of the Lamé parameters and of the Young modulus and Poisson ratio (right).
We start by showing in Tab.\[ParametersValues\] (left) the values of the parameters of the relaxed model used in the performed numerical simulations. In order to make the obtained results more exploitable, we also recall that in [@NeffRelaxed] the following homogenized formulas were obtained which relate the parameters of the relaxed model to the macroscopic Lamé parameters $\lambda$ and $\mu$ which are usually measured by means of standard mechanical tests $$\mu_{e}=\frac{\mu_{h}\,\mu}{\mu_{h}-\mu},\qquad2\mu_{e}+3\lambda_{e}=\frac{(2\mu_{h}+3\lambda_{h})\left(2\mu+3\lambda\right)}{(2\mu_{h}+3\lambda_{h})-\left(2\mu+3\lambda\right)}.\label{Homogenized}$$ These relationships imply that the following inequalities are satisfied $$\mu_{h}>\mu,\qquad3\lambda_{h}+2\mu_{h}>3\lambda+2\mu.$$ It is clear that, once the values of the parameters of the relaxed models are known, the standard Lamé parameters can be calculated by means of formulas (\[Homogenized\]), which is what was done in Tab.\[ParametersValues\] (right). To the sake of completeness, we also show in the same table the corresponding Young modulus and Poisson ratio, calculated by means of the standard formulas $$E=\frac{\mu\left(3\lambda+2\mu\right)}{\lambda+\mu},\qquad\text{\ensuremath{\nu}}=\frac{\lambda}{2\left(\lambda+\mu\right)}.$$
The relaxed micromorphic model with $\mu_{c}=0$.
------------------------------------------------
We start by showing the dispersion relations of the algebraic problem (\[Dispersion\]) for the particular case $\mu_{c}=0$. Figure \[DispersionDiag\] shows separately the behaviors of the uncoupled waves $P_{\left(23\right)}$, $P_{\left[23\right]}$ and $P^{V}$ (Fig. \[DispersionDiag\](a)), of the longitudinal waves $u_{1},\, P^{D},\, P^{S}$ (Fig. \[DispersionDiag\](b)) and of the transverse waves $u_{\xi},P_{(1\xi)},P_{[1\xi]}$ (Fig. \[DispersionDiag\](c)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
![\[DispersionDiag\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the relaxed model with vanishing Cosserat couple modulus ($\mu_{c}=0$): uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRA: transverse rotational acoustic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TO: transverse optic, TA$_{1}$-TA$_{2}$: first and second transverse acoustic.](mc0-uncoupled "fig:") ![\[DispersionDiag\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the relaxed model with vanishing Cosserat couple modulus ($\mu_{c}=0$): uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRA: transverse rotational acoustic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TO: transverse optic, TA$_{1}$-TA$_{2}$: first and second transverse acoustic.](mc0-long "fig:") ![\[DispersionDiag\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the relaxed model with vanishing Cosserat couple modulus ($\mu_{c}=0$): uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRA: transverse rotational acoustic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TO: transverse optic, TA$_{1}$-TA$_{2}$: first and second transverse acoustic.](mc0-transv "fig:")
(a) (b) (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
We can recover from Fig. \[DispersionDiag\](a) one acoustic, rotational wave ($TRA$) and two superimposed optic waves ($TSO$ and $TCVO$) with cutoff frequency $\omega_{s}$. The acoustic wave shows a non-dispersive behavior (the dispersion curve is a straight line). This implies that, when considering relaxed micromorphic media with $\mu_{c}=0$, there is always at least one wave for which the wavenumber is always real independently of the value of frequency. This fact guarantees wave propagation inside the considered medium for all frequency ranges (no global band-gaps).
Figure \[DispersionDiag\](b) shows that longitudinal waves indeed involve one acoustic wave ($LA$) and two optic waves ($LO_{1}$ and $LO_{2}$) with cutoff frequencies $\omega_{p}$ and $\omega_{s}$ respectively. Moreover, it is found that the acoustic wave has an horizontal asymptote at $\omega=\omega_{l}$. As a consequence, it can be seen that a frequency range $\left(\omega_{s},\omega_{l}\right)$ exists in which the wavenumber becomes imaginary for longitudinal waves. According to Eqs. (\[WaveForm2\]), an imaginary wavenumber $k$ gives rise to solutions which are exponentials decaying in space. Waves of this type are so-called standing waves which do not propagate, but keep oscillating in a limited region of space.
Finally, figure \[DispersionDiag\](c) confirms that, for transverse waves, two acoustic waves ($TA{}_{1}$ and $TA{}_{2}$) and one optic wave ($TO$) with cutoff frequency $\omega_{s}$ can be identified. One of the acoustic waves has an horizontal asymptote at $\omega=\omega_{t}$. It is easy to recognize that, due to the existence of the non-dispersive, transverse, acoustic wave $TA_{1}$, there always exists at least one propagative wave for any chosen value of the frequency.
We can conclude that, in general, when considering the relaxed micromorphic medium as a whole (all the 12 waves), there always exist waves which propagate inside the considered medium independently of the value of frequency. On the other hand, if one considers a particular case (obtained by imposing suitable kinematical constraints) in which only longitudinal waves can propagate, then in the frequency range $\left(\omega_{s},\omega_{l}\right)$ only standing wave exist which do not allow for wave propagation. In this very particular case, the frequency range $\left(\omega_{s},\omega_{l}\right)$ can be considered as a band-gap for longitudinal waves. According to definitions given in Eq. (\[Definitions\]) the depth of this frequency band is controlled by the three parameters $\mu_{e}$, $\mu_{h}$ and $\lambda_{h}$.
The relaxed micromorphic model with $\mu_{c}>0$.
------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we discuss the behavior with respect to wave propagation of relaxed micromorphic continua in the general case in which the Cosserat couple modulus $\mu_{c}$ is assumed to be non-vanishing. We start by showing the dispersion relations in figure \[separate\].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
![\[separate\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the relaxed model with non-vanishing Cosserat couple modulus ($\mu_{c}>0$): uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRO: transverse rotational optic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TA: transverse acoustic, TO$_{1}$-TO$_{2}$: first and second transverse optic.](Uncoupled "fig:") ![\[separate\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the relaxed model with non-vanishing Cosserat couple modulus ($\mu_{c}>0$): uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRO: transverse rotational optic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TA: transverse acoustic, TO$_{1}$-TO$_{2}$: first and second transverse optic.](Longitudinal "fig:") ![\[separate\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the relaxed model with non-vanishing Cosserat couple modulus ($\mu_{c}>0$): uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRO: transverse rotational optic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TA: transverse acoustic, TO$_{1}$-TO$_{2}$: first and second transverse optic.](Transverse "fig:")
(a) (b) (c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
As for the uncoupled waves we have, in this case, only optic waves: two superimposed ($TSO$ and $TCVO$) with cutoff frequency $\omega_{s}$ and one ($TRO$) with cutoff frequency $\omega_{r}$ (see Fig. \[separate\](a)). When considering longitudinal waves (see Fig. \[separate\](b)) the situation is unchanged with respect to the previous case ($\mu_{c}=0$) and one can observe one acoustic wave ($LA$) and two optic waves ($LO{}_{1}$ and $LO_{2}$) with cutoff frequencies $\omega_{p}$ and $\omega_{s}$ respectively. If we finally consider the transverse waves (Fig. \[separate\](c)), we can remark that there exists one acoustic wave ($TA$ ) and two optic waves ($TO{}_{1}$ and $TO_{2}$) with cutoff frequencies $\omega_{s}$ and $\omega_{r}$ respectively. It can be easily noticed that, in all three cases, there exist frequency ranges in which no propagative wave can be found. This means that the wavenumber becomes imaginary and only standing waves exist. For the situation depicted in Fig. \[separate\], the frequency ranges for which only standing waves exist are $\left(0,\omega_{s}\right)$ for uncoupled waves, $\left(\omega_{l},\omega_{s}\right)$ for longitudinal waves and $\left(\omega_{t},\omega_{s}\right)$ for transverse waves. The intersection of these three intervals being non-empty, we can conclude that a frequency band-gap $\left(\omega_{l},\omega_{s}\right)$ exists in the considered relaxed micromorphic medium corresponding to which any type of wave can propagate independently of the value of $k$. More precisely, if one imagines to excite the considered medium with a signal the frequency of which falls in the range $(\omega_{l},\omega_{s})$, this signal cannot propagate inside the considered medium but it keep oscillating close to the point of application of the initial condition. It is clear that this feature is a fundamental tool to conceive micro-structured materials which can be used as pass- and stop- bands. Investigations in this sense would bring new insights towards high-tech solutions in the field of vibration control and will be the object of forthcoming studies. It is evident (see Eqs. (\[Definitions\])) that, in general, the relative positions of the horizontal asymptotes $\omega_{l}$ and $\omega_{t}$ as well as of the cutoff frequencies $\omega_{s}$, $\omega_{r}$ and $\omega_{p}$ can vary depending on the values of the constitutive parameters. In particular, we can observe that the relative position of the characteristic frequencies defined in (\[Definitions\]) can vary depending on the values of the constitutive parameters. It can be checked that, in the case in which $\lambda_{e}>0$ and $\lambda_{h}>0$ one always has $\omega_{p}>\omega_{s}>\omega_{t}$ and $\omega_{l}>\omega_{t}$. The relative position of $\omega_{l}$ and of $\omega_{s}$ can vary depending on the values of the parameters $\lambda_{h}$ and $\mu_{h}$.
It is easy to verify that one can have band-gaps for longitudinal waves only if the horizontal asymptote $\omega_{l}$ is such that $\omega_{s}>\omega_{l}$ (which implies $\lambda_{h}<2\mu_{e}$). As for transverse waves, it can be checked that band-gaps can exist only if $\omega_{r}>\omega_{t}$ (which implies $\mu_{c}>\mu_{h}/2$). A band gap for the uncoupled waves always exist (independently of the values of the constitutive parameters) for frequencies between $0$ and the smaller among $\omega_{r}$ and $\omega_{s}$. It is clear that some stronger conditions are needed in order to have a global band gap which do not allow for any kind of waves (transverse, longitudinal and uncoupled) to propagate inside the considered microstructured material. More particularly, it can be checked that, in order to have a global band gap, the following conditions must be simultaneously satisfied $$\omega_{s}>\omega_{l}\quad\textrm{and}\quad\omega_{r}>\omega_{l}.$$ In terms of the constitutive parameters of the relaxed model, we can say that global band-gaps can exist, in the case in which one considers positive values for the parameters $\lambda_{e}$ and $\lambda_{h}$ , if and only if we have simultaneously $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber \\
0<\mu_{e}<+\infty,\qquad0<\lambda_{h}<2\mu_{e},\qquad\mu_{c}>\frac{\lambda_{h}+2\text{\ensuremath{\mu}}_{h}}{2}.\label{Band Gaps}\\
\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ As far as negative values for $\lambda_{e}$ and $\lambda_{h}$ are allowed, the conditions for band gaps are not so straightforward as (\[Band Gaps\]). We do not consider this possibility in this paper, leaving this point open for further considerations.
We can conclude by saying that, the fact of switching on a unique parameter, namely the Cosserat couple modulus $\mu_{c}$, allows for the description of frequency band-gaps in which no propagation can occur. This parameter can hence be seen as a discreteness quantifier which starts accounting for lattice discreteness as far as it reaches the threshold value specified in Eq.(\[Band Gaps\]). The fact of being able to predict band-gaps by means of a micromorphic model is a novel feature of the introduced relaxed model. Indeed, as it will be shown in the remainder of this paper, neither the classical micromorphic continuum model nor the Cosserat and the second gradient ones are able to predict such band-gaps.
The Cosserat model as limit case of the relaxed micromorphic model
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we analyze wave propagation in Cosserat-type media which can be obtained from the proposed relaxed model by letting the parameter $\mu_{h}$ tend to infinity. Indeed, since the strain energy density defined in (\[KinPot\]) must remain finite, when letting $\mu_{h}\rightarrow\infty$ one must have $\mathrm{Sym}\,\mathbf{P}\rightarrow0$, hence $\mathbf{P}=\mathrm{skew}\,\mathbf{P}$. Therefore, the strain energy density becomes the Cosserat energy (see [@Neff_JeongMMS08; @Jeong_Neff_ZAMM08]) $$W_{\mathrm{Coss}}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u},\mathrm{skew}\:\mathbf{P}\right)=\mu_{e}\left\Vert \mathrm{sym}\:\nabla\mathbf{u}\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{e}}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}\:\nabla\mathbf{u}\right)^{2}+\mu_{c}\left\Vert \mathrm{skew}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{P}\right)\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\alpha}{2}\left\Vert \mathrm{\mathrm{\, Cur}l}\left(\mathrm{skew}\:\mathbf{P}\right)\right\Vert ^{2}.$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
![\[separate-1\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the Cosserat model obtained by letting $\mu_{h}\rightarrow\infty$ in the relaxed model: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRO: transverse rotational optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, TO: transverse optic, TA: transverse acoustic.](UncoupledCosserat "fig:") ![\[separate-1\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the Cosserat model obtained by letting $\mu_{h}\rightarrow\infty$ in the relaxed model: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRO: transverse rotational optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, TO: transverse optic, TA: transverse acoustic.](LongCosserat "fig:") ![\[separate-1\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the Cosserat model obtained by letting $\mu_{h}\rightarrow\infty$ in the relaxed model: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c). TRO: transverse rotational optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, TO: transverse optic, TA: transverse acoustic.](TransvCosserat "fig:")
(a) (b) (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
The dispersion relations obtained for this particular limit case are depicted in Fig.\[separate-1\]. It can be immediatly noticed that all the optic waves with cutoff frequency $\omega_{s}$ do not propagate anymore since indeed $\omega_{s}\rightarrow\infty$ (see definition in Eq.(\[Definitions\])). The same is for the optic longitudinal wave with cutoff frequency $\omega_{p}$. As for the acoustic waves, they exist in the limit Cosserat medium, but they do not have horizontal asymptotes anymore since $\omega_{l}$ and $\omega_{t}$ tend to infinity as well. We finally end up with a medium in which we can observe one optic wave ($TRO$) associate to the variable $P_{[23]}$ (micro-rotation) with cutoff frequency $\omega_{r}$, one acoustic non-dispersive longitudinal wave ($LA$), one acoustic slightly dispersive transverse wave ($TA$) and one optic transverse wave ($TO$) with cutoff frequency $\omega_{r}$. It is easy to remark that no band-gaps can be described in the framework of the considered Cosserat medium.
The dispersive behavior of Cosserat media shown in Fig.\[separate-1\] fits with known results in the literature. Indeed, a direct comparison with the micropolar medium studied in [@EringenBook] (p. 150) can be made, by simply considering the parameters identification (\[Identification1-1\]), (\[Identification2-1\]). Moreover, Lakes states in [@Lakes_Cosserat] that “Dilatational waves propagate non-dispersively, i.e. with velocity independent of frequency, in an unbounded isotropic Cosserat elastic medium as in the classical case. Shear waves propagate dispersively in a Cosserat solid (Eringen, 1968). A new kind of wave associated with the micro-rotation is predicted to occur in Cosserat solids”. We also remark that the behavior for high frequencies shown in Fig.\[separate-1\] coincides with that of acceleration waves in micropolar media, see [@Victor02; @Victor2].
Indeed, the linear Cosserat model is undoubtedly the most studied generalized continuum model. This does not mean, however, that its status as a useful model for the description of material behaviour is unchallenged. Quite to the contrary, it appears that after 40 years of intensive research, not one material has been conclusively established as a Cosserat material. We refer to the discussion in [@Neff_Cosserat_plasticity05; @Neff_Gamm04; @Neff_ZAMM05; @Jeong_Neff_ZAMM08; @Neff_Jeong_bounded_stiffness09; @Neff_JeongMMS08; @Neff_Jeong_Conformal_ZAMM08].
By looking at the dispersion behaviour of the linear Cosserat model and comparing it with the more general micromorphic (and relaxed micromorphic model) we get a glimpse on why the status of the linear Cosserat model is really challenging. The equations appear as a formal limit in which $\mu_{h}\to\infty$, while $\ensuremath{0<\mu_{c}<\infty}$. The process $\mu_{h}\to\infty$ corresponds conceptually to assume that the substructure cannot deform elastically, nevertheless the substructures may mutually interact through the curvature energy, which itself is only involving the $\mathrm{Curl}$-operator, since the micro-distortion is constrained to be skew-symmetric.
The usefulness of a geometrically nonlinear Cosserat model, however, is not in general questioned. Indeed, it has been shown in [@Merkel2] that a Cosserat-type continuum theory can be of use to describe the experimental behavior of granular phononic crystals. One may avoid the deficiencies of the linear model and the linear coupling, see e.g. [@Neff_Muench_simple_shear09; @Muench07_diss; @Neff_Muench_transverse_cosserat08; @Neff_Muench_magnetic08; @Neff_Biot07].
The classical micromorphic model: numerical results
===================================================
In this section, we show the dispersion relations for a classical micromorphic continuum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- --
![\[Mindlin\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the classical model: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c) for a classical micromorphic continuum. TRO: transverse rotational optic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TA: transverse acoustic, TO$_{1}$-TO$_{2}$: first and second transverse optic.](UncoupledGradP "fig:") ![\[Mindlin\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the classical model: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c) for a classical micromorphic continuum. TRO: transverse rotational optic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TA: transverse acoustic, TO$_{1}$-TO$_{2}$: first and second transverse optic.](LongGradP "fig:") ![\[Mindlin\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the classical model: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c) for a classical micromorphic continuum. TRO: transverse rotational optic, TSO: transverse shear optic, TCVO: transverse constant-volume optic, LA: longitudinal acoustic, LO$_{1}$-LO$_{2}$: first and second longitudinal optic, TA: transverse acoustic, TO$_{1}$-TO$_{2}$: first and second transverse optic.](TransvGradP "fig:")
(a) (b) (c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- --
These dispersion relations are plotted in Fig.\[Mindlin\]: we recover a similar behavior with respect to the one qualitatively sketched in [@Mindlin] and [@EringenBook]. Indeed, we claim that the classical micromorphic model associated to the strain energy density (\[KinPot-1-1\]) is qualitatively equivalent to the full 18-parameters Mindlin and Eringen micromorphic model. It is clear from Fig.\[Mindlin\] that, even if the behavior of such medium is the same as the one observed in Fig.\[separate\] for the relaxed micromorphic medium when considering small wavenumbers (large wavelengths), the situation is completely different when considering small wavelengths. Indeed, the first macroscopic feature that can be observed is that no band-gaps can be forecasted by a Mindlin-Eringen model due to the fact that no horizontal asymptotes exist for acoustic waves.
A second gradient model as limit case of the classical micromorphic model
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we analyze wave propagation in second gradient media which can be obtained as a suitable limit case of the classical micromorphic continua. More particularly, if we let simultaneously $$\mu_{e}\rightarrow\infty,\qquad\mu_{c}\rightarrow\infty,$$ this implies that $$\mathrm{sym}\:\mathbf{P}\rightarrow\mathrm{sym}\:\nabla\mathbf{u}\qquad\mathrm{skew}\:\mathbf{P}\rightarrow\mathrm{skew}\:\nabla\mathbf{u}\quad\text{{and\:\ hence}\quad\ensuremath{\mathbf{P}\rightarrow\nabla\mathbf{u}}}.$$ This means that the energy (\[KinPot-1-1\]) reduces to
$$\begin{gathered}
W_{2G}\left(\nabla\mathbf{u},\nabla\nabla\mathbf{u}\right)=\mu_{h}\left\Vert \,\mathrm{sym}\:\nabla\mathbf{u}\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{h}}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}\,\nabla\mathbf{u}\right)^{2}+\frac{\alpha_{g}}{2}\left\Vert \nabla\nabla\mathbf{u}\right\Vert ^{2}\label{Second Gradient}\end{gathered}$$
which is indeed a second gradient energy for linear-elastic, isotropic media (see e.g. [@2Grad1; @2Grad2]). Indeed, governing equations for second (and higher) gradient continua can be also obtained by using a simplified kinematics with respect to the one introduced in this paper and by adopting variational principles (see e.g. [@SecGrad1; @2Grad2; @SecGrad3]). On the other hand, the fact of obtaining a second gradient model as the limit case of a micromorphic one can have many advantages either with respect to numerical efficiency and to physical interpretation of the boundary conditions (see e.g. [@AngelaMicromorphic; @Microm1; @Microm2]).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
![\[2Grad\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the second gradient model obtained as limit case of the classic model by letting $\mu_{e}\rightarrow\infty$ and $\mu_{c}\rightarrow\infty$: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c) for a second gradient continuum. LA: longitudinal acoustic, TA: transverse acoustic.](Uncoupled2Grad "fig:") ![\[2Grad\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the second gradient model obtained as limit case of the classic model by letting $\mu_{e}\rightarrow\infty$ and $\mu_{c}\rightarrow\infty$: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c) for a second gradient continuum. LA: longitudinal acoustic, TA: transverse acoustic.](Long2Grad "fig:") ![\[2Grad\]Dispersion relations $\omega=\omega(k)$ for the second gradient model obtained as limit case of the classic model by letting $\mu_{e}\rightarrow\infty$ and $\mu_{c}\rightarrow\infty$: uncoupled waves (a), longitudinal waves (b) and transverse waves (c) for a second gradient continuum. LA: longitudinal acoustic, TA: transverse acoustic.](Transv2Grad "fig:")
(a) (b) (c)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
It is immediate to notice from Fig.\[2Grad\] that no coupled waves can exist in this limit case, since the only independent kinematical variable turns to be the displacement $\mathbf{u}$. As for, the longitudinal and transverse waves, they can only be of acoustic type ($LA$ and $TA$). This is in agreement with what is known from the literature (see e.g. [@Waves2Grad1; @Waves2Grad2]): second gradient media are such that only acoustic dispersive waves can propagate inside the medium. In [@Waves2Grad1], Eq. (13), dispersion relations for planar waves in isotropic second gradient media are presented associated to a strain energy density of the type (\[Second Gradient\]) but with a kinetic energy which is simpler than the one used in this paper and which can be obtained from (\[Kinetic\]) by setting $\eta=0$. It can be checked by means of the simple application of a variational principle that the equations of motion associated to the strain energy density (\[Second Gradient\]) and to the kinetic energy $T=\frac{1}{2}\,\rho\left\Vert \,\mathbf{u}_{t}\,\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\,\eta\left\Vert \,\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}\right)_{t}\,\right\Vert ^{2},$ can be written as $$\rho\,\ddot{u}_{i}-\eta\,\ddot{u}_{i,jj}=\mu_{h}\left(u_{i,jj}+u_{j,ij}\right)+\lambda_{h}u_{j,ji}-\alpha_{g}u_{i,jkkj}.\label{Motion}$$ It can also be cheked that the dispersion relations for longitudinal and transverse planar waves (obtained by studying the wave-form solution of Eq. (\[Motion\]) when setting $i=1$ and $i=2,3$ respectively) are respectively given by $$\omega=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{g}\, k^{4}+(2\,\mu_{h}+\lambda_{h})\, k^{2}}{\rho+\eta\, k^{2}}},\qquad\qquad\omega=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{g}\, k^{4}+\mu_{h}\, k^{2}}{\rho+\eta\, k^{2}}},$$ which indeed correspond to the two acoustic waves depicted in Fig.\[2Grad\]. It is immediate to check that for vanishing wavenumber $k$ the frequency is always vanishing, which means that only acoustic waves can propagate in such kind of media, optic waves are hence forbidden *a priori* in this kind of models. Moreover, it is possible to remark that the frequency goes to infinity when the wavenumber tends to infinity (no possibility of horizontal asymptotes). Finally, we notice that standing waves can also be present in second gradient media since purely imaginary wavenumbers may exist which give rise to real frequencies. Indeed, when replacing an imaginary wavenumber in the wave-form $e^{i(kX-\omega t)}$ it is immediate to see that the solution is an exponential decaying in space. We can summarize by saying that, when considering second gradient media, one has that, for any value of the frequency, propagative acoustic waves and standing waves exist. It can also be remarked that the inertial term $\frac{1}{2}\,\eta\left\Vert \,\left(\nabla\mathbf{u}\right)_{t}\,\right\Vert ^{2},$ plays a role on the possibility of changing the concavity of the dispersion relations. Indeed, if the microscopic density $\eta$ tends to zero, then it is clear that the concavity of the dispersion curves cannot change. On the other hand, this change of concavity is possible when $\eta\neq0$.
We explicitly remark that, in the considered second gradient medium no band-gaps can be forecasted. Nevertheless, it is known that if surfaces of discontinuity of the material properties are considered, then reflected and transmitted energy can be strongly influenced by the value of the second gradient parameter depending on the considered jump conditions imposed at the interface itself (see e.g. [@Waves2Grad1; @Waves2Grad2]).
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we used the relaxed micromorphic model proposed in [@NeffRelaxed; @Ghiba] to study wave propagation in unbounded continua with microstructure. The quoted relaxed model only counts 6 elastic parameters against the 18 parameters appearing in Mindlin-Eringen micromorphic theory (cf. [@Mindlin; @EringenBook]). Despite the reduced number of parameters, we claim that the proposed relaxed model is fully able to account for the description of the mechanical behavior of micromorphic media. More precisely, we have shown that only the relaxed micromorphic continuum model with non-vanishing Cosserat couple modulus $\mu_{c}$ is able to predict frequency band-gaps corresponding to which no wave propagation can occur. The main findings of the present study can be summarized as follows:
- The relaxed micromorphic model (6 parameters and only the term $\left\Vert \,\mathrm{Curl}\:\mathbf{P}\,\right\Vert ^{2}$ appearing in the strain energy) is fully able to describe the main features of the mechanical behaviour of micromorphic continua, first of all for what concerns the possibility of describing the presence of band gaps.
- A reduced relaxed model (5 parameters) can be obtained from the previous one by setting the Cosserat couple modulus $\mu_{c}\rightarrow0$. This simplified model produces a *symmetric Cauchy force stress tensor* and is still able to describe the mechanical behavior of a big class of microstructured continua. Nevertheless, this model excludes *a priori* the presence of band-gaps. This means that it is not suitable to fully describe the behavior of sophisticated microstructured engineering materials such as phononic crystals and lattice structures. However, practically all known engineering materials do not show band gaps. For these materials the reduced model is our alternative of choice in the family of micromorphic models.
- The Cosserat model is obtained as a degenerate limit case of the proposed relaxed model (the full relaxed model with 6 parameters) when letting $\mu_{h}\rightarrow\infty$ . The Cosserat model is not able to describe band-gaps but it introduces a *non-symmetric Cauchy stress tensor*.
- The classical continuum model (6 parameters but the full $\left\Vert \,\nabla\mathbf{P}\,\right\Vert ^{2}$ appearing in the strain energy) is qualitatively equivalent to the full 18-parameters Mindlin-Eringen micromorphic continuum model. This is true since the classical model is controlling all the kinematical fields of the full model i.e. it is uniformly pointwise definite. The classical continuum model is not able to forecast band-gaps.
- Second gradient theories can be obtained as a limit case of the classical micromorphic continuum model by letting $\mu_{e}\rightarrow\infty$, $\mu_{c}\rightarrow\infty$. These theories are not able to account for the presence of band-gaps.
We can conclude that only the 6-parameters relaxed model proposed in [@NeffRelaxed; @Ghiba] and used in this paper to study wave propagation in microstructured media is able to describe the presence of band-gaps. These band-gaps are seen to be “switched on” by a unique constitutive parameter, namely the Cosserat couple modulus $\mu_{c}$. The proposed relaxed micromorphic model is hence suitable to be used for the conception and optimization of metamaterials to be used for vibration control.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I.D. Ghiba acknowledges support from the Romanian National Authority for Scien- tific Research (CNCS-UEFISCDI), Project No. PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0521. I.D. A. Madeo thanks INSA-Lyon for the financial support assigned to the project BQR 2013-0054 Matériaux Méso et Micro-Héterogènes: Optimisation par Modèles de Second Gradient et Applications en Ingenierie.
[10]{} Altenbach H., Eremeyev V.A., 2009. Eigen-vibrations of plates made of functionally graded material. Computers, Materials and Continua, 9:2, 153-177
Altenbach H., Eremeyev V.A., Lebedev L.P., Rendón L.A., 2010. Acceleration waves and ellipticity in thermoelastic micropolar media. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 80:3, 217-227
Andreaus, U., dell’isola, F., Porfiri M., 2004. Piezoelectric passive distributed controllers for beam flexural vibrations. JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control, 10:5, 625-659
Alibert, J.-J., Seppecher, P., dell’isola, F., 2003. Truss modular beams with deformation energy depending on higher displacement gradients. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, 8:1, 51-73
Auriault J.-L., Boutin C., 2012. Long wavelength inner-resonance cut-off frequencies in elastic composite materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 49, 3269-3281
Berezovski A., Engelbrecht J., Salupere A., Tamm K., Peets T., Berezovski M., 2013. Dispersive waves in microstructured solids. Int. J. Solids. Struct., 50:11, 1981-1990
Carcaterra A., Akay, A., 2007. Theoretical foundations of apparent-damping phenomena and nearly irreversible energy exchange in linear conservative systems. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 12 1971-1982
Chiriţă S., Ghiba I.D., 2010. Inhomogeneous plane waves in elastic materials with voids. Wave Motion, 47, 333-342
Chiriţă S., Ghiba I.D., 2102. Rayleigh waves in Cosserat elastic materials. Int. J. Eng. Sci., 51, 117-127
Chiriţă S., Ghiba I.D, 2010. Strong ellipticity and progressive waves in elastic materials with voids. Proc. R. Soc. A ,466, 439-458
Cordero N.M., Gaubert A., Forest S., Busso E.P., Gallerneau F., Kruch S., 2010. Size effects in generalised continuum crystal plasticity for two-phase laminates. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 58:11, 19631994
Cowin S.C., Nunziato J.W., 1983. Linear elastic materials with voids. J. Elasticity, 13, 125-147
dell’Isola F., Madeo A., Placidi L., 2011. Linear plane wave propagation and normal transmission and reflection at discontinuity surfaces in second gradient 3D continua. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 92:1, 52-71
dell’Isola, F., Vidoli, S., 1998. Continuum modelling of piezoelectromechanical truss beams: An application to vibration damping. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 68:1, 1-19
dell’Isola, F., Sciarra, G., Vidoli, S. 2009. Generalized Hooke’s law for isotropic second gradient materials. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 465 (2107), 2177-2196
dell’Isola, F., Seppecher, P., Madeo, A., 2012. How contact interactions may depend on the shape of Cauchy cuts in Nth gradient continua: Approach “à la D’Alembert”. Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 63:6, 1119-1141
Economoau E. N., Sigalabs M., 1994. Stop bands for elastic waves in periodic composite materials. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95:4, 1734-1740
Eremeyev V.A., 2005. Acceleration waves in micropolar elastic media. Doklady Physics, 50:4, 204-206.
Eringen A.C., Microcontinuum field theories I. Foundations and Solids. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999
Eringen A.C., Suhubi, E.S., 1964. Nonlinear theory of simple microelastic solids: I. Int. J. Eng. Sci., 2, 189-203.
Eringen A. C., Suhubi, E. S., 1964. Nonlinear theory of simple microelastic solids: II. Int. J. Eng. Sci., 2, 389-404
Ferretti, M., Madeo, A., dell’Isola, F., Boisse, P., 2013. Modeling the onset of shear boundary layers in fibrous composite reinforcements by second-gradient theory. Z. Angew. Math. Phys., DOI: 10.1007/s00033-013-0347-8
Forest, S., Sievert, R., 2006. Nonlinear microstrain theories. Int. J. Solids Struct., 43, 7224-7245.
Forest S., 2009. Micromorphic approach for gradient elasticity, viscoplasticity, and damage. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 135:3, 117-131.
Garcia N., Ponizovskaya E. V., Xiao J.Q., 2002. Zero permittivity materials: Band gaps at the visible. Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 1120
Ghiba I.D., Neff P., Madeo A., Placidi L., Rosi G., 2013. The relaxed linear micromorphic continuum: existence, uniqueness and continuous dependence in dynamics. Submitted to Mathematics and Mechanichs of Solids, arXiv:1308.3762v1 [\[]{}math.AP[\]]{}
Ghiba I.D., 2008. Spatial estimates concerning the harmonic vibrations in rectangular plates with voids. Archives of Mechanics, 60,263-279
Ghiba I.D., 2009. On the deformation of transversely isotropic porous elastic circular cylinder. Archive of Mechanics, 61, 407-421
Ghiba I.D., Galeş C., 2013. Some qualitative results in the linear theory of micropolar solid-solid mixtures. Journal of Thermal Stresses, 36, 426-445
Huang G.L., Sun C.T., 2010. Band gaps in a multiresonator acoustic metamaterial. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 132, 031003
Huang G.L., Sun C.T., 2006. Modeling heterostructures of nanophononic crystals by continuum model with microstructures. Appl. Phys. Lett., 88, 261908
Ieşsan D., Ciarletta M., 1993. Non-classical elastic solids. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex, UK and John Wiley&Sons, Inc., New York
Kafesaki M., Sigalas M.M., García N., 2000. Frequency modulation in the transmittivity of Wave Guides in Elastic-Wave Band-Gap Materials. Physical Review Letters,85:19, 4044-4047
Jeong J. and Neff P., 2010. Existence, uniqueness and stability in linear Cosserat elasticity for weakest curvature conditions. Math. Mech. Solids, 15:1, 78-95
Jeong J. and Ramezani H. and Münch I. and Neff P., 2009. A numerical study for linear isotropic Cosserat elasticity with conformally invariant curvature., Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 89:7, 552-569
Lakes R., 1995. Experimental methods for study of Cosserat elastic solids and other generalized elastic continua. in Continuum models for materials with micro-structure. ed. H. Mühlhaus, J. Wiley, N. Y. Ch. 1, p. 1-22
Maurini, C., dell’Isola, F., Pouget, J., 2004. On models of layered piezoelectric beams for passive vibration control. Journal De Physique. IV : JP, 115, pp. 307-316
Maurini, C., Pouget, J., dell’Isola, F., 2006. Extension of the Euler-Bernoulli model of piezoelectric laminates to include 3D effects via a mixed approach. Computers and Structures, 84 (22-23), 1438-1458.
Merkel A., Tournat V., Gusev V., 2010. Elastic waves in noncohesive frictionless granular crystals. Ultrasonics, 50, 133-138
Merkel A., Tournat V., 2010. Dispersion of elastic waves in three-dimensional noncohesive granular phononic crystals: Properties of rotational modes. Pysical Review E 82, 031305
Merkel A. and Tournat V., 2011. Experimental evidence of rotational elastic waves in granular phononic crystals. Physical Review Letters, 107, 225502
Mindlin R.D., 1964. Micro-structure in linear elasticity. Arch. Rat. Mech. Analysis, 16:1, 51-78
Münch I., 2007. Ein geometrisch und materiell nichtlineares Cosserat-Modell - Theorie, Numerik und Anwendungmöglichkeiten. Dissertation in der Fakultät für Bauingenieur-, Geo- und Umweltwissenschaften, ISBN 978-3-935322-12-6, electronic version available at http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000007371
Münch I., Wagner W., Neff P., 2011. Transversely isotropic material: nonlinear Cosserat versus classical approach. Cont. Mech. Thermod., 23:1, 27-34
Münch I., Wagner W., Neff P., 2009. Theory and FE-analysis for structures with large deformation under magnetic loading., Comp. Mech., 44:1, 93-102
Neff P., Fischle A., Münch I., 2008. Symmetric Cauchy-stresses do not imply symmetric Biot-strains in weak formulations of isotropic hyperelasticity with rotational degrees of freedom. Acta Mechanica, 197, 19-30
Neff P. , Sydow A., Wieners C., 2009. Numerical approximation of incremental infinitesimal gradient plasticity. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg., 77:3, 414436
Neff P. and Münch I., 2009. Simple shear in nonlinear Cosserat elasticity: bifurcation and induced microstructure. Cont. Mech. Thermod., 21:3, 195-221
Neff P., Ghiba I.D., Madeo A., Placidi L., Rosi G., 2013. A unifying perspective: the relaxed micromorphic continuum. Existence, uniqueness and continuous dependence in dynamics. Submitted to Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, arXiv:1308.3219v1 [\[]{}math-ph[\]]{}
Neff P., 2006. Existence of minimizers for a finite-strain micromorphic elastic solid. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. A, 136, 997-1012
Neff P. and Forest S., 2007. A geometrically exact micromorphic model for elastic metallic foams accounting for affine microstructure. Modelling, existence of minimizers, identification of moduli and computational results. J. Elasticity, 87, 239-276
Neff P., 2006. A finite-strain elastic-plastic Cosserat theory for polycrystals with grain rotations., Int. J. Eng. Sci., 44, 574-594
Neff P., 2004. Existence of minimizers for a geometrically exact Cosserat solid., Proc. Appl. Math. Mech., 4:1, 548-549
Neff P., 2006. The Cosserat couple modulus for continuous solids is zero viz the linearized Cauchy-stress tensor is symmetric. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 86, 892-912
Neff P. and Jeong J. 2009. A new paradigm: the linear isotropic Cosserat model with conformally invariant curvature energy. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 89:2, 107-122
Neff P., Jeong J., Fischle A., 2010. Stable identification of linear isotropic Cosserat parameters: bounded stiffness in bending and torsion implies conformal invariance of curvature. Acta Mechanica, 211:(3-4), 237-249
Neff P., 2005. On material constants for micromorphic continua. In Y. Wang and K. Hutter, editors, Trends in Applications of Mathematics to Mechanics, STAMM Proceedings, Seeheim 2004, pages 337-348. Shaker Verlag, Aachen
Placidi L., Rosi G., Giorgio. I., Madeo A., 2013. Reflection and transmission of plane waves at surfaces carrying material properties and embedded in second gradient materials. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, DOI: 10.1177/1081286512474016
Porfiri, M., dell’Isola, F., Santini, E., 2005. Modeling and design of passive electric networks interconnecting piezoelectric transducers for distributed vibration control. International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, 21:2. 69-87
Vasseur J. O. et al., 1998. Experimental evidence for the existence of absolute acoustic band gaps in two-dimensional periodic composite media. J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 10, 6051
Vasseur J. O. et al., 2001. Experimental and theoretical evidence for the existence of absolute acoustic band gaps in two-dimensional solid phononic crystals. Pysical Review Letters, 86:14, 3012-3015
Vidoli, S., Dell’Isola, F., 2001. Vibration control in plates by uniformly distributed PZT actuators interconnected via electric networks. European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, 20:3, 435-456.
Zhu R., Huang H.H., Huang G.L., Sun C.T., 2011. Microstructure continuum modeling of an elastic metamaterial. International Journal of Engineering Science, 49, 1477-1485
Sciarra, G., dell’Isola, F., Ianiro, N., Madeo, A., 2008. A variational deduction of second gradient poroelasticity part I: General theory. Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, 3:3 507-526
Sciarra, G., dell’Isola, F., Coussy, O., 2007. Second gradient poromechanics. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44:20 6607-6629
Steeb H., 2009. Ultrasound propagation in cancellous bone. Arch. Appl. Mech., 80:5, 489-502
Steeb H., Kurzeja P.S., Frehner M., Schmalholz S.M., 2012. Phase velocity dispersion and attenuation of seismic waves due to trapped fluids in residual saturated porous media. Vadose Zone J. doi:10.2136/vzj2011.0121
Vasiliev A.A., Miroshnichenko A.E., Dmitriev S.V., 2012. Generalized continuum models for analysis of one-dimensional shear deformations in a structural interface with micro-rotations. arXiv:1202.1410, 1-11
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
[^2]: Here and in the sequel Einstein convention of sum of repeated indices is used if not differently specified.
[^3]: Here and in the sequel a subscript $i$ after a comma indicates partial derivative with respect to the space variable $X_{i}$.
[^4]: We remark that by considering a scalar microscopic density $\eta$, we are limiting ourselves to cases in which the microscopic inclusions only have one characteristic length (e.g. cubes or spheres). On the other hand, expression (\[Kinetic\]) for the kinetic energy can be easily generalized by replacing the second term with $1/2\,\eta_{ij}(P_{ki})_{t}(P_{kj})_{t}$, where the tensor $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ can be written as $\eta_{ij}=d_{ij}^{2}\rho'$. In this way one can account for as many microscopic characteristic lengths $d_{ij}$ as needed.
[^5]: When using index notation for the components of the introduced tensor fields, we will denote partial derivative with respect to time with a superposed dot instead of a $t$ subscript.
[^6]: Due to the chosen values of the parameters, which are supposed to satisfy (\[DefPos-1\]), all the introduced characteristic velocities and frequencies are real. Indeed it can be checked that the condition $\left(2\lambda_{e}+\mu_{e}\right)>0$ together with the condition $\mu_{e}>0$, imply both the conditions $\left(3\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}\right)>0$ and $\left(\lambda_{e}+2\mu_{e}\right)>0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on the selective addressing of an individual atom in a pair of single-atom microtraps separated by $3\;\mu$m. Using a tunable light-shift, we render the selected atom off-resonant with a global Rydberg excitation laser which is resonant with the other atom, making it possible to selectively block this atom from being excited to the Rydberg state. Furthermore we demonstrate the controlled manipulation of a two-atom entangled state by using the addressing beam to induce a phase shift onto one component of the wave function of the system, transferring it to a dark state for the Rydberg excitation light. Our results are an important step towards implementing quantum information processing and quantum simulation with large arrays of Rydberg atoms.'
author:
- 'Henning Labuhn, Sylvain Ravets, Daniel Barredo, Lucas Béguin, Florence Nogrette, Thierry Lahaye, and Antoine Browaeys'
title: 'Single-Atom Addressing in Microtraps for Quantum-State Engineering using Rydberg Atoms'
---
Cold neutral atoms are a promising platform for quantum computation and quantum simulation [@bloch2012]. Their weak interactions in the ground state lead to long coherence times. Using highly excited Rydberg states allows one to switch on and off the strong interactions that are necessary for engineering many-body quantum states [@saffmanRMP]. For many of those experiments it is desirable to confine single atoms at well-defined positions separated by a few $\mu$m, which can be achieved e.g. using arrays of optical tweezers [@nogrette2014]. Another requirement is the selective manipulation of individual atoms in the ensemble. This can be done by applying static field gradients, or a laser beam focused to one single trap site, which induces a frequency shift at the targeted site. Such techniques have been demonstrated with trapped ions [@naegerl1999; @haeffner2005; @monroe2013] and neutral atoms in optical lattices [@dumke2002; @saffman2004; @karski2010; @weitenberg2011; @schlosser2011; @fukuhara2013].
![(color online) (a) Sketch of the experimental setup. The two microtraps are created by a red-detuned 850-nm laser beam on which an appropriate phase is imprinted using a spatial light modulator (SLM), and focused by a high-NA aspheric lens in a MOT. The addressing beam is superimposed to the trap beam by a polarizing beamsplitter cube (PBS), and focused down on the targeted atom by the same aspheric lens. The two perpendicular AOMs can be used for precise dynamical $x{\mathrm -}y$ positioning of the addressing beam. A telescope is used to conjugate the AOM plane with the aspheric lens, to avoid clipping when the addressing beam is stirred. (b) The light-shift $\Delta E$ of the ground state of the targeted single atom is directly proportional to the intensity $I$ of the addressing beam at the position $x$ of the atom. (c) Measured light-shift $\Delta E$ as a function of the distance $\Delta x$ between the addressing beam and the targeted trap, yielding a $1/e^2$ radius of the addressing beam of $w_0 \simeq 1.3~\mu$m.[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](fig1.pdf){width="86mm"}
In previous work [@beguin2013; @barredo2014], we have demonstrated quantum-state engineering with single atoms held in two and three optical microtraps, by using the Rydberg blockade mechanism with global excitation of the atoms. Extending these studies to a larger number of atoms and to wider classes of quantum states requires extra tools. A first step towards this goal was our recent demonstration of single-atom trapping in large arrays of optical microtraps with arbitrary geometries [@nogrette2014]. Combined with global excitation, this already opens the possibility to generate interesting multi-atom entangled states, such as the W state ${|{\rm W}\rangle} = ({|rgg \ldots g\rangle}+{|grg \ldots g\rangle} + \ldots + {|ggg \ldots r\rangle}) / \sqrt{N}$, where ${|g\rangle}$ (${|r\rangle}$) correspond to the ground (Rydberg) state. However, single-site addressing is needed to engineer other classes of quantum states. For instance, the realization of the collective CNOT-gate of Ref. [@mueller2009] that can be used to create the state ${|{\rm GHZ}\rangle} = ({|gg \ldots g\rangle} + {|rr \ldots r\rangle}) / \sqrt{2}$, requires to single out one control atom whose state determines the state of the remaining, target atoms.
Here we demonstrate the selective addressing of one single $^{87}$Rb atom among two atoms held in microtraps separated by 3 $\mu$m, by shining a tightly-focused, red-detuned 850 nm laser beam on it. This addressing beam induces a frequency shift on the ground state of the atom, while leaving its Rydberg states nearly unaffected. This differential light-shift thus makes the addressed atom off-resonant with the Rydberg excitation laser, which is resonant for the other atom. This article is organized as follows. We first briefly describe the implementation of the addressing beam, and characterize its size and depth *in situ* using a single atom. We then perform a global Rydberg excitation in the presence of the addressing beam, and observe nearly perfect suppression of excitations for the addressed atom. Finally, we use the addressing beam to perform a controlled local operation on one atom, coherently transferring the symmetric entangled state $({|rg\rangle} + {|gr\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$ to the antisymmetric, dark state $({|rg\rangle} - {|gr\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$.
Our experimental setup, schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:setup\](a), has been described previously [@nogrette2014; @beguin2013; @barredo2014]. We use a Spatial Light Modulator (SLM) to create two microtraps, separated by a distance of $3\;\mu {\rm m}$ in the focal plane of a high-numerical aperture aspherical lens. The traps, each with a $1/e^2$-radius of about $1\;\mu{\rm m}$ and a depth of $U_0 \approx h \times 20$ MHz, are focused in $^{87}$Rb MOT. Due to fast light-assisted collisions, we only trap either zero or one atom per trap [@sortais2007], and trigger the experiment on the presence of one atom in each trap. The temperature of the atoms in the traps is approximately $50\;\mu$K. We coherently couple the ground state ${|g\rangle} = {|5S_{1/2},F=2,m_f=2\rangle}$ to the Rydberg state ${|r\rangle} = {|nD_{3/2},m_j = 3/2\rangle}$ (with $n$ in the range 50–100) via a two-photon transition, with the wavelength of the excitation lasers being 795 nm and 474 nm. During the excitation, of duration $\tau$, the traps are switched off. The detuning from the intermediate state ${|5P_{1/2},F=2,m_f=2\rangle}$ is $2 \pi \times 740$ MHz. After the excitation pulse, we measure the states of both atoms. Repeating the experiment for about 100 times, we reconstruct the populations $P_{ij}$ of the two-atom states ${|ij\rangle}$, where $i,j$ can take the values $g$ and $r$.
The $1/e^2$ radii of the lasers used for Rydberg excitation are 100 $\mu$m for the 795-nm beam, and 18 $\mu$m for the 474-nm beam. This configuration prevents the direct addressing of a single trap. To achieve single-site addressability, we thus superimpose a second 850 nm laser beam onto the trapping beam, which induces a light-shift proportional to the intensity on the ground state of the atom at the targeted site. Orthogonal polarizations and a frequency difference of about $200$ MHz prevent interference between the trapping and addressing beams. The addressing beam has a $1/e^2$-radius of $w_0\simeq 1.3\;\mu$m in the focus, slightly larger than the trap size. This choice results from a trade-off between two opposite requirements, namely minimizing alignment sensitivity and inhomogeneous light-shifts (which favors a large $w_0$) and minimizing cross-talk (which implies choosing a small $w_0$). For a perfectly Gaussian beam with $w_0\simeq1.3\;\mu{\rm m}$, one expects theoretically that if one atom is addressed by a light-shift of 10 MHz, the second atom 3 $\mu$m away experiences a light-shift of only 0.2 kHz, which is negligible as compared to the other relevant frequencies in the experiment. An electro-optic modulator enables fast (about 10 ns) switching of the addressing beam. In addition, two AOMs can be used for dynamical $x-y$ positioning of the addressing beam with respect to the targeted trap.
In a first experiment, we measure the intensity profile of the addressing beam *in situ* by performing Rydberg spectroscopy on a single atom. For different positions $\Delta x$ of the addressing beam with respect to the targeted atom, we scan the frequency of the Rydberg excitation lasers. As mainly the ground state experiences a light-shift $\Delta E$ proportional to the addressing beam intensity, the resonance frequency for Rydberg excitation is shifted by $\Delta E$ \[see Fig. \[fig:setup\](b)\]. Figure \[fig:setup\](c) shows the measured light-shift as a function of $\Delta x$. A Gaussian fit gives a $1/e^2$ radius $w_0 = 1.3\pm0.1~\mu$m. The residual light-shift experienced by the nearby atom 3 $\mu$m away is below the resolution of our experiment.
We observe that for large light-shifts, the probability to lose an atom during the sequence increases. We attribute this effect to the following: due to the finite temperature, the atom never sits exactly at the intensity maximum of the addressing beam. The fast switching on and off of the addressing beam thus imparts kinetic energy to the atom, all the more that the intensity is high. For large enough intensities in the addressing beam, this effect thus increases the probability for the atom to leave the trapping region during the experiment. However, for light-shifts below 40 MHz, this loss probability remains below 1 %, and is thus negligible.
We now perform a Rydberg blockade experiment with two single atoms in order to demonstrate single-site addressability (Fig. \[fig:2atoms\_addressed\]). In Ref. [@urban2009], site-resolving excitation beams were used to demonstrate blockade with two atoms separated by 10 $\mu$m. Here, we use a global excitation scheme in combination with the addressing beam, and obtain similar results, albeit with a distance between the atoms of only 3 $\mu$m. For both atoms, the ground state ${|g\rangle}$ is coupled to the Rydberg state ${|r\rangle}={|59D_{3/2}\rangle}$ with a Rabi frequency $\Omega \simeq 2\pi \times1$ MHz (Fig. \[fig:2atoms\_addressed\](a)). If the atoms were independent, they would both undergo Rabi oscillations between ${|g\rangle}$ and ${|r\rangle}$ with the Rabi frequency $\Omega$. The strong dipole-dipole interaction $U_{\rm dd}$ between the Rydberg states forbids a double excitation of the atoms if $U_{\rm dd} \gg \hbar \Omega$. This condition is largely fulfilled for the parameters chosen here: the interaction energy of two atoms in ${|59D_{3/2}\rangle}$, separated by $3\; \mu$m, is approximately $h\times 300$ MHz. We thus only excite the superposition state ${|s\rangle} = ({|rg\rangle} + e^{i{\boldsymbol}k \cdot{\boldsymbol}r}{|gr\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, whose coupling to the two-atom ground state ${|gg\rangle}$ is $\sqrt{2} \Omega$ [@urban2009; @gaetan2009] (here, ${{\boldsymbol}k}$ is the vector sum of the wavevectors of the excitation lasers, and ${{\boldsymbol}r}$ is the position of atom $2$ with respect to atom $1$). This results in $P_{rg}$ and $P_{gr}$ oscillating between $0$ and $1/2$ with a frequency $\sqrt{2}\Omega$, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:2atoms\_addressed\](b). Another signature of the blockade is the suppression of double excitation $P_{rr} \simeq 0 $ (see bottom panel in Fig \[fig:2atoms\_addressed\](b)).
![(Color online) (a) Two atoms, separated by 3 $\mu$m, are illuminated by light that resonantly couples the ground state ${|g\rangle}$ to ${|r\rangle}={|59D_{3/2}\rangle}$ with the single-atom Rabi frequency $\Omega$. The time evolution of the populations of the two-atom states ${|gg\rangle}$, ${|gr\rangle}$, ${|rg\rangle}$ and ${|rr\rangle}$ are shown, (b) without any addressing and (c) with atom 2 addressed with a light-shift of $\Delta E \simeq h \times 10$ MHz. Solid lines are fits by damped sines. The vertical solid lines mark the pulse areas $\Omega\tau$ corresponding to a $\pi$-pulse for the non-addressed case (blue) and the addressed case (red). The black dashed lines show the expected measured populations for a perfect blockade of atom 2, taking into account state-detection errors.[]{data-label="fig:2atoms_addressed"}](fig2.pdf){width="80mm"}
If we shine the addressing beam on atom 2, we observe a strong suppression of the excitation probability for the states ${|gr\rangle}$ and ${|rr\rangle}$ (see Fig. \[fig:2atoms\_addressed\](c)), as atom 2 is never excited to the Rydberg state ${|r\rangle}$. At the same time, atom 1 shows Rabi oscillations between ${|g\rangle}$ and ${|r\rangle}$ with the single-atom Rabi frequency $\Omega$. The small residual excitation probability of atom 2 that we observe is fully accounted for by the errors in our state detection [@barredo2014], meaning that cross-talk between the two traps is negligible.
Finally, we show that we can also use the addressing beam to directly manipulate a two-atom quantum state. Without any addressing, the excitation to the state ${|rr\rangle}$ is completely suppressed in the Rydberg blockade regime ($U_{\rm dd} \gg \hbar \Omega$). By applying an excitation pulse of duration $\pi / (\sqrt{2} \Omega)$ we thus prepare the atoms in the state ${|\psi (0)\rangle} = ({|gr\rangle} + e^{i{\boldsymbol}k \cdot{\boldsymbol}r}{|rg\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$. We then illuminate atom 2 with the addressing beam (Fig. \[fig:phase-shift\](a)). Its energy is shifted by $\Delta E$ when in the ground state, while its Rydberg state remains unaffected (see Fig. \[fig:2atoms\_addressed\](a)). After a time $T$ the state of the system has therefore evolved to $${|\psi(T)\rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ({|gr\rangle} +e^{-i \Delta E \, T /\hbar} e^{i{\boldsymbol}k \cdot{\boldsymbol}r} {|rg\rangle}).$$ The antisymmetric dark state ${|\psi(T_{\pi})\rangle} = ({|gr\rangle} - e^{i{\boldsymbol}k \cdot{\boldsymbol}r} {|rg\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$ (with $T_{\pi}=\pi \hbar/ \Delta E$) is not coupled to the ground state ${|gg\rangle}$. The probability to deexcite the atoms to ${|gg\rangle}$ is thus expected to oscillate between 0 and 1 with a frequency $f = \Delta E / h$.
Figure \[fig:phase-shift\](b) shows the probability $P_{gg}$ to de-excite the atoms back to ${|gg\rangle}$ versus the duration $T$ of the addressing pulse. We observe the expected oscillation of the final ground state population $P_{gg}$. Due to the finite Rydberg excitation efficiency (about 90% for our parameters), we measure a contrast of the oscillations that is lower than 1. In addition, the finite temperature of the atoms in the experiment leads to a small motion of the atoms during the sequence, implying that (i) the phase ${{\boldsymbol}k}\cdot{{\boldsymbol}r}$ imprinted by the excitation pulse is not exactly canceled out by the de-excitation pulse [@wilk2010]; and (ii) the light shift $\Delta E$ seen by atom 2 fluctuates from shot to shot. Averaged over many runs, both effects lead to a decreased contrast and a finite damping of the observed oscillations. To take these effects into account, we fit the data with a damped sine of the form $P_{gg}(T) = A + B \exp(- \gamma t) \cos(2\pi f T)$, with the oscillation frequency $f$ and the damping rate $\gamma$ as adjustable parameters. Repeating the experiment for different powers of the addressing beam, we obtain the expected linear dependance of $f$ with the applied light shift on the atom \[see inset of Fig.\[fig:phase-shift\](b)\]. This demonstrates our ability to perform some controlled local operations on qubits in a quantum register.
![(Color online) (a) Pulse sequence for the phase manipulation: while the dipole trap is switched off, the atoms are excited to the state ${|s\rangle} = \left({|gr\rangle}+e^{i{{\boldsymbol}k}\cdot{{\boldsymbol}r}}{|rg\rangle} \right)/\sqrt{2}$. The addressing beam induces a light-shift $\Delta E$ on the ground state of atom 2, thus changing the relative phase evolution between ${|gr\rangle}$ and ${|rg\rangle}$. This is followed by a global de-excitation pulse. (b) Population of the two-atom ground state ${|gg\rangle}$ after the de-excitation pulse, as a function of the addressing pulse length $T$, for a laser power in the addressing beam $P=1.5$ mW (blue diamonds) and $P=3.5$ mW (red circles). Solid lines are fits by damped sine of frequency $f$. Inset: oscillation frequency $f$ as a function of the power $P$ of the addressing beam, showing the expected linear dependence. For this experiment we use the Rydberg state ${|82D_{3/2}\rangle}$.[]{data-label="fig:phase-shift"}](fig3.pdf){width="70mm"}
In conclusion, we have shown that we can selectively prevent one single atom in a pair of single-atom traps from being resonant with Rydberg excitation lasers, with no measurable cross-talk with a neighboring atom as close as 3 $\mu$m. We also demonstrated the use of the addressing beam to perform a local operation in a system of two atoms. Our scheme is easily scalable to a larger number of traps. These techniques will prove useful for a variety of applications in quantum simulation and quantum information processing with Rydberg atoms. For instance, they open the possibility to selectively address a single qubit in a larger ensemble, e.g. as a control atom for realizing collective quantum gates [@mueller2009], or to excite a single atom to a different Rydberg state, allowing to study the transfer of excitations along a Rydberg chain [@wuester2010].
We thank Yvan Sortais for helpful advice about the optical design. We acknowledge financial support by the EU \[ERC Stg Grant ARENA, AQUTE Integrating Project, FET-Open Xtrack Project HAIRS, and EU Marie-Curie Program ITN COHERENCE FP7-PEOPLE-2010-ITN-265031 (H. L.)\], by DGA (L. B.), and by Région Île-de-France (LUMAT and Triangle de la Physique, LAGON Project).
[99]{}
I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbène, Nat. Phys. [**8**]{}, 267 (2012).
M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 2313 (2010).
F. Nogrette, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, D. Barredo, L. Béguin, A. Vernier, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. X [**4**]{}, 021034 (2014).
H. C. Nägerl, D. Leibfried, H. Rohde, G. Thalhammer, J. Eschner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 145 (1999).
H. Häffner, W. Hänsel, C.F. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek-al-kar, M. Chwalla, T. Körber, U.D. Rapol, M. Riebe, P.O. Schmidt, C. Becher, O. Gühne, W. Dür and R. Blatt, Nature [**438**]{}, 643 (2005).
C. Monroe and J. Kim, Science [**339**]{}, 1164 (2013).
R. Dumke, M. Volk, T. Müther, F. B. J. Buchkremer, G. Birkl, and W. Ertmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 097903 (2002).
M. Saffman, Opt. Lett. [**29**]{}, 1016 (2004).
M. Karski, L. Förster, J.-M. Choi, A. Steffen, N. Belmechri, W. Alt, D. Meschede, and A. Widera, N. J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 065027 (2010).
C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature [**471**]{}, 319 (2011).
M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, J. Kruse, and G. Birkl, Quantum Inf. Process., [**10**]{} 907 (2011).
T. Fukuhara, A. Kantian, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, S. Hild, D. Bellem, U. Schollwöck, T. Giamarchi, C. Gross, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nat. Phys. [**9**]{}, 235 (2013).
L. Béguin, A. Vernier, R. Chicireanu, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 263201 (2013).
D. Barredo, S. Ravets, H. Labuhn, L. Béguin, A. Vernier, F. Nogrette, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112** ]{}, 183002 (2014).
M. Müller, I. Lesanovsky, H. Weimer, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 170502 (2009).
Y. R. P. Sortais, H. Marion, C. Tuchendler, A. M. Lance, M. Lamare, P. Fournet, C. Armellin, R. Mercier, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 013406 (2007).
E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Nat. Phys. [**5**]{},110 (2009).
A. Gaëtan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Nat. Phys. [**5**]{}, 115 (2009).
T. Wilk, A. Gaëtan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Miroshnychenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 010502 (2010).
S. Wüster, C. Ates, A. Eisfeld, and J. M. Rost, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 053004 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The twisting deformation of mechanically stretched DNA molecules is studied by a coarse grained Hamiltonian model incorporating the fundamental interactions that stabilize the double helix and accounting for the radial and angular base pair fluctuations. The latter are all the more important at short length scales in which DNA fragments maintain an intrinsic flexibility. The presented computational method simulates a broad ensemble of possible molecule conformations characterized by a specific average twist and determines the energetically most convenient helical twist by free energy minimization. As this is done for any external load, the method yields the characteristic twist-stretch profile of the molecule and also computes the changes in the macroscopic helix parameters i.e. average diameter and rise distance. It is predicted that short molecules under stretching should first over-twist and then untwist by increasing the external load. Moreover, applying a constant load and simulating a torsional strain which over-twists the helix, it is found that the average helix diameter shrinks while the molecule elongates, in agreement with the experimental trend observed in kilo-base long sequences. The quantitative relation between percent relative elongation and superhelical density at fixed load is derived. The proposed theoretical model and computational method offer a general approach to characterize specific DNA fragments and predict their macroscopic elastic response as a function of the effective potential parameters of the mesoscopic Hamiltonian.'
author:
- Marco Zoli
title: Twisting short dsDNA with applied tension
---
I. Introduction {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}
===============
Understanding the DNA mechanics has important implications as, in cells, DNA is constantly bent, stretched, repaired and processed by proteins which, upon binding, confer to the double helix its biological functions and regulate gene expression [@stasiak; @forget; @cappello; @wang12; @albu14a].
The development of optical and magnetic tweezers techniques over the last twenty five years has allowed to gain remarkable insights into the elastic properties of single DNA molecules by studying their response to external forces in the pico-Newton regime [@chu; @busta92; @busta94; @cluzel96; @block97; @mameren09]. Such forces are required to oppose the thermal bending fluctuations due to the environment which constantly buffet the molecular bonds thus causing the helix to assume different random walk configurations. In fact, at physiological temperatures, the thermal energy per nano-meter is $\sim 4 pN$.
Force-extension data of kilo base pairs sequences have been well reproduced by worm-like-chain models that treat DNA as an isotropic rod whose behavior is dominated by entropic elasticity at least up to $\sim 10 pN$ [@busta00]. Instead, at higher external forces, structural changes occur in the intra-strand base pair covalent bonds and the helix is progressively over-stretched to a length larger than its B-form contour length [@rouz01]. Later measurements by the rotor bead tracking technique [@busta06] have shown that kilo base pairs DNA molecules over-twist upon stretching up to $\sim 30 pN$ and then untwist above such value.
Importantly, if a torque is applied in order to over-twist the double helix *under a constant load*, it has also been found that the molecule extends. While analogous results have been obtained by magnetic tweezers experiments, molecular models for DNA in a solvent [@croq06; @zachar15] have suggested that a negative inclination of the base pairs towards the minor groove could reduce the helix diameter and elongate the rise distance. Moreover, the molecule extension appears to be a linear function of the applied over-twist in the limited range of those torsional strains which preserve the stable B-form.
Motivated by these findings pointing to a remarkable DNA flexibility together with a rich interplay between its twisting and stretching properties [@marko97; @wuite11], we have developed in a previous work [@io17] a computational method based on a mesoscopic DNA Hamiltonian which treats the helix at the base pair level and retains the fundamental intra-strand and inter-strand base pair interactions, responsible for the helix stability in the presence of a solvent. Mesoscopic models have the capability to predict the thermomechanical behavior of specific sequences through optimization of the potential parameters via direct fitting of experimentally accessible data e.g., the melting profiles [@campa; @albu14; @weber15a; @singh15]. Essentially our method assumes that the single molecule may exist in a broad range of helical conformations, specified through the average number of base pairs per helix turn, and determines the energetically most convenient conformation by free energy minimization.
As the computation is carried out by varying the strength of an external load, one can predict the twisting response of the molecule as a function of the stretching perturbation. While the method has been applied to short fragments which have been the focus of recent and widespread interest in view of their unexpected flexibility [@widom; @volo05; @olson06; @archer; @fenn; @mastro; @gole; @vafa; @kim14; @mazur14; @tan15; @io16a; @zhen17; @tan16], the same scheme can be used (compatibly with the available CPU time) for any sequence and length being aware that the latter generally affect the properties of the molecules [@volo10; @olson10].
In this paper, going beyond our previous study, we assume that the helix may be over-twisted (or untwisted) with respect to its equilibrium conformation *under a constant load* and investigate the ensuing modification on the helical shape. [It is emphasized that the load has here the function to align, not that to disrupt [@piana05], the intra-strand stacking bonds. Accordingly, the external force is tuned within a range of values which do not cause the over-stretching of the molecule backbone. In this way, the method offers a feasible approach to simulate the above described experimental setup.]{} In particular, we derive here the quantitative relation between average helical elongation and superhelical density which, in principle, could be investigated experimentally for sequences of a few tens of base pairs. Furthermore, it is shown that the over-twisting / untwisting transition, observed in kilo-base long sequences as a function of the external force, is predicted by our model and essentially ascribed to a dependence of the helix bending fluctuation on the size of the applied load.
The geometrical representation for the helix is outlined in Section II while the mesoscopic Hamiltonian model is discussed in Section III. The general features of the computational method are given in Section IV and the formulas for the macroscopic helix parameters are defined in Section V. The results are presented in Section VI while some conclusions are drawn in Section VII.
II. Helical Model {#ii.-helical-model .unnumbered}
==================
In previous Hamiltonian studies of DNA denaturation [@pey04], the double helix has been described by a basic ladder model, see Fig. \[fig:1\](a), in which the bases are arranged as beads along the complementary strands. The backbone of a molecule with $N$ base pairs is thus a chain of $N-1$ segments connecting the points $O_i \,{}\, (i=\,1,...,N) $. [$R_0$ and $d$, input parameters of the model, represent the bare helix diameter and rise distance along the molecule stack, respectively, in the absence of fluctuations.]{} Each pair is formed via the hydrogen bond connecting the two mates and only two degrees of freedom per pair, $x_{i}^{(1)}$ and $x_{i}^{(2)}$, representing the displacements of the pair mates, are included in the model. The in-phase-displacement, $x_{i}^{(1)} + x_{i}^{(2)}$, yields a straightforward harmonic potential energy term in the chain Hamiltonian which can be exactly integrated. Instead the relative distance, $r_i=\,x_{i}^{(1)} - x_{i}^{(2)}$, measured from the central helical axis, stretches the hydrogen bond and determines the statistical mechanics of the DNA ladder model [@io09; @io10]. In fact, $r_{i}$ may even become smaller than $R_0$ thus compressing the hydrogen bond but the pair mates cannot get too close to each other due to the strands repulsion exerted by the negatively charged phosphate groups [@tan08].
Here we adopt a more realistic picture for the double helix which goes beyond the ladder model assuming that adjacent displacements along the molecule stack, e.g. $r_{i}$ and $r_{i-1}$, are allowed to twist and bend as shown in Fig. \[fig:1\](b). Accordingly, the distance $\overline{AB}$ between neighbor base pairs is a function of the rotational degrees of freedom with both the torsional angle $\theta_i$ and the bending angle $\phi_i$ being integration variables in the calculation of the partition function. Hence twisting and bending fluctuations are incorporated in our model whereas other structural deformations, such as propeller twist that enhances the intra-strand base pair stacking and the presence of grooves relevant to the sequence specific DNA-protein binding [@orozco15; @hwang16], are not taken into account. [ While a general description of the base pair degrees of freedom and helical parameters is given e.g., in Ref. [@olson01], the effects of heterogeneous base pair sequence are analyzed e.g. in a comprehensive molecular dynamics simulation for a large set of oligomers [@lavery10]. ]{}
[ Restricting our study to homogeneous fragments, we further assume that,]{} for short DNA molecules, the most energetically convenient conformations are those for which the helix axis is essentially planar [@bates; @irob], the $O_i$’s are pinned to the sheet plane. This is consistent with the fact that, once short molecules close into a ring, the free energy of supercoiling is mostly partitioned into twisting while the writhe contribution to the linking number is negligible [@shore; @horowitz].
[As the base pairs are described by the $r_i$’s which depart from the central molecule axis, we assume: *1)* to apply the force $F_{ex}$ to such axis, along the direction of the segment $\overline{O_{i}O_{i-1}}$ in Fig. \[fig:1\](b), *2)* that the force pulls one end of the chain while the opposite end remains anchored, *3)* that, for short molecules, the force acts uniformly on all the chain segments and *4)* that the force has the effect to orient the chain segments along a specific direction. More generally, in a two strand representation and in the experimental setup, one can devise a number of different schemes to pull the chain ends applying the load either to one or both complementary strands [@seno10; @romano13; @fiasconaro13]. Moreover, even the pulling direction may become important yielding specific deformations of the helical structure, as shown by molecular force balance experiments on heterogeneous duplexes. This occurs if the forces and loading rates are such to disrupt the intra-strand stacking bonds [@gaub08]. These latter cases however do not pertain to our analysis as emphasized in the Introduction. We instead assume that $F_{ex}$ varies in a range of low to moderate values which do not over-stretch the helix and study the response of the homogeneous molecule to the external perturbation. ]{}
As detailed in the next Section, the computational technique sums over a large ensemble of molecule configurations and finds by free energy minimization *a)* the average twist fluctuation i.e., the average number of base pairs per helix turn, *b)* the average radial fluctuation which provides a measure of the molecule diameter and *c)* the average intra-strand elongation. This allows to determine the twisting profiles and the molecule structural deformations as a function of $F_{ex}$.
III. Hamiltonian Model {#iii.-hamiltonian-model .unnumbered}
======================
Mesoscopic models and statistical mechanics methods have been widely employed over the last decades to study both thermal equilibrium and dynamical properties of DNA [@wart; @zhang; @benham99; @joy05; @zdrav06; @krueg; @kalos09; @pey09; @rapti10; @bishop14; @weber15; @singh16]. A major research focus has been the denaturation transition with the associated Watson-Crick base pair openings and formation of bubble profiles which are crucial to the DNA biological functioning [@bonnet03; @zocchi04; @rapti06; @kalos11; @hand12; @metz12; @palm13]. Theoretical analysis of the helix melting transition depart either from Ising-like models describing paired and unpaired complementary bases [@poland] or from Hamiltonian models treating the hydrogen bonds through a potential energy function of the distance between the pair mates [@proho85; @pey89]. While Ising models for DNA melting have been developed essentially for long chains in which loops with hundreds of open base pairs largely contribute to the partition function, mesoscopic Hamiltonian models have proven effective to deal with short DNA sequences whose dynamics is dominated by strong base pair fluctuations. Thus, for chains of order $\sim 100$ base pairs, it is desirable to describe the intermediate fluctuational states (between the closed and open base pair configurations) in terms of a continuous variable, i.e. the relative separation between the pair mates on complementary strands. Furthermore, stability properties and flexibility of the helix can be studied in Hamiltonian models by introducing stacking potentials which account for the covalent bonds between neighbor nucleotides along the molecule strands. Certainly, inter-strand and intra-strand forces cannot be treated independently as the disruption e.g., of the *i-th* hydrogen bond moves one (or both) mate(s) of the *i-th* base pair out of the stack thus affecting also the intra-strand interactions between the adjacent $i$ and $i \pm 1$ bases.
These requirements have been met by the Hamiltonian model used in recent analysis of the flexibility of short DNA sequences which have predicted cyclization values in fair agreement with available experimental data [@io16b]. The same Hamiltonian, consistent with the helical model of Fig. \[fig:1\](b), is adopted in the present study. In addition, we introduce the effect of a tunable external load which stretches the molecule axis and induces the changes in the optimal twisting configuration as determined by minimization of the free energy.
Then, the Hamiltonian for the helical molecule with $N$ base pairs of reduced mass $\mu$, stretched by a force $F_{ex}$, is:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &H =\, H_a[r_1] + \sum_{i=2}^{N} H_b[r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &H_a[r_1] =\, \frac{\mu}{2} \dot{r}_1^2 + V_{1}[r_1] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &H_b[r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i]= \, \frac{\mu}{2} \dot{r}_i^2 + V_{1}[r_i] + V_{2}[ r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] - F_{ex} d \cos\bigl( \sum_{k=1}^{i-1}\phi_k \bigr) \, . \nonumber
\\
\label{eq:01}\end{aligned}$$
Note that $H_a[r_1]$ is treated separately as the first base pair has no preceding neighbor along the molecule backbone.
$V_{1}[r_i]$ is one-particle potential accounting for the hydrogen bond between the *i-th* pair mates and $V_{2}[ r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i]$ is the two-particle stacking term which also depends on the angular degrees of freedom.
Their analytic expressions are:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &V_{1}[r_i]=\, V_{M}[r_i] + V_{Sol}[r_i] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &V_{M}[r_i]=\, D_i \bigl[\exp(-b_i (|r_i| - R_0)) - 1 \bigr]^2 \, , \nonumber
\\
& &V_{Sol}[r_i]=\, - D_i f_s \bigl(\tanh((|r_i| - R_0)/ l_s) - 1 \bigr) \, , \nonumber
\\
& &V_{2}[ r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i]=\, K_S \cdot \bigl(1 + G_{i, i-1}\bigr) \cdot \overline{d_{i,i-1}}^2 \, , \nonumber
\\
& &G_{i, i-1}= \, \rho_{i, i-1}\exp\bigl[-\alpha_{i, i-1}(|r_i| + |r_{i-1}| - 2R_0)\bigr] \, . \nonumber
\\
\label{eq:02}\end{aligned}$$
The one-particle potential comprises: *a)* a hydrogen bond Morse potential $( V_{M}[r_i] )$ for the $i-th$ base pair with spatial range $b_i$ and dissociation energy $D_i$. *b)* A solvent potential $( V_{Sol}[r_i] )$ which enhances the threshold for base pair dissociation and stabilizes the hydrogen bond through the parameters $f_s$ and $l_s$ as pointed out in refs. [@druk; @io11].
The two-particle potential depends on the distance $\overline{d_{i,i-1}}$ between adjacent $r_i \,, r_{i-1}$, as marked by the $\overline{AB}$ segment in Fig. \[fig:1\](b), which includes the angular variables. The stacking potential contains both an elastic force constant $ K_S$ and nonlinear terms weighed by the parameters $\rho_{i, i-1}$, $\alpha_{i, i-1}$ which favor cooperative behavior in the formation of local bubbles as it is understood by the following observation. In fact, when the conditions $|r_i| - R_0 \ll \alpha_{i, i-1}^{-1}$ and $|r_{i-1}| - R_0 \ll \alpha_{i, i-1}^{-1}$ are fulfilled, the effective stacking coupling is [ $\sim K_S \cdot \bigl(1 + \rho_{i, i-1} \bigr)$ ]{} hence, both the $i$ and $i-1$ base pairs are bound. However, thermal fluctuations may violate either-or of the above conditions thus weakening the relative hydrogen bond. In this case, $G_{i, i-1} \rightarrow 0$, the corresponding coupling drops to $\sim K_S$ and also the adjacent base along the stack loosens its hydrogen bond. Accordingly, the fluctuational opening spreads along the strands and untwists the helical molecule. This qualitative picture indicates that the equilibrium twist conformation is sensitive to the interplay between stacking parameters and amplitude of the base pair separations.
For homogeneous sequences, one can shorten, $\rho_i \equiv \, \rho_{i, i-1}$, $\alpha_i \equiv \, \alpha_{i, i-1}$. Then, consistently with our previous works [@io16b] we take in the following calculations, $D_i=\,40 meV$, $b_i= 5 \AA^{-1}$, $f_s=\,0.1$, $l_s=\,0.5 \AA$, $K_S=\,10 mev \AA^{-2}$, $\rho_{i}=\,1$, $\alpha_{i}=\, 2 \AA^{-1}$. [For the bare helix diameter and rise distance, we set the values $R_0 = \,20 $Å and $d = \, 3.4$Å, respectively.]{} This set of model parameters reproduces the experimentally estimated DNA free energies per base pair [@krueg; @metz11]. Further details on the potentials in Eq. (\[eq:02\]) are given e.g., in refs. [@io11; @io12].
[The fourth addendum in the last of Eq. (\[eq:01\]) accounts for the presence of the external force field as described in Section II. As $F_{ex}$ has the purpose to straighten the chain thus opposing the coiling effect of the bending fluctuations, we expect that by increasing $F_{ex}$, the entropy is reduced and, accordingly, the free energy grows. ]{}
[ It is also worth mentioning that our mesoscopic Hamiltonian may be extended to study the thermodynamics and flexibility properties of RNA [@dekker14; @tan17] provided that a specific parametrization can be obtained for a model potential with twisting and bending variables.]{}
The Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:01\]) basically represents a DNA molecule, in a solvent potential and stretched by an external load, whose equilibrium statistics is obtained by solving the associated partition function. This task is carried out by generating an ensemble of molecule configurations consistent with the model potential and integrating, for each base pair in the sequence, over a distribution of radial and angular degrees of freedom dense enough to stabilize the partition function. Previous studies based on molecular dynamics, Monte Carlo and transfer integral techniques for the Hamiltonian of the simplified ladder model in Fig. \[fig:1\](a) [@pey2; @ares; @zhang] have encountered the problem to define an upper bound for the integral over the base pair distances $|r_i|$. The problem stems from the fact that the two-particle potential of the ladder model vanishes for the zero mode (all $r_i$’s equal) whereas the Hamiltonian remains finite for $r_i \rightarrow \infty $ as the one-particle potential is always bounded. Since $V_{1}[r_i]$ is not translationally invariant, the zero mode cannot be removed and the partition function diverges. Such divergence does not occur in our Hamiltonian model as the two-particle potential remains finite due the twist between adjacent base pairs. Nevertheless, a truncation of the configuration space for the base pair amplitudes is required in the computation and the choice of the cutoffs carries some arbitrariness. These issues are handled in the computational method based on the path integral formalism as outlined in Section IV.
IV. Computational Method {#iv.-computational-method .unnumbered}
========================
In our method, the base pair separations $r_i$ are thought of as trajectories $r_i(\tau)$ depending on the imaginary time $\tau=\,it$, with $t$ being the real time for the evolution amplitude in the interval, $t_b - t_a$ [@fehi; @jack]. Hence, $\tau$ varies in a range $\tau_b - \tau_a$ whose amplitude is set by the inverse temperature $\beta$ and the partition function for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:01\]) is obtained by integrating over closed trajectories, $(\,r_i(0)=\, r_i(\beta) \,)$, defined along the $\tau$-axis, following a route extensively described in previous works [@io14b] .
Accordingly, $r_i(\tau)$ can be expanded in Fourier series :
$$\begin{aligned}
& &r_i(\tau)=\, (r_0)_i + \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\Bigl[(a_m)_i \cos(\omega_m \tau ) + (b_m)_i \sin(\omega_m \tau ) \Bigr] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &\omega_m =\, \frac{2 m \pi}{\beta}
\label{eq:03}\end{aligned}$$
whose coefficients generate an ensemble of possible base pair paths and define the associated integration measure $\oint {D}r_i$:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &\oint {D}r_{i} \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\lambda_{cl}} \int_{-\Lambda^0_T}^{\Lambda^0_T} d (r_0)_i \prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\Bigl( \frac{m \pi}{\lambda_{cl}} \Bigr)^2 \int_{-\Lambda_T}^{\Lambda_T} d(a_m)_i \int_{-\Lambda_T}^{\Lambda_T} d(b_m)_i \, ,
\label{eq:04}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Lambda^0_T$ and $\Lambda_T$ are the temperature dependent cutoffs and $\lambda_{cl}$ is the classical thermal wavelength [@io11a].
As Eq. (\[eq:04\]) normalizes the kinetic term in the action, i.e. [@io03]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\oint {D}r_i \exp\Bigl[- \int_0^\beta d\tau {\mu \over 2}\dot{r}_i(\tau)^2 \Bigr] = \,1 \, ,
\label{eq:05} \,\end{aligned}$$
our formalism provides a consistent method to derive the cutoffs in the integration over the path configuration space thus avoiding the above mentioned arbitrariness usually encountered in the application of transfer integral techniques to mesoscopic Hamiltonian models. Furthermore, from Eq. (\[eq:03\]), (\[eq:05\]), one easily finds that $\Lambda^0_T$ and $\Lambda_T$ are $\propto \sqrt{T}$ hence, the maximum path amplitudes included in the partition function are larger at higher $T$ as expected on physical grounds. Also note that Eq. (\[eq:05\]) sets the free energy zero for our system and it is fulfilled for any $\mu$ in accordance with the fact that the free energy of a classical system does not depend on $\mu$.
Writing Eq. (\[eq:01\]) in terms of the Fourier expansion in Eq. (\[eq:03\]) and summing over the bending and twisting degrees of freedom, we finally express the partition function $Z_N$ for the helical molecule with $N$ base pairs:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &Z_N=\, \oint Dr_{1} \exp \bigl[- A_a[r_1] \bigr] \prod_{i=2}^{N} \int_{- \phi_{M} }^{\phi_{M} } d \phi_i \int_{- \theta_{M} }^{\theta _{M} } d \theta_{i} \oint Dr_{i} \exp \bigl[- A_b [r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &A_a[r_1]= \, \int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau H_a[r_1(\tau)] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &A_b[r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i]= \, \int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau H_b[r_i(\tau), r_{i-1}(\tau), \phi_i, \theta_i] \, ,
\label{eq:06}\end{aligned}$$
where $\phi_{M}$ and $\theta_{M}$ are the cutoffs on the amplitudes of the bending and twisting fluctuations, respectively.
Then, our computational technique consists of a direct sum over a set of molecule configurations which statistically contribute to the path integral with a Boltzmann weight. Specifically, the ensemble size, given by the number of trajectories for any base pair in the chain, is enlarged until $Z_N$ numerically converges i.e., the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved. [This amounts to sum over $\sim 10^{8}$ configurations for each dimer in the chain.]{} Over such ensemble, we perform the averages to obtain the macroscopic helical parameters as described in the next Section.
While Eq. (\[eq:06\]) holds at any temperature, the Fourier expansion in Eq. (\[eq:03\]) is particularly useful at low and intermediate temperatures (up to room $T$) as it generates a large ensemble of paths in the configuration space. However, above room temperatures, considerable CPU time savings are enabled by taking only the zero mode in Eq. (\[eq:03\]), $r_i(\tau) \sim \, (r_0)_i$, so that the $d\tau$ integrals in Eq. (\[eq:06\]) are straightforward and the partition function reduces to:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &Z_N \rightarrow \, Z_1 \cdot \prod_{i=2}^{N} Z_i \, , \nonumber
\\
& &Z_1 =\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\lambda_{cl}} \int_{-\Lambda^0_T}^{\Lambda^0_T} d(r_0)_{1} \exp \bigl[- A_a[(r_0)_1] \bigr] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &Z_i =\, \int_{- \phi_{M} }^{\phi_{M} } d \phi_i \int_{- \theta_{M} }^{\theta _{M} } d \theta_{i} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\lambda_{cl}} \int_{-\Lambda^0_T}^{\Lambda^0_T} d(r_0)_{i} \exp \bigl[- A_b [(r_0)_i, (r_0)_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &A_a[(r_0)_1]= \, \beta \cdot V_{1}[(r_0)_1] \, , \nonumber
\\
& &A_b[(r_0)_i, (r_0)_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i]=\, \beta \cdot \Bigl( V_{1}[(r_0)_i] + V_{2}[ (r_0)_i, (r_0)_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] - F_{ex} d \cos\bigl( \sum_{k=1}^{i-1}\phi_k \bigr) \Bigr) \, . \nonumber
\\
\label{eq:07}\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[eq:06\]) or Eq. (\[eq:07\]), one derives the equilibrium thermodynamics from the free energy, $F=\, -\beta ^{-1} \ln Z_N$. While the results hereafter presented are obtained from Eq. (\[eq:06\]), the same qualitative trend is found via computation of Eq. (\[eq:07\]).
V. Rise distance and helix radius {#v.-rise-distance-and-helix-radius .unnumbered}
=================================
As the focus of this work is on the helical torsional response to an applied load, we devise a recursive procedure to express the twist angle in Eq. (\[eq:06\]). Precisely, $\theta_{i}$ is measured with respect to the ensemble average $<\theta_{i - 1}>$ obtained for the preceding base pair along the molecule stack (see Fig. \[fig:1\](b)) and the latter value is incremented by $2\pi / h$, where $h$, the number of base pairs per helix turn, is chosen within a physically suitable range. Moreover, for any $h$ in such range, we integrate over a twist fluctuation variable $\theta_{i}^{fl}$ around the value $\, <\theta_{i - 1}> + 2\pi / h \,$. This idea is formally expressed by:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &\theta_i =\, <\theta_{i - 1}> + 2\pi / h + \theta_{i}^{fl} , \nonumber
\\
& &h \in \, [h_{min}, \, h_{max}] , \nonumber
\\
& &h_{max} - h_{min}=\, n \cdot \Delta h \, \, ,
\label{eq:08}\end{aligned}$$
where $n$ is the number of values sampled in the $h$ range and $\Delta h$ is the incremental step. Following the experiments, which yield $h^{exp}=\, 10.4$ for kilo-base B-DNA in solution under physiological condition [@wang; @duguet], we explore a wide range ($h_{min}=\,6$, $h_{max}=\,14$) around $h^{exp}$ as, in principle, short DNA chains may have a twist conformation which significantly differs from the long chains. Moreover, the molecule twist number is expected to vary with the applied load and the computational scheme should hold for any $F_{ex}$.
Using Eq. (\[eq:08\]) the average twists are computed by:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &< \theta_i >_{(i \geq 2)} =\, < \theta_{i-1} > + \frac{2\pi}{h} + \frac{\int_{-\theta_{M}}^{\theta_{M}} d \theta_{i}^{fl} \cdot ( \theta_i^{fl} ) \int_{- \phi _{M}}^{\phi _{M}} d \phi_i \oint Dr_{i} \exp \bigl[- A_b [r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr]}{ \int_{-\theta_{M}}^{ \theta_{M}} d \theta_{i}^{fl} \int_{- \phi _{M} }^{\phi _{M} } d \phi_i \oint Dr_{i} \exp \bigl[- A_b [r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr]} \, , \nonumber
\\
\label{eq:09}\end{aligned}$$
while, for the first base pair in the chain, $< \theta_1 >=\,0$. Hence, from Eq. (\[eq:09\]), we derive the average helical repeat as:
$$\begin{aligned}
< h >=\,\frac{2\pi N}{< \theta_N >} \, .
\label{eq:10}\end{aligned}$$
Technically, the program sets an increment $\Delta h$ and, for any input $h$, computes a set of values $\{ < h >_{j} \, , \, (j=1,...,n) \} $ which differ from the initially chosen $h$-values. For any value $< h >_{j}$, the corresponding free energy is calculated. As discussed in detail in ref.[@io17], the procedure is reiterated by taking a finer $\Delta h$ until the average twists and associated free energies converge, i.e., they do not further change by increasing $n$. By minimizing $F$, one finally selects the equilibrium average twist conformation, denoted in the following by $< h >_{j^{*}}$, in the presence of a load. By varying $F_{ex}$, the calculation yields the twist-stretch profile for a specific molecule.
[Likewise, one evaluates the average bending angles between adjacent base pair planes, $< \phi_i >_{(i \geq 2)}$, which also define the average angle between the stacking bonds and are measured with respect to the force direction, as shown in Fig. \[fig:1\](b). By definition, $< \phi_1 > =\,0$. ]{}
The numerical convergence of the ensemble integrations should be also tested against the maximum twisting and bending fluctuations. For the twist angles, we find that the appropriate cutoff to stabilize the ensemble averages is, $\theta_{M}=\,\pi /4$, which allows for large torsions between adjacent base pairs. As twisting fluctuations may be sizeable also in the presence of $F_{ex}$, there is no physical reason to introduce a force dependent twisting cutoff.
In the absence of external loads, the bending cutoff $\phi_{M}=\,\pi /2$ is large enough to allow for the formation of kinks having the effect to reduce the bending energy between neighbor base pairs [@crick; @zocchi13; @menon13; @kim14]. It is however plausible that, by increasing $F_{ex}$, the intra-strand bonds should stretch and the amplitude of the bending cutoff should shrink. Although, at this stage, there is not experimental information to quantitatively account for such effect, we have tested some ad hoc functions $\phi_{M}(F_{ex})$ and chosen, [ $\phi_{M}(F_{ex})=\, {\pi }[ 1 - (c \cdot F_{ex})^z ] / 2$ with tunable parameters $c\, , z$ ]{} in the calculations hereafter presented.
Analogously to Eq. (\[eq:09\]), ensemble averages are carried out to compute the macroscopic helical parameters, i.e., the average distances between adjacent base pairs along the stack,
$$\begin{aligned}
& &< \overline{d_{i,i-1}} > =\, \frac{\oint Dr_{i} \int_{-\theta_{M}}^{\theta_{M}} d \theta_{i}^{fl} \int_{ -\phi _{M}}^{\phi _{M}} d \phi_i \cdot \overline{d_{i,i-1}} \exp \bigl[- A_b [r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr]}{ \int_{-\theta_{M}}^{\theta_{M}} d \theta_{i}^{fl} \int_{-\phi _{M} }^{\phi _{M} } d \phi_i \oint Dr_{i} \exp \bigl[- A_b [r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr]} \, , \nonumber
\\
& &< d >=\frac{1}{N-1} \sum _{i=2}^{N} < \overline{d_{i,i-1}} > \, .
\label{eq:11}\end{aligned}$$
and the average base pair radial fluctuations:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &< r_i > =\, \frac{\oint Dr_{i} \cdot r_i \int_{-\theta_{M}}^{\theta_{M}} d \theta_{i}^{fl} \int_{-\phi _{M}}^{\phi _{M}} d \phi_i \exp \bigl[- A_b [r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr]}{ \int_{-\theta_{M}}^{\theta_{M}} d \theta_{i}^{fl} \int_{-\phi _{M} }^{\phi _{M} } d \phi_i \oint Dr_{i} \exp \bigl[- A_b [r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] \bigr]} \, , \nonumber
\\
& &< R >=\frac{1}{N} \sum _{i=1}^{N} < r_i > \,
\label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$
Note that the first base pair radial fluctuation, $< r_1 >$, is calculated with the Boltzmann weight given by the action $A_a[r_1]$ in Eq. (\[eq:06\]).
[Before displaying the results, we discuss a possible extension of our model to the over-stretching regime in which the applied forces, in addition to aligning the stacking bonds, are strong enough to produce a sizeable elongation of the same bonds up to the rupture point. This can be accomplished as follows. First, one should compute at zero load, the ensemble averages $< \overline{d_{i,i-1}} >_{F_{ex}=\,0}$ over the radial and angular fluctuations and then consider the variations with respect to such averages in the presence of the applied load. Hence, assuming that the force acts in the same way on all dimers (and these lie along the force direction), the fourth addendum in the last of Eq. (\[eq:01\]) should be replaced by the term $F_{ex} \bigl(\overline{d_{i,i-1}} - < \overline{d_{i,i-1}} >_{F_{ex}=\,0} \bigr) $ which in turn should be statistically weighted according to Eq. (\[eq:06\]). For the purpose of the present analysis, the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:01\]) provides however a reasonable and computationally more convenient theoretical scheme. ]{}
VI. Results {#vi.-results .unnumbered}
===========
[The model is applied to a very short homogeneous fragment with $N=\,10$ base pairs. The calculation is carried out with a fine mesh, i.e. $\Delta h=\, 0.015625$ in Eq. (\[eq:08\]). First, we compute in the absence of external loads, the ensemble averages of the one-particle and two-particle potential energy of the Hamiltonian in Section III. In Fig. \[fig:2\], the terms $< V_1 > =\, < \sum_{i=1}^{N} V_{1}[r_i] >$ and $< V_2 > =\, < \sum_{i=2}^{N} V_{2}[ r_i, r_{i-1}, \phi_i, \theta_i] >$ are plotted as a function of $< h >$. While $< V_1 >$ shows a very weak dependence on $< h >$ ascribable to the interplay between radial and angular fluctuations only in the Boltzmann statistical weight, $< V_2 >$ displays a pronounced minimum versus $< h >$ as the stacking explicitly depends on the twist angle. This points to the fact that some twist conformations are energetically favored. ]{}
[The precise evaluation of the equilibrium twist is carried out in Fig. \[fig:3\] by minimizing the system free energy both for $F_{ex}=\,0$ and for a choice of loads applied to the fragment.]{} For finite forces, the bending cutoff parameters are set as: $c^{-1}=\, 24$ pN and $z=\,2$. For any $F_{ex}$, the minimum free energy per base pair is plotted in the panel (a).
$F / N$ increases monotonically versus $F_{ex}$ consistently with the fact that external forces straighten the helix thus reducing the entropy of the chain. These $F / N$ values correspond to the twist conformation specified by $< h >_{j^{*}}$ in the panel (b). By introducing a load, the short helix initially over-twists ($< h >_{j^{*}}$ decreases) and eventually untwists under stronger stretchings. The upturn is here found at $F_{ex} \sim 4 pN$, the typical thermal energy per nano-meter mentioned in the Introduction, for the choice of $\phi_{M}(F_{ex})$ and model potential parameters given above. Physically, the over-twisting of the helix is accompanied by a contraction of the helix radius whereas the latter expands if the helix untwists. Indeed, this is the behavior displayed in the panel (c) where Eq. (\[eq:12\]) is calculated for the twist conformations given in the panel (b).
[ The role of the applied load is highlighted, at the level of the base pairs, in Fig. \[fig:4\] where the $< \phi_i >_{(i \geq 2)}$’s are plotted for the same force values taken in Fig. \[fig:3\]. Only four average angles are reported for clarity. At zero load, the $< \phi_i >_{}$’s are distributed over a range of values consistently with the coiled conformation of the molecule. By enhancing the load, such range markedly narrows and the absolute values of $< \phi_i >_{}$’s get smaller. This corresponds physically to the progressive alignment of the stacking bonds to the force direction. ]{}
Experiments on kilo-base sequences have located the upturn at $F_{ex} \sim 30 pN$ [@busta06]. Analogous experiments on fragments with a few tens of base pairs would help to check whether a similar twisting pattern persists at short length scales and also serve as a criterion to fit the parameters of our model. While in principle the behavior of kilo-base sequences may differ from that of very short fragments, we have repeated the free energy minimization procedure for the same sequence of Fig. \[fig:3\] varying the parameters of the bending cutoff $\phi_{M}(F_{ex})$. Some results are displayed in Fig. \[fig:5\]. The computation shows that the occurrence of the over-twisting / untwisting transition is indeed sensitive to the specific dependence of the maximum amplitude of the bending fluctuations on the applied load. By reducing $c$ and (or) increasing $z$ with respect to Fig. \[fig:3\], we assume that the maximum bending fluctuations decrease more smoothly for large loads and, under these conditions, the over-twisting regime progressively extends up to a few tens of picoNewtons. At last, it is found that for $c^{-1}=\,100$pN and $z=\,3$, the upturn in the $< h >_{j^{*}}$ plot can be set at $F_{ex} \sim 30 pN$ as in Ref.[@busta06]. For the latter curve, we can estimate the superhelical density as a function of the load, $\sigma (F_{ex}) =\, \Delta Tw / (Tw)_{0}$, where $\Delta Tw$ is the number of turns added to the helix by increasing the stretching perturbation and $(Tw)_{0}$ is the unperturbed twist number. For instance, taking the calculated $< h >_{j^{*}}$ at $F_{ex} \sim 8.3 pN$, we obtain $\sigma (F_{ex}) =\, 0.0098$.
Our code however, computes the helix structural parameters for the whole set of conformations obtained from Eqs. (\[eq:08\])-(\[eq:10\]) and not only for the conformation $< h >_{j^{*}}$ (reported in Figs. \[fig:2\], \[fig:3\]) which minimizes the free energy. Then we can monitor how the helical shape changes, away from the minimum, assuming an over-twisted conformation ($< h >$ smaller than $< h >_{j^{*}}$) or an untwisted conformation ($< h >$ larger than $< h >_{j^{*}}$). As this is done at a fixed external load, our reasoning simulates the experimental setups of ref.[@busta06; @croq06] in which small torsional strains are applied to the molecule under constant tension. Fig. \[fig:6\] shows our findings for the same molecule of Fig. \[fig:3\] and for two distinct loads. We see that an imposed over-twist causes the average helix diameter to shrink (panel (a)) and the average rise distance to elongate (panel (b)) with respect to the values corresponding to the equilibrium conformation $< h >_{j^{*}}$. Interestingly, if we slightly untwist the helix, the rise distance shortens (down to the dashed lines in panel (b)) whereas $< d >$ eventually extends if we further untwist the helix (reaching the regime to the right of the dashed lines). This trend holds for any constant load in qualitative agreement with the behavior of kilo-base sequences of Ref.[@busta06].
[Likewise, assuming the bending cutoff parameters which set the upturn at $F_{ex} \sim 30 pN$ in Fig. \[fig:5\], we find that $< d >$ for the fragment with $N=\,10$ base pairs grows by over-twisting the helix with respect to its equilibrium twist conformation, at constant force. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:7\](a) for $F_{ex} \sim 9 pN$ as, for such load, some data are available from Ref.[@busta06]. Also the percent relative extension ($\equiv \, {< d >}/{< d >_{j*}} - 1$) is reported in Fig. \[fig:7\](b) as a function of the superhelical density $\sigma (*)=\, (\Delta Tw) _{j*} / (Tw)_{j*}$. Note that $\sigma (*)$ is defined with respect to the equilibrium twist number ($(Tw)_{j*}=\, N / < h >_{j*}$) and $(\Delta Tw) _{j*}$ measures the applied torsional strain *at fixed force*. Hence, $\sigma (*)$ is physically distinct from the previously defined $\sigma (F_{ex})$. The intra-strand distance grows almost linearly above $\sigma (*) \sim 0.01$ but, at the latter value, we obtain a relative increment which is an order of magnitude lower than that reported in Ref.[@busta06]. It is however remarked that, for any given $\sigma (*)$, we are simulating $(\Delta Tw)_{j*}$ values which are too small to allow a strict comparison with data relative to kilo-base sequences. ]{}
Finally, one may wonder to which extent the results presented so far are sensitive to the choice of the model potential parameters. In Fig. \[fig:8\], we take the $N=\,10$ homogeneous sequence with base pair dissociation energy $D_i=\, 60 meV$ (higher than in Fig. \[fig:3\]) and plot the average helical repeat as function of the external load, for three values of the nonlinear stacking parameter $\rho_i$. All other model parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:3\]. The incremental step, $\Delta h$ in Eq. (\[eq:08\]), is the same as in Fig. \[fig:3\] and the $< h >_{j^{*}}$ are computed by the free energy minimization method discussed above.
For all $\rho_i$’s, we notice that the helix over-twists under small loads and then untwists at larger forces. However the equilibrium twist conformations markedly depend, at any $F_{ex}$, on the size of the nonlinear stacking: precisely, the calculation shows that larger $\rho_i$ values induce higher $< h >_{j^{*}}$ as expected on physical grounds. [In fact as discussed in Section III, when thermal fluctuations cause the transient breaking of a hydrogen bond, larger $\rho_i$’s increase the energetic gain associated to the unstacking of adjacent bases. Therefore larger $\rho_i$’s favor equilibrium conformations with a higher number of base pairs per helix turn. ]{} Also note that, for the chain with $\rho_i=\,3$, the force induced transition between over-twisting and untwisting regime is shifted at larger forces with respect to the chains with smaller $\rho_i$. As experiments on kilo-base DNA sequences have observed the transition at $F_{ex} \sim 30 pN$, our result may suggest that longer sequences have higher intrinsic flexibility (larger $\rho_i$ in our model) and therefore they are more resilient to the stretching perturbations. Hence, they begin to untwist only under sizeable loads.
Comparing the green plot ($\rho_i=\,1$) with Fig. \[fig:3\](b), it is found that the $< h >_{j^{*}}$’s values become slightly larger by increasing $D_i$. This result is apparently surprising as one may expect that higher hydrogen bond energies stabilize the molecule and oppose the helix untwisting. In fact, assuming higher $D_i$’s with all other parameters unchanged, yields more tightly bound complementary strands ($< R > $ shrinks) whereas the intra-strand rise distance $< d > $ grows (not shown here). As a consequence the molecule of the green plot in Fig. \[fig:8\] appears, with respect to the molecule in Fig. \[fig:3\], in a narrower albeit more elongated configuration which ultimately favors a slight untwisting and higher $< h >_{j^{*}}$’s. [Note however that the pair dissociation energies are taken within a range consistent with the experimental free energies per base pair ]{} [@io16b]. These findings have been qualitatively discussed to point out that, by virtue of the interplay between inter-strand and intra-strand base pair interactions, the model potential parameters are intertwined and should be determined, as a set, by fitting the available data for specific fragments [@weber09].
VII. Conclusions {#vii.-conclusions .unnumbered}
=================
The mechanical response of DNA molecules to applied loads provides insights into the intrinsic flexibility properties of the helix which may vary with its sequence specificity, length and environmental conditions. While the theory of elastic rods generally accounts for the behavior of kilo-base pair filaments whose contour length largely exceeds their characteristic persistence length, current research is revealing that, at short length scales, all-atom simulations and mesoscopic models should be rather used to capture the elastic behavior of fragments which display strong base pair fluctuational effects. Following our previous investigations on the cyclization properties, end-to-end distance and persistence length of sequences with $100$ base pairs or less, we have here studied how the helix macroscopic parameters and its twisting conformation may change under the effect of an external load. The computational method is based on a path integral description for the Hamiltonian model which comprises both inter-strand hydrogen bonds between the pair mates and intra-strand forces between adjacent bases along the molecule stack. Base pair separations are treated as trajectories contributing to the partition function with their specific statistical weight which is essentially determined by the physical constraints of the model potential. Thus, too large contractions of the base pair distance (with respect to the equilibrium helix diameter) are energetically discouraged by the electrostatic repulsions and therefore yield scarce weight to the partition function. On the other hand, the maximum amplitude of the base pair separations encounters in the path integration a temperature dependent cutoff which consistently truncates the configuration space. Crucial to our study are the bending and twisting fluctuations between neighbor base pairs which characterize the form of the stacking potential and also contribute to the partition function. Technically, the density of the base pair paths and angular fluctuations included in the computation is increased until the molecule free energy converges. For any applied force in a suitable pico-Newton range, it is assumed that the molecule may exist in a large set of possible twist conformations each characterized by an average number of base pairs per helix turn. Carrying out the ensemble averages over the base pair degrees of freedom, we eventually obtain the average equilibrium helical twist by minimizing the system free energy. Moreover, we compute the helical twist, away from the equilibrium, associated to over-twisted and un-twisted conformations which can be simulated keeping the external load constant. Thus, our numerical program can predict: *a)* how the helical twist changes by varying the load and *b)* how the helical parameters, i.e. average diameter and rise distance, change by over-twisting (untwisting) the helix at constant load.
Applying the method to a very short homogeneous helix, we have found a general pattern similar to that observed in kilo-base long sequences although short fragments may present macroscopic helix parameters which quantitatively differ from the long ones.
Specifically, tuning the cutoff in the bending fluctuations integration, the model can even reproduce the transition between over-twisting and untwisting regime experimentally located at $\sim 30 pN$ in kilo-base sequences, with the caveat that such forces may be excessive to be applied to fragments of only ten base pairs [ as they could disrupt the stacking bonds.]{} Furthermore, adding (and subtracting) helix turns to the equilibrium conformation for a fixed stretching perturbation, we have derived the relation between helix elongation and superhelical density which appears essentially linear in the over-twisting regime.
We have also shown how the equilibrium helical repeat, predicted by minimizing the free energy in the presence of a load, could vary with the specific choice of model potential parametrization. Thus, we feel confident that the proposed method makes a valid computational tool to characterize specific fragments for which experiments could provide sufficient information to fit the set of potential parameters.
[widest-label]{}
K. Kiianitsa, A. Stasiak, Helical repeat of DNA in the region of homologous pairing. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, **94**, 7837-7840, 1997.
A.L. Forget, S.C. Kowalczykowski, Single-molecule imaging of DNA pairing by RecA reveals a three-dimensional homology search. *Nature*, **482**, 423, 2012.
S. Atwell, L. Disseau, A.Z. Stasiak, A. Stasiak, A. Renodon-Cornière, M. Takahashi, J.-L. Viovy and G. Cappello, Probing Rad51-DNA interactions by changing DNA twist. *Nucleic Acids Res.*, **40**, 11769-11776, 2012.
J.L. Killian, M. Li, M.Y. Sheinin, M.D. Wang, Recent advances in single molecule studies of nucleosomes. *Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.*, **22**, 80–87, 2012.
E.L. Albuquerque, U.L. Fulco, V.N. Freire, E.W.S. Caetano, M.L. Lyra, and F.A.B.F. de Moura, DNA-Based Nanobiostructured Devices: The Role of the Quasiperiodicity and Correlation Effects. *Phys. Rep.*, **535**, 139, 2014.
S. Chu, Laser manipulation of atoms and particles. *Science*, **253**, 861-866, 1991.
S. Smith, L. Finzi, C. Bustamante, Direct mechanical measurement of the elasticity of single DNA molecules by using magnetic beads. *Science*, **258**, 1122-1126, 1992.
C. Bustamante, J.F. Marko, E.D. Siggia, S. Smith, Entropic elasticity of lambda-phage DNA. *Science*, **265**, 1599-1601, 1994.
P. Cluzel, A. Lebrun, C. Heller, R. Lavery, J.L. Viovy, D. Chatenay, F. Caron, DNA: an extensible molecule. *Science*, **271**, 792-794, 1996.
M.D. Wang, H. Yin, R. Landick, J. Gelles, S.M. Block, Stretching DNA with Optical Tweezers. *Biophys. J.*, **72**, 1335-1346, 1997.
J. van Mameren, P. Gross, G. Farge, P. Hooijman, M. Modesti, M. Falkenberg, G.J.L. Wuite and E.J.G. Peterman, Unraveling the structure of DNA during overstretching by using multicolor, single-molecule fluorescence imaging. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, **106**, 18231-18236, 2009.
C. Bustamante, S.B. Smith, J. Liphardt, D. Smith, Single-molecule studies of DNA mechanics. *Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.*, **10**, 279-285, 2000.
I. Rouzina, V.A. Bloomfield, Force-Induced Melting of the DNA Double Helix 1. Thermodynamic Analysis. *Biophys. J.*, **80**, 882-893, 2001.
J. Gore, Z. Bryant, M. Nöllmann, M.U. Le, N.R. Cozzarelli and C. Bustamante, DNA overwinds when stretched. *Nature*, **442**, 836-839, 2006.
T. Lionnet, S. Joubaud, R. Lavery, D. Bensimon, V. Croquette, Wringing out DNA. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, **96**, 178102, 2006.
K. Liebl, T. Drsata, F. Lankas, J. Lipfert, M. Zacharias, Explaining the striking difference in twist-stretch coupling between DNA and RNA: A comparative molecular dynamics analysis. *Nucleic Acid Res.*, **43**, 10143-10156, 2015.
J.F. Marko, Stretching must twist DNA. *Europhys. Lett.*, [**38**]{}, 183-188, 1997.
P. Gross, N. Laurens, L.B. Oddershede, U. Bockelmann, E.J.G. Peterman and G.J.L. Wuite, Quantifying how DNA stretches, melts and changes twist under tension. *Nature Phys.*, **7**, 731–736, 2011.
M. Zoli, Twist-stretch profiles of DNA chains. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, **29**, 225101, 2017.
A. Campa, A. Giansanti, Experimental tests of the Peyrard-Bishop model applied to the melting of very short DNA chains. *Phys. Rev. E*, **58**, 3585-3588, 1998.
D.X. Macedo, I. Guedes, E.L. Albuquerque, Thermal properties of a DNA denaturation with solvent interaction. *Physica A*, **404**, 234-241, 2014.
G. Weber, Optimization method for obtaining nearest-neighbour DNA entropies and enthalpies directly from melting temperatures. *Bioinformatics* **31**, 871–877, 2015.
A. Singh, N. Singh, Effect of salt concentration on the stability of heterogeneous DNA. *Physica A*, **419**, 328-334, 2015.
T.E. Cloutier, J. Widom, Spontaneous Sharp Bending of Double-Stranded DNA. *Mol. Cell.*, **14**, 355-362, 2004.
Q. Du, C. Smith, N. Shiffeldrim, M. Vologodskaia, and A. Vologodskii, Cyclization of short DNA fragments and bending fluctuations of the double helix. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, **102**, 5397-5402, 2005.
L. Czapla, D. Swigon, W.K. Olson, Sequence-dependent effects in the cyclization of short DNA. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.*, **2**, 685-695, 2006.
C. Yuan, H. Chen, X.W. Lou, L.A. Archer, DNA bending stiffness on small length scales. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**100**]{}, 018102, 2008.
R.S. Mathew-Fenn, R. Das, P.A B. Harbury, Remeasuring the Double Helix. *Science*, **322**, 446-449, 2008.
A.J. Mastroianni, D.A. Sivak, P.L. Geissler, A.P. Alivisatos, Probing the Conformational Distributions of Subpersistence Length DNA. *Biophys. J.*, **97**, 1408-1417, 2009.
A. Noy, R. Golestanian, Length Scale Dependence of DNA Mechanical Properties. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**109**]{}, 228101, 2012.
R. Vafabakhsh, T. Ha, Extreme Bendability of DNA Less than 100 Base Pairs Long Revealed by Single-Molecule Cyclization. *Science*, **337**, 1097-1101, 2012.
T.T. Le, H.D. Kim, Probing the elastic limit of DNA bending. *Nucleic Acids Res.*, **42**, 10786-10794, 2014.
A.K. Mazur, M. Maaloum, DNA Flexibility on Short Length Scales Probed by Atomic Force Microscopy. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, **112**, 068104, 2014.
Y.Y. Wu, L. Bao, X. Zhang, Z.J. Tan, Flexibility of short DNA helices with finite-length effect: from base pairs to tens of base pairs. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **142**, 125103, 2015.
M. Zoli, Flexibility of short DNA helices under mechanical stretching. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.*, [**18**]{}, 17666, 2016.
P.-M. Lam, Y. Zhen, Cyclization of short DNA fragments. *Physica A*, **482**, 569–572, 2017.
L. Bao, X. Zhang, L. Jin, Z.-J. Tan, Flexibility of nucleic acids: From DNA to RNA. *Chin. Phys. B*, **25**, 018703, 2016.
S. Geggier, A. Vologodskii, Sequence dependence of DNA bending rigidity. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, **107**, 15421-15426, 2010.
G. Zheng, L. Czapla, A. R. Srinivasan, W.K. Olson, How stiff is DNA? *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* , **12**, 1399–1406, 2010.
S. Piana, Structure and energy of a DNA dodecamer under tensile load. *Nucleic Acids Res.*, **33**, 7029-7038, 2005.
M. Peyrard, Nonlinear dynamics and statistical physics of DNA. *Nonlinearity*, [**17**]{}, R1, 2004.
M. Zoli, Path integral method for DNA denaturation. *Phys.Rev. E*, **79**, 041927, 2009.
M. Zoli, Denaturation patterns in heterogeneous DNA. *Phys.Rev. E*, **81**, 051910, 2010.
Z.J. Tan, S.J. Chen, Electrostatic free energy landscapes for DNA helix bending. *Biophys. J.*, **94**, 3137-3149, 2008.
G. Rossetti, P.D. Dans, I. Gomez-Pinto, I. Ivani, C. Gonzalez, M. Orozco, The structural impact of DNA mismatches. *Nucleic Acid Res.*, **43**, 4309–4321, 2015.
X. Teng, W. Hwang, Elastic Energy Partitioning in DNA Deformation and Binding to Proteins. *ACS Nano*, **10**, 170-180, 2016.
W.K. Olson, M. Bansal, S.K. Burley, R.E. Dickerson, M. Gerstein, S.C. Harvey, U. Heinemann, X.-J. Lu, S. Neidle, Z. Shakked, H. Sklenar, M. Suzuki, C.-S. Tung, E. Westhof, C. Wolberger and H.M. Berman, A Standard Reference Frame for the Description of Nucleic Acid Base-pair Geometry. *J. Mol. Biol.*, **313**, 229-237, 2001.
R. Lavery, K. Zakrzewska, D. Beveridge, T.C. Bishop, D.A. Case, T. Cheatham III, S. Dixit, B. Jayaram, F. Lankas, C. Laughton, J.H. Maddocks, A. Michon, R. Osman, M. Orozco, A. Perez, T. Singh, N. Spackova and J. Sponer, A systematic molecular dynamics study of nearest-neighbor effects on base pair and base pair step conformations and fluctuations in B-DNA. *Nucleic Acids Res.*, **38**, 299-313, 2010.
A.D. Bates, A. Maxwell, *DNA Topology* (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 2009.
R.N. Irobalieva, J.M. Fogg, D.J. Catanese, T. Sutthibutpong, M. Chen, A.K. Barker, S.J. Ludtke, S.A. Harris, M.F. Schmid, W. Chiu and L. Zechiedrich, Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA. *Nat. Commun.*, **6**, 8440, 2015.
D. Shore, R.L. Baldwin, Energetics of DNA twisting. *J. Mol. Biol.*, **170**, 983-1007, 1983.
D. Horowitz, J. Wang, Torsional Rigidity of DNA and Length Dependence of the Free Energy of DNA Supercoiling. *J. Mol. Biol.*, **173**, 75-91, 1984.
D. Marenduzzo, E. Orlandini, F. Seno, A. Trovato, Different pulling modes in DNA overstretching: A theoretical analysis. *Phys. Rev. E*, **81**, 051926, 2010.
F. Romano, D. Chakraborty, J.P.K. Doye, T.E. Ouldridge, A.A. Louis, Coarse-grained simulations of DNA overstretching. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **138**, 085101, 2013.
A.E.B. Pupo, F. Falo, A. Fiasconaro, DNA overstretching transition induced by melting in a dynamical mesoscopic model. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **139**, 095101, 2013.
C.H. Albrecht, G. Neuert, R.A. Lugmaier, H.E. Gaub, Molecular Force Balance Measurements Reveal that Double-Stranded DNA Unbinds Under Force in Rate-Dependent Pathways. *Biophys. J.*, **94**, 4766-4774, 2008.
R.M. Wartell, A.S. Benight, Thermal denaturation of DNA molecules: A comparison of theory with experiment. *Phys. Rep.*, **126**, 67-107, 1985.
Y.L. Zhang, W.M. Zheng, J.X. Liu, Y.Z. Chen, Theory of DNA melting based on the Peyrard-Bishop model. *Phys. Rev. E*, **56**, 7100-7115, 1997.
R.M. Fye, C.J. Benham, Exact method for numerically analyzing a model of local denaturation in superhelically stressed DNA. *Phys. Rev. E*, [**59**]{}, 3408-3426, 1999.
M. Joyeux, S. Buyukdagli, Dynamical model based on finite stacking enthalpies for homogeneous and inhomogeneous DNA thermal denaturation. *Phys. Rev. E* [**72**]{}, 051902, 2005.
S. Zdravković, M.V. Satarić, Single-molecule unzippering experiments on DNA and Peyrard-Bishop-Dauxois model. *Phys. Rev. E*, [**73**]{}, 021905, 2006.
A. Krueger, E. Protozanova, M.D. Frank-Kamenetskii, Sequence-Dependent Basepair Opening in DNA Double Helix. *Biophys. J.*, [**90**]{}, 3091-3099, 2006.
G. Kalosakas, S. Ares, Dependence on temperature and guanine-cytosine content of bubble length distributions in DNA. *J. Chem. Phys.*, [**130**]{}, 235104, 2009.
M. Peyrard, S. Cuesta-López, D. Angelov, Experimental and theoretical studies of sequence effects on the fluctuation and melting of short DNA molecules. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, **21**, 034103, 2009.
M.R. Kantorovitz, Z. Rapti, V. Gelev, A. Usheva, Computing DNA duplex instability profiles efficiently with a two-state model: trends of promoters and binding sites. *Bioinformatics*, **11**, 604, 2010.
C. Nisoli, A.R. Bishop, Thermomechanical stability and mechanochemical response of DNA: a minimal mesoscale model. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **141**, 115101, 2014.
I. Ferreira, T.D. Amarante, G. Weber, DNA terminal base pairs have weaker hydrogen bonds especially for AT under low salt concentration. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **143**, 175101, 2015.
A. Singh, T. Modi, N. Singh, Opening of DNA chain due to force applied on different locations. *Phys. Rev. E*, **94**, 032410, 2016.
G. Altan-Bonnet, A. Libchaber, O. Krichevsky, Bubble Dynamics in Double-Stranded DNA. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, **90**, 138101, 2003.
Y. Zeng, A. Montrichok, G. Zocchi, Bubble Nucleation and Cooperativity in DNA Melting. *J. Mol. Biol.*, **339**, 67-75, 2004.
Z. Rapti, A. Smerzi, K.[Ø]{}. Rasmussen, A.R. Bishop, C.H. Choi, and A. Usheva, Healing length and bubble formation in DNA. *Phys. Rev. E*, **73**, 051902, 2006.
A. Apostolaki, G. Kalosakas, Targets of DNA-binding proteins in bacterial promoter regions present enhanced probabilities for spontaneous thermal openings. *Phys. Biol.*, **8**, 026006, 2011.
A. Sulaiman, F.P. Zen, H. Alatas, L.T. Handoko, The thermal denaturation of the Peyrard-Bishop model with an external potential. *Phys. Scripta*, **86**, 015802, 2012.
J. Adamcik, J.-H. Jeon, K.J. Karczewski, R. Metzler, G. Dietler, Quantifying supercoiling-induced denaturation bubbles in DNA. *Soft Matter*, **8**, 8651-8658, 2012.
A.K. Dasanna, N. Destainville, J. Palmeri, M. Manghi, Slow closure of denaturation bubbles in DNA: Twist matters. *Phys. Rev. E*, **87**, 052703, 2013.
D. Poland, H. Scheraga, Occurrence of a Phase Transition in Nucleic Acid Models. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **45**, 1464-1469, 1966.
Y. Kim, K.V. Devi-Prasad, E.W. Prohofski, Self-consistent phonon theory of mean-field hydrogen-bond melting of poly(DG)-poly(DC). *Phys. Rev. B*, **32**, 5185-5189, 1985.
M. Peyrard, A.R. Bishop, Statistical mechanics of a nonlinear model for DNA denaturation. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, **62**, 2755-2758, 1989.
M. Zoli, J- factors of short DNA molecules. *J. Chem. Phys.*, [**144**]{}, 214104, 2016.
K. Drukker, G. Wu, G.C. Schatz, Model simulations of DNA denaturation dynamics. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **114**, 579-590, 2001.
M. Zoli, Thermodynamics of twisted DNA with solvent interaction. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **135**, 115101, 2011.
S. Talukder, P. Chaudhury, R. Metzler, S.K. Banik, Determining the DNA stability parameters for the breathing dynamics of heterogeneous DNA by stochastic optimization. *J. Chem. Phys.*, **135**, 165103, 2011.
J. Lipfert, G.M. Skinner, J.M. Keegstra, T. Hensgens, T. Jager, D. Dulin, M. Köber, Z. Yu, S.P. Donkers, F.-C. Chou, R. Das, N.H. Dekker, Double-stranded RNA under force and torque: Similarities to and striking differences from double-stranded DNA. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, **111**, 15408-15413, 2014.
L. Bao, X. Zhang, Y.-Z. Shi, Y.Y. Wu, Z.J. Tan, Understanding the Relative Flexibility of RNA and DNA Duplexes: Stretching and Twist-Stretch Coupling. *Biophys. J.*, **112**, 1094-1104, 2017.
M. Zoli, Anharmonic stacking in supercoiled DNA. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, [**24**]{}, 195103, 2012.
T. Dauxois, M. Peyrard, A.R. Bishop, Entropy-driven DNA denaturation. *Phys. Rev. E*, **47**, R44-47, 1993.
S. Ares, N.K. Voulgarakis, K.[Ø]{}. Rasmussen, A.R. Bishop, Bubble Nucleation and Cooperativity in DNA Melting. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, **94**, 035504, 2005.
R.P. Feynman, A.R. Hibbs, [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{}, (Mc Graw-Hill, New York), 1965.
R. Jackiw, Quantum meaning of classical field theory. *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, **49**, 681-706, 1977.
M. Zoli, Stacking interactions in denaturation of DNA fragments. *Eur. Phys. J. E*, [**34**]{}, 68, 2011.
M. Zoli, Path integral description of a semiclassical Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model. *Phys. Rev. B*, [**67**]{}, 195102, 2003.
M. Zoli, Twist versus nonlinear stacking in short DNA molecules. *J. Theor. Biol.*, [**354**]{}, 95-104, 2014.
J.C. Wang, Helical repeat of DNA in solution. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, **76**, 200-203, 1979.
M. Duguet, The helical repeat of DNA at high temperature. *Nucleic Acids Res.*, **21**, 463-468, 1993.
F.H. Crick, A. Klug, Kinky helix. *Nature*, **255**, 530-533, 1975.
D.S. Sanchez, H. Qu, D. Bulla, G. Zocchi, DNA kinks and bubbles: Temperature dependence of the elastic energy of sharply bent 10-nm-size DNA molecules. *Phys. Rev. E*, **87**, 022710, 2013.
R. Padinhateeri, G.I. Menon, Stretching and Bending Fluctuations of Short DNA Molecules. *Biophys. J.*, **104**, 463-471, 2013.
G. Weber, J.W. Essex, C. Neylon, Probing the microscopic flexibility of DNA from melting temperatures. *Nat. Phys.*, **5**, 769-773, 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'NuclearMatter.bib'
---
[Lattice chiral effective field theory with three-body interactions at next-to-next-to-leading order]{}
[Evgeny Epelbaum$^{a,b}$, Hermann Krebs$^{b,a}$, Dean Lee$^{c,b}$, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner$^{b,a,d}$]{}
$^{a}$*Institut für Kernphysik (IKP-3) and Jülich Center for Hadron Physics,*
*Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany*
$^{b}$*Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik (Theorie)*
*and Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics,* *Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany*
$^{c}$*Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA*
$^{d}$*Institute for Advanced Simulations (IAS),*
*Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany*
[Abstract]{}
We consider low-energy nucleons at next-to-next-to-leading order in lattice chiral effective field theory. Three-body interactions first appear at this order, and we discuss several methods for determining three-body interaction coefficients on the lattice. We compute the energy of the triton and low-energy neutron-deuteron scattering phase shifts in the spin-doublet and spin-quartet channels using Lüscher’s finite volume method. In the four-nucleon system we calculate the energy of the $\alpha$ particle using auxiliary fields and projection Monte Carlo.
Introduction
============
We study low-energy nucleons on the lattice at next-to-next-to-leading order in chiral effective field theory. In Weinberg’s scheme [@Weinberg:1990rz; @Weinberg:1991um] counting orders in effective field theory is equivalent to dimensional analysis for irreducible diagrams. The expansion parameter is $Q$/$\Lambda$, where $Q$ is the low momentum scale associated with external nucleon momenta or the pion mass, and $\Lambda$ is the high momentum scale at which the effective theory breaks down. Terms at next-to-next-to-leading order are of size $Q^{3}$/$\Lambda^{3}$, and three-nucleon interactions first contribute at this order. In this work we consider three-nucleon forces on the lattice for systems with three and four nucleons. Our analysis continues a series of recent papers on lattice chiral effective field theory for few- and many-nucleon systems. Previous studies have considered dilute neutron matter and light nuclei using interactions at leading order [@Lee:2004si; @Borasoy:2006qn] and next-to-leading order [@Borasoy:2007vi; @Borasoy:2007vk; @Epelbaum:2008vj].
Our discussion is organized into three parts. The first part begins with an overview of the effective potential for nucleons up to next-to-next-to-leading order in chiral effective field theory. Reviews of chiral effective field theory can be found in Ref. [@vanKolck:1999mw; @Bedaque:2002mn; @Epelbaum:2005pn; @Epelbaum:2008ga]. We discuss some simplifications that can be made at low cutoff momentum and present lattice operators for each interaction. Nucleon-nucleon phase shifts and the $S$-$D$ mixing angle are determined using a spherical wall method [@Borasoy:2007vy] and used to set unknown operator coefficients. In the second part we calculate the low-energy spectrum for three nucleons. We compute the triton energy and determine neutron-deuteron phase shifts using Lüscher’s finite volume method. These are used to constrain the two unknown three-body operator coefficients. In the third and final part we rewrite the lattice action in terms of auxiliary fields and use projection Monte Carlo to calculate the energy of the $\alpha$ particle. This leads to a discussion of alternative methods for fixing three-body operator coefficients. We summarize our results and discuss possible extensions in future work.
Chiral effective field theory
=============================
Effective potential for two nucleons
------------------------------------
In the following $\vec{q}$ denotes the $t$-channel momentum transfer for nucleon-nucleon scattering while $\vec{k}$ is the $u$-channel exchanged momentum transfer. We assume exact isospin symmetry and neglect electromagnetic interactions. At leading order (LO) in the Weinberg scheme the two-nucleon effective potential consists of two independent contact terms and instantaneous one-pion exchange (OPEP),$$V_{\text{LO}}=V^{(0)}+V^{\text{OPEP}}. \label{VLO}$$ The scattering between nucleons consists of contributions from direct and exchange diagrams. Nevertheless for bookkeeping purposes we label the interactions according to the tree-level scattering amplitude for distinguishable nucleons. For two-nucleon interactions we label one nucleon as type $A$ and the other nucleon as type $B$. In this notation the amplitude for $V^{(0)}$ is$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V^{(0)}\right] =C_{S}+C_{T}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) , \label{V0}$$ and the amplitude for $V^{\text{OPEP}}$ is$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V^{\text{OPEP}}\right] =-\left( \frac{g_{A}}{2f_{\pi}}\right) ^{2}\boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\frac{\left(
\vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{q}\right) \left( \vec{\sigma}_{B}\cdot\vec
{q}\right) }{q^{\,2}+m_{\pi}^{2}}. \label{VOPEP}$$ The vector arrow in $\vec{\sigma}$ signifies the three-vector index for spin. The boldface for $\boldsymbol\tau$ signifies the three-vector index for isospin. We take for our physical constants $m=938.92$ MeV as the nucleon mass, $m_{\pi}=138.08$ MeV as the pion mass, $f_{\pi}=93$ MeV as the pion decay constant, and $g_{A}=1.26$ as the nucleon axial charge.
At next-to-leading order (NLO) the two-nucleon effective potential contains seven independent contact terms carrying two powers of momentum, corrections to the two LO contact terms, and the leading contribution from the instantaneous two-pion exchange potential (TPEP) [@Ordonez:1992xp; @Ordonez:1993tn; @Ordonez:1996rz; @Epelbaum:1998ka; @Epelbaum:1999dj],$$V_{\text{NLO}}=V_{\text{LO}}+\Delta V^{(0)}+V^{(2)}+V_{\text{NLO}}^{\text{TPEP}}. \label{VNLO}$$ The tree-level amplitudes for the contact interactions are$$\mathcal{A}\left[ \Delta V^{(0)}\right] =\Delta C_{S}+\Delta C_{T}\left(
\vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) \label{dV0}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\left[ V^{(2)}\right] & =C_{1}q^{2}+C_{2}k^{2}+\left(
C_{3}q^{2}+C_{4}k^{2}\right) \left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) +iC_{5}\frac{1}{2}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}+\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) \cdot\left( \vec{q}\times\vec{k}\right) \nonumber\\
& +C_{6}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{q}\right) \left( \vec{\sigma}_{B}\cdot\vec{q}\right) +C_{7}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{k}\right)
\left( \vec{\sigma}_{B}\cdot\vec{k}\right) . \label{V2}$$ The amplitude for the NLO two-pion exchange potential is [@Friar:1994; @Kaiser:1997mw]$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{NLO}}^{\text{TPEP}}\right] & =-\frac
{\boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}}{384\pi^{2}f_{\pi}^{4}}L(q)\left[ 4m_{\pi}^{2}\left( 5g_{A}^{4}-4g_{A}^{2}-1\right) +q^{2}\left(
23g_{A}^{4}-10g_{A}^{2}-1\right) +\frac{48g_{A}^{4}m_{\pi}^{4}}{4m_{\pi}^{2}+q^{2}}\right] \nonumber\\
& -\frac{3g_{A}^{4}}{64\pi^{2}f_{\pi}^{4}}L(q)\left[ \left( \vec{q}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right)
-q^{2}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) \right] ,
\label{VTPEPNLO}$$ where$$L(q)=\frac{1}{2q}\sqrt{4m_{\pi}^{2}+q^{2}}\ln\frac{\sqrt{4m_{\pi}^{2}+q^{2}}+q}{\sqrt{4m_{\pi}^{2}+q^{2}}-q}. \label{Lq}$$
At next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) there are no additional two-nucleon contact interactions, but the two-pion exchange potential contains a subleading contribution,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{NNLO}}^{\text{TPEP}}\right] & =-\frac
{3g_{A}^{2}}{16\pi f_{\pi}^{4}}A(q)\left( 2m_{\pi}^{2}+q^{2}\right) \left[
2m_{\pi}^{2}\left( 2c_{1}-c_{3}\right) -c_{3}q^{2}\right] \nonumber\\
& -\frac{g_{A}^{2}c_{4}\left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau
_{B}\right) }{32\pi f_{\pi}^{4}}A(q)\left( 4m_{\pi}^{2}+q^{2}\right)
\left[ \left( \vec{q}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}\cdot
\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) -q^{2}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) \right] ,\end{aligned}$$ where$$A(q)=\frac{1}{2q}\arctan\frac{q}{2m_{\pi}}.$$ The low-energy constants $c_{1},c_{3},c_{4}$ parameterize the coupling of the nucleon to two pions. These constants have been determined from fits to low-energy pion-nucleon scattering data [@Bernard:1995dp], and in the following we use the values $c_{1}=-0.81$ GeV$^{-1}$, $c_{3}=-4.7$ GeV$^{-1}$, $c_{4}=3.4$ GeV$^{-1}$ [@Buettiker:1999ap].
Three-nucleon interactions
--------------------------
A number of different phenomenological three-nucleon potentials have been introduced in the literature [@Fujita:1957zz; @McKellar:1968a; @Yang:1974zz; @Coon:1974vc; @Coon:1978gr; @Coon:1981TM; @Carlson:1983kq; @Coelho:1984hk; @Pudliner:1997ck]. Effective field theory provides a systematic method for estimating the relative importance of three-body interaction terms. Few-nucleon forces in chiral effective field theory beyond two nucleons were first introduced in Ref. [@Weinberg:1991um]. In Ref. [@vanKolck:1994yi] it was shown that three-nucleon interactions at NLO cancel and three-body effects first appear at NNLO. The NNLO three-nucleon effective potential includes a pure contact potential, $V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}$, one-pion exchange potential, $V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}$, and a two-pion exchange potential, $V_{\text{TPE}}^{(3N)}$, $$V_{\text{NNLO}}^{(3N)}=V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{TPE}}^{(3N)}.$$ The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig. \[threebody\].
\[ptb\]
[ThreeBody.eps]{}
Similar to our bookkeeping notation for two-nucleon interactions, we write the tree-level amplitude for three-nucleon interactions where the first nucleon is type $A$, the second nucleon type $B$, and the third type $C$. We sum over all permutations $P(A,B,C)$ of the labels, and $\vec{q}_{A}$, $\vec{q}_{B}$, $\vec{q}_{C}$ are defined as the differences between final and initial momenta for the respective nucleons. The amplitudes for $V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}$ and $V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}$ are [@Friar:1998zt; @Epelbaum:2002vt]$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}\right] =\frac{1}{2}E\sum_{P(A,B,C)}\left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\right) ,
\label{contact_cont}$$$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}\right] =-\frac{g_{A}}{8f_{\pi}^{2}}D\sum_{P\left( A,B,C\right) }\frac{\vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}}{q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}}\left( \vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right)
\left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\right) . \label{OPE_cont}$$ The coefficients $E$ and $D$ are both cutoff dependent. The coefficient $E$ determines the short distance interactions between three nucleons, while $D$ determines the pion coupling to two nucleons. Following the notation introduced in Ref. [@Epelbaum:2002vt], we define dimensionless parameters $c_{E}$ and $c_{D}$ such that $$E=\frac{c_{E}}{f_{\pi}^{4}\Lambda_{\chi}},\quad D=\frac{c_{D}}{f_{\pi}^{2}\Lambda_{\chi}}\text{,}$$ where $\Lambda_{\chi}\simeq m_{\rho}$. We take $\Lambda_{\chi}=700$ MeV.
For convenience we separately label three parts of the two-pion exchange potential$,$$$V_{\text{TPE}}^{(3N)}=V_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)}.$$ The corresponding amplitudes are$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)}\right] =\frac{c_{3}}{f_{\pi}^{2}}\left( \frac{g_{A}}{2f_{\pi}}\right) ^{2}\sum_{P\left( A,B,C\right)
}\frac{\left( \vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}_{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) }{\left( q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right)
\left( q_{B}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) }\left( \vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{q}_{B}\right) \left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\right) ,
\label{TPE1_cont}$$$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)}\right] =-\frac{2c_{1}m_{\pi}^{2}}{f_{\pi}^{2}}\left( \frac{g_{A}}{2f_{\pi}}\right) ^{2}\sum_{P\left(
A,B,C\right) }\frac{\left( \vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left(
\vec{q}_{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) }{\left( q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) \left( q_{B}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) }\left( \boldsymbol\tau
_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\right) , \label{TPE2_cont}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)}\right] & =\frac{c_{4}}{2f_{\pi
}^{2}}\left( \frac{g_{A}}{2f_{\pi}}\right) ^{2}\nonumber\\
& \times\sum_{P\left( A,B,C\right) }\frac{\left( \vec{q}_{A}\cdot
\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}_{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right)
}{\left( q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) \left( q_{B}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right)
}\left[ \left( \vec{q}_{A}\times\vec{q}_{B}\right) \cdot\vec{\sigma}_{C}\right] \left[ \left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\times\boldsymbol\tau
_{B}\right) \cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{C}\right] . \label{TPE3_cont}$$
Simplified form at low cutoff momentum
--------------------------------------
A number of alternatives to Weinberg’s power counting have recently been discussed in the literature [@Beane:2001bc; @Nogga:2005hy; @Birse:2005um; @Birse:2007sx]. However at low cutoff momentum the advantages of these alternative schemes are numerically small [@Epelbaum:2006pt]. In this study we use spatial lattice spacing $a=(100$ MeV$)^{-1}$, corresponding with cutoff momentum $\Lambda=314$ MeV $\approx2.3m_{\pi}$. Our choice of low cutoff scale avoids numerical problems in Monte Carlo simulations due to spurious deeply-bound states and large sign/phase oscillations.
In the following lattice calculations we use Weinberg’s power counting with some additional simplifications made possible by the low cutoff momentum. For nearly all $\left\vert q\right\vert <\Lambda$ we can expand the NLO two-pion exchange potential in powers of $q^{2}/(4m_{\pi}^{2}),$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{NLO}}^{\text{TPEP}}\right] & =-\frac
{\boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}}{384\pi^{2}f_{\pi}^{4}}\left[
4m_{\pi}^{2}\left( 8g_{A}^{4}-4g_{A}^{2}-1\right) +\frac{2}{3}q^{2}\left(
34g_{A}^{4}-17g_{A}^{2}-2\right) +m_{\pi}^{2}O\left( \left( \tfrac{q^{2}}{4m_{\pi}^{2}}\right) ^{2}\right) \right] \nonumber\\
& -\frac{3g_{A}^{4}}{64\pi^{2}f_{\pi}^{4}}\left[ \left( \vec{q}\cdot
\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right)
-q^{2}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) \right] \left[
1+O\left( \tfrac{q^{2}}{4m_{\pi}^{2}}\right) \right] . \label{localTPEP}$$ This expansion fails to converge only for values of $q$ near the cutoff scale $\Lambda$ $\approx2.3m_{\pi}$, where the effective theory is already problematic due to large cutoff effects. From a practical viewpoint there is no advantage in retaining the full non-local structure of $V_{\text{NLO}}^{\text{TPEP}}$ at this lattice spacing. Instead we simply use$$V_{\text{LO}}=V^{(0)}+V^{\text{OPEP}},$$$$V_{\text{NLO}}=V_{\text{LO}}+\Delta V^{(0)}+V^{(2)},$$ where the terms in Eq. (\[localTPEP\]) with up to two powers of $q$ are absorbed as a redefinition of the coefficients $\Delta V^{(0)}$ and $V^{(2)}$.
Similarly we can expand the NNLO two-pion exchange potential,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{NNLO}}^{\text{TPEP}}\right] & =-\frac
{3g_{A}^{2}m_{\pi}}{16\pi f_{\pi}^{4}}\left[ m_{\pi}^{2}\left( 2c_{1}-c_{3}\right) +q^{2}\left( \frac{5}{6}c_{1}-\frac{11}{12}c_{3}\right)
+m_{\pi}^{2}O\left( \left( \tfrac{q^{2}}{4m_{\pi}^{2}}\right) ^{2}\right)
\right] \nonumber\\
& -\frac{g_{A}^{2}c_{4}\left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau
_{B}\right) m_{\pi}}{32\pi f_{\pi}^{4}}\left[ \left( \vec{q}\cdot
\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right)
-q^{2}\left( \vec{\sigma}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) \right] \left[
1+O\left( \tfrac{q^{2}}{4m_{\pi}^{2}}\right) \right] .\end{aligned}$$ The terms with two powers of $q$ were already included at NLO, and so there are no additional terms in the two-nucleon potential at NNLO. In our low cutoff scheme the only new contributions at NNLO are due to three-nucleon interactions,$$V_{\text{NNLO}}=V_{\text{NLO}}+V_{\text{NNLO}}^{(3N)}.$$
Lattice interactions at LO and NLO
==================================
Transfer matrix at LO
---------------------
In our Euclidean-time lattice formalism the transfer matrix operator is the normal-ordered exponential of the lattice Hamiltonian, $\colon\exp(-H\Delta
t)\colon$, where $\Delta t$ equals one temporal lattice spacing, $a_{t}$. At leading order we use the LO$_{2}$ transfer matrix with Gaussian-smeared interactions [@Borasoy:2006qn; @Borasoy:2007vi; @Borasoy:2007vk]. Since we consider only one action, we drop the $2$ subscript on LO$_{2}$. The transfer matrix operator is $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\text{LO}} & =\colon\exp\left\{ -H_{\text{free}}\alpha_{t}-\frac
{\alpha_{t}}{2L^{3}}\sum_{\vec{q}}f(\vec{q})\left[ C\rho^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec
{q})\rho^{a^{\dag},a}(-\vec{q})+C_{I^{2}}\sum_{I}\rho_{I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec
{q})\rho_{I}^{a^{\dag},a}(-\vec{q})\right] \right. \nonumber\\
& +\left. \frac{g_{A}^{2}\alpha_{t}^{2}}{8f_{\pi}^{2}q_{\pi}}\sum
_{\substack{S_{1},S_{2},I}}\sum_{\vec{n}_{1},\vec{n}_{2}}G_{S_{1}S_{2}}(\vec{n}_{1}-\vec{n}_{2})\rho_{S_{1},I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}_{1})\rho
_{S_{2},I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}_{2})\right\} \colon. \label{LO}$$ The momentum-dependent coefficient function $f(\vec{q})$ is given by $$f(\vec{q})=f_{0}^{-1}\exp\left[ -b{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{l}}
\left( 1-\cos q_{l}\right) \right] ,$$ where$$f_{0}=\frac{1}{L^{3}}\sum_{\vec{q}}\exp\left[ -b{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{l}}
\left( 1-\cos q_{l}\right) \right] .$$ Our lattice notation is defined in the Appendix. The densities $\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}$ and $\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}$ and spin-dependent one-pion exchange potential $G_{S_{1}S_{2}}$ are also defined in the Appendix. We use the value $b=0.6$, which gives approximately the correct effective range for the two $S$-wave channels when $C$ and $C_{I^{2}}$ are tuned to the physical scattering lengths. $C$ is the coefficient of the Wigner SU(4)-invariant contact interaction [@Wigner:1937], and $C_{I^{2}}$ is the coefficient of the isospin-dependent contact interaction. In terms of coefficients for the isospin-singlet and triplet channels, $$C=\left( 3C^{I=1}+C^{I=0}\right) /4, \label{C_coeff}$$$$C_{I^{2}}=\left( C^{I=1}-C^{I=0}\right) /4. \label{C_I2_coeff}$$ This improved leading-order action is treated non-perturbatively while higher-order interactions are included as a perturbative expansion in powers of $Q/\Lambda$. This is sketched in Fig. \[eftorders\].
\[ptb\]
[EFTorders.eps]{}
In pionless effective field theory the three-nucleon contact interaction is included at leading order [@Bedaque:1998kg; @Bedaque:1998km; @Bedaque:1999ve]. This is needed to stabilize the three-nucleon system in the limit of zero-range interactions [@Thomas:1935]. In this study we use chiral effective field theory where the interactions have nonzero range. However given our coarse lattice spacing, we may find that the three-body contact interaction is numerically large and requires non-perturbative treatment. Non-perturbative three-body contact interactions on the lattice have been discussed in the literature [@Chen:2004rq; @Borasoy:2005yc; @Lee:2008fa]. However for the lattice calculations presented here we choose a different approach to address the same problem.
We use the fact that the three-nucleon interaction depends on both the spatial lattice spacing, $a$, and the temporal lattice spacing, $a_{t}$. The temporal lattice spacing regulates the transfer matrix element when the interaction potential energy exceeds $a_{t}^{-1}$. As a result it can affect the magnitude and sign of the three-body contact interaction [@Lee:2005xy]. With the spatial lattice spacing held fixed, we dial the temporal lattice spacing to a value where the three-nucleon interaction is numerically small. This involves a calculation of the spectrum of the three-nucleon system. In the following calculations we use the lattice spacings $a=(100$ MeV$)^{-1}$ and $a_{t}=(150$ MeV$)^{-1}$ and show that the strength of the three-nucleon contact interaction is small enough to be treated using perturbation theory. For these lattice spacings we find leading-order coefficients $C^{I=0}=-5.105\times10^{-5}$ MeV$^{-2}$ and $C^{I=1}=-3.507\times10^{-5}$ MeV$^{-2}$ when tuned to the physical $S$-wave scattering lengths$.$
Transfer matrix at NLO
----------------------
At next-to-leading order the lattice transfer matrix is$$\begin{aligned}
M_{\text{NLO}} & =M_{\text{LO}}-\left. \alpha_{t}\colon\left[ \Delta
V+\Delta V_{I^{2}}+V_{q^{2}}+V_{I^{2},q^{2}}+V_{S^{2},q^{2}}\right. \right.
\nonumber\\
& \left. \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+V_{S^{2},I^{2},q^{2}}+V_{(q\cdot S)^{2}}+V_{I^{2},(q\cdot S)^{2}}+V_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1}\right] M_{\text{LO}}\colon\text{.}$$ The corrections to the leading-order contact interactions are$$\Delta V=\frac{1}{2}\Delta C:\sum\limits_{\vec{n}}\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec
{n})\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$$$\Delta V_{I^{2}}=\frac{1}{2}\Delta C_{I^{2}}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n},I}\rho
_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$ and the seven independent contact interactions with two derivatives are$$V_{q^{2}}=-\frac{1}{2}C_{q^{2}}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n},l}\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$$$V_{I^{2},q^{2}}=-\frac{1}{2}C_{I^{2},q^{2}}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n},I,l}\rho
_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$$$V_{S^{2},q^{2}}=-\frac{1}{2}C_{S^{2},q^{2}}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n},S,l}\rho
_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$$$V_{S^{2},I^{2},q^{2}}=-\frac{1}{2}C_{S^{2},I^{2},q^{2}}:\sum\limits_{\vec
{n},S,I,l}\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho
_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$$$V_{(q\cdot S)^{2}}=\frac{1}{2}C_{(q\cdot S)^{2}}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n}}\sum\limits_{S}\Delta_{S}\rho_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\sum
\limits_{S^{\prime}}\Delta_{S^{\prime}}\rho_{S^{\prime}}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$$$V_{I^{2},(q\cdot S)^{2}}=\frac{1}{2}C_{I^{2},(q\cdot S)^{2}}:\sum
\limits_{\vec{n},I}\sum\limits_{S}\Delta_{S}\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec
{n})\sum\limits_{S^{\prime}}\Delta_{S^{\prime}}\rho_{S^{\prime},I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}):,$$$$\begin{aligned}
V_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1} & =-\frac{i}{2}C_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1}\left\{ \frac{3}{4}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n},l,S,l^{\prime}}\varepsilon
_{l,S,l^{\prime}}\left[ \Pi_{l}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\Pi_{l,S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\right] :\right. \nonumber\\
& +\left. \frac{1}{4}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n},l,S,l^{\prime},I}\varepsilon
_{l,S,l^{\prime}}\left[ \Pi_{l,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\Pi_{l,S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec
{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\right] :\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ The densities, current densities, and symbols $\Delta_{l}$ and $\triangledown
_{l}^{2}$, are defined in the Appendix.
The $V_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1}$ term is designed to eliminate lattice artifacts in the spin-triplet even-parity channels. This is done by projecting onto the isospin-triplet state,$$V_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1}=V_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}+V_{I^{2},(iq\times
S)\cdot k},$$ where$$V_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}=-\frac{i}{2}C_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}:\sum
\limits_{\vec{n},l,S,l^{\prime}}\varepsilon_{l,S,l^{\prime}}\left[ \Pi
_{l}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\Pi_{l,S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho
^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\right] :,$$$$V_{I^{2},(iq\times S)\cdot k}=-\frac{i}{2}C_{I^{2},(iq\times S)\cdot k}:\sum\limits_{\vec{n},l,S,l^{\prime},I}\varepsilon_{l,S,l^{\prime}}\left[
\Pi_{l,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger
},a}(\vec{n})+\Pi_{l,S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\Delta_{l^{\prime}}\rho
_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\right] :,$$ and$$C_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}=\frac{3}{4}C_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1},$$$$C_{I^{2},(iq\times S)\cdot k}=\frac{1}{4}C_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1}.$$
We measure phase shifts on the lattice by imposing a spherical wall boundary on the relative separation between two nucleons at some chosen radius. From the properties of the spherical standing waves we determine scattering phase shifts and mixing angles [@Borasoy:2007vy]. The scattering results are nearly identical with the LO$_{2}$ data at lattice spacings $a=(100$ MeV$)^{-1}$ and $a_{t}=(70$ MeV$)^{-1}$ presented in Ref. [@Borasoy:2007vi]. The values for the next-to-leading order coefficients are shown in Table \[NLOcoeff\]. These values are similar to the NLO$_{2}$ coefficients in Table III of Ref. [@Borasoy:2007vi], though there are some differences due to the change in temporal lattice spacing.
\[c\][||c|c||]{}Coefficient & Value\
$\Delta C$ \[MeV$^{-2}$\] & $4.08\times10^{-6}$\
$\Delta C_{I^{2}}$ \[MeV$^{-2}$\] & $5.92\times10^{-6}$\
$C_{q^{2}}$ \[MeV$^{-4}$\] & $-1.31\times10^{-9}$\
$C_{I^{2},q^{2}}$ \[MeV$^{-4}$\] & $-3.26\times10^{-10}$\
$C_{S^{2},q^{2}}$ \[MeV$^{-4}$\] & $-1.53\times10^{-10}$\
$C_{S^{2},I^{2},q^{2}}$ \[MeV$^{-4}$\] & $-2.64\times10^{-10}$\
$C_{(q\cdot S)^{2}}$ \[MeV$^{-4}$\] & $-1.92\times10^{-10}$\
$C_{I^{2},(q\cdot S)^{2}}$ \[MeV$^{-4}$\] & $9.20\times10^{-12}$\
$C_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}^{I=1}$ \[MeV$^{-4}$\] & $1.11\times10^{-10}$\
Three-nucleon interactions at NNLO
==================================
At next-to-next-to-leading order the transfer matrix is$$M_{\text{NNLO}}=M_{\text{NLO}}-\left. \alpha_{t}\colon\right. \left[
V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)}+V_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)}\right] M_{\text{LO}}:.$$ From the constraints of isospin symmetry, spin symmetry, and Fermi statistics, there is only one independent three-nucleon contact interaction [@Bedaque:1999ve; @Epelbaum:2002vt]. In Eq. (\[contact\_cont\]) we wrote this as a $\boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}$ interaction over all permutations of the labels $A,B,C$. For our lattice action we choose to write the contact interaction $V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}$ as a product of total nucleon densities,$$V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}=\frac{1}{6}D_{\text{contact}}:\sum_{\vec{n}}\left[
\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\right] ^{3}:\text{.}$$ The one-pion exchange potential $V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}$ can be written as$$V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}=-D_{\text{OPE}}\frac{g_{A}\alpha_{t}}{2f_{\pi}q_{\pi}}\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime},S^{\prime}}\left\langle
\Delta_{S^{\prime}}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n}^{\prime},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\pi
_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle :\rho_{S^{\prime},I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}^{\prime})\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n})\rho^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec
{n}):\text{.}$$ The three two-pion exchange terms $V_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)},$ $V_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)},$ $V_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)}$ are$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)} & =D_{\text{TPE1}}\frac{g_{A}^{2}\alpha_{t}^{2}}{4f_{\pi}^{2}q_{\pi}^{2}}\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime},S^{\prime}}\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime\prime},S^{\prime\prime}}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\!\\
\!
\end{array}
\left\langle \Delta_{S^{\prime}}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n}^{\prime},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle \right. \nonumber\\
& \times\left. \left\langle \Delta_{S^{\prime\prime}}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n}^{\prime\prime},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle :\rho_{S^{\prime},I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}^{\prime})\rho_{S^{\prime\prime},I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}^{\prime\prime})\rho^{a^{\dag
},a}(\vec{n}):\begin{array}
[c]{c}\!\\
\!
\end{array}
\right] \text{,}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)} & =D_{\text{TPE2}}m_{\pi}^{2}\frac{g_{A}^{2}\alpha_{t}^{2}}{4f_{\pi}^{2}q_{\pi}^{2}}\sum_{\vec{n},I}\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime
},S^{\prime}}\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime\prime},S^{\prime\prime}}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\!\\
\!
\end{array}
\left\langle \Delta_{S^{\prime}}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n}^{\prime},n_{t})\square\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle \right. \nonumber\\
& \times\left. \left\langle \Delta_{S^{\prime\prime}}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n}^{\prime\prime},n_{t})\square\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle :\rho_{S^{\prime},I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}^{\prime})\rho_{S^{\prime\prime},I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}^{\prime\prime})\rho^{a^{\dag
},a}(\vec{n}):\begin{array}
[c]{c}\!\\
\!
\end{array}
\right] ,\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)} & =D_{\text{TPE3}}\frac{g_{A}^{2}\alpha_{t}^{2}}{4f_{\pi}^{2}q_{\pi}^{2}}\sum_{\vec{n},S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}}\sum_{I_{1},I_{2},I_{3}}\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime},S^{\prime}}\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime\prime
},S^{\prime\prime}}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\!\\
\!
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber\\
& \times\left\langle \Delta_{S^{\prime}}\pi_{I_{1}}^{\prime}(\vec{n}^{\prime
},n_{t})\Delta_{S_{1}}\pi_{I_{1}}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle
\left\langle \Delta_{S^{\prime\prime}}\pi_{I_{2}}^{\prime}(\vec{n}^{\prime\prime},n_{t})\Delta_{S_{2}}\pi_{I_{2}}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle \nonumber\\
& \times\left. \varepsilon_{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}}\varepsilon_{I_{1},I_{2},I_{3}}:\rho_{S^{\prime},I_{1}}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}^{\prime})\rho
_{S^{\prime\prime},I_{2}}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}^{\prime\prime})\rho
_{S_{3},I_{3}}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n}):\begin{array}
[c]{c}\!\\
\!
\end{array}
\right] \text{.}$$ Definitions for the $\square$ symbol and the two-point pion correlation functions are given in the Appendix.
In the continuum limit the tree-level scattering amplitudes are$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)}\right] =D_{\text{contact}}\text{,}$$$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)}\right] =-D_{\text{OPE}}\frac{g_{A}}{2f_{\pi}}\sum_{P\left( A,B,C\right) }\frac{\vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma
}_{A}}{q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}}\left( \vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right)
\left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\right) ,$$$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)}\right] =D_{\text{TPE1}}\frac
{g_{A}^{2}}{4f_{\pi}^{2}}\sum_{P\left( A,B,C\right) }\frac{\left( \vec
{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}_{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) }{\left( q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) \left( q_{B}^{2}+m_{\pi
}^{2}\right) }\left( \vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{q}_{B}\right) \left(
\boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\right) ,$$$$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)}\right] =D_{\text{TPE2}}m_{\pi}^{2}\frac{g_{A}^{2}}{4f_{\pi}^{2}}\sum_{P\left( A,B,C\right) }\frac{\left(
\vec{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}_{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma
}_{B}\right) }{\left( q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) \left( q_{B}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) }\left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\cdot\boldsymbol\tau
_{B}\right) ,$$ $$\mathcal{A}\left[ V_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)}\right] =D_{\text{TPE3}}\frac
{g_{A}^{2}}{4f_{\pi}^{2}}\sum_{P\left( A,B,C\right) }\frac{\left( \vec
{q}_{A}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{A}\right) \left( \vec{q}_{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\right) }{\left( q_{A}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}\right) \left( q_{B}^{2}+m_{\pi
}^{2}\right) }\left[ \left( \vec{q}_{A}\times\vec{q}_{B}\right) \cdot
\vec{\sigma}_{C}\right] \left[ \left( \boldsymbol\tau_{A}\times
\boldsymbol\tau_{B}\right) \cdot\boldsymbol\tau_{C}\right] .$$ Comparing these with Eq. (\[contact\_cont\]-\[TPE3\_cont\]), we have$$D_{\text{contact}}=-3E=-\frac{3c_{E}}{f_{\pi}^{4}\Lambda_{\chi}},\qquad
D_{\text{OPE}}=\frac{D}{4f_{\pi}}=\frac{c_{D}}{4f_{\pi}^{3}\Lambda_{\chi}},$$$$D_{\text{TPE1}}=\frac{c_{3}}{f_{\pi}^{2}},\qquad D_{\text{TPE2}}=-\frac
{2c_{1}}{f_{\pi}^{2}},\qquad D_{\text{TPE3}}=\frac{c_{4}}{2f_{\pi}^{2}}.$$
Triton energy
-------------
With the lattice transfer matrices $M_{\text{LO}}$, $M_{\text{NLO}}$, $M_{\text{NNLO}}$, we use iterative sparse-matrix eigenvector methods to compute the triton energy for cubic periodic lattices. We consider cubes with side lengths $L=3,4,5,6,7,8$ and extract the infinite volume limit using the asymptotic parameterization [@Luscher:1985dn],$$E_{\text{triton}}(L)\approx E_{\text{triton}}-\frac{C}{L}e^{-L/L_{0}}\text{.}\label{finiteL}$$ $L_{0}$ is a length scale associated with the physical size of the triton wavefunction. For the NNLO calculation we fix the coefficient $c_{E}$ as a function of $c_{D}$ by matching the physical triton energy at infinite volume, $-8.48$ MeV. This constraint produces the solid line shown in Fig. \[ce\_vs\_cd\]. In the same figure the dotted line shows results obtained by fitting to the pseudo triton energy, $-8.68$ MeV. This pseudo energy is an estimate of the triton energy when $nn$ interactions are replaced with $np$ interactions [@Epelbaum:2002vt]. This adjustment takes into account the systematic error in our isospin-symmetric calculations with two-nucleon interactions matched to $np$ phase shifts.
\[ptb\]
[cE\_vs\_cD.eps]{}
We note the similarity between Fig. \[ce\_vs\_cd\] and other plots of $c_{E}$ versus $c_{D}$ found in Fig. 2 of Ref. [@Epelbaum:2002vt] and Fig. 2 of Ref. [@Navratil:2007aj]. In our case the plots are exactly linear due to our perturbative treatment of the three-nucleon interactions. In Fig. \[triton\_energy\] we show $E_{\text{triton}}(L)$ versus $L$ measured in physical units at LO, NLO, and NNLO. For the NNLO calculation we show data for $c_{D}=1.0$ fitted to the physical triton energy. We see that the NLO and NNLO corrections each appear small enough to be treated using perturbation theory.
\[ptbptb\]
[triton\_energy.eps]{}
Neutron-deuteron scattering
---------------------------
Lüscher’s formula relates the energy levels for a two-body system in a finite periodic cube to scattering phase shifts at infinite volume [@Luscher:1986pf; @Luscher:1991ux]. We use this method to calculate neutron-deuteron scattering phase shifts in the spin-doublet and spin-quartet channels. For cubic lattice lengths $L=4,5,6,7,8$ we measure the three-nucleon energy levels relative to the threshold energy for a non-interacting neutron and deuteron in the same volume.
In Fig. \[scattering\_length\] we plot $p\cot\delta$ versus $p^{2}$ in the center-of-mass frame for the spin-doublet channel. Using the pseudo $E_{\text{triton}}$ constraint for $c_{E}$, we show NNLO results for $c_{D}=-6.0,$ $0.0,$ $6.0$. This can be compared with the physical scattering length $^{2}a_{nd}=-0.645\pm0.003_{\text{exp.}}\pm0.007_{\text{th.}}$ fm [@Schoen:2003au] and pseudo scattering length $^{2}a_{nd}=-0.45(4)$ fm resulting from adjusting the strength of $nn$ interactions to match $np$ interactions [@Epelbaum:2002vt]. A detailed discussion of isospin-breaking contributions to the neutron-deuteron scattering lengths can be found in Ref. [@Witala:2003mr]. We match to the pseudo scattering length and find that $c_{D}$ lies in the range from $-6.0$ to $+6.0$. This is a rather loose constraint since we already expect $c_{D}\sim O(1)$ based on the natural size of coefficients under renormalization group transformations. We consider alternative methods for constraining $c_{D}$ later in our discussion.
\[ptb\]
[scattering\_length.eps]{}
In Fig. \[nd\_doublet\] we plot $p\cot\delta$ for the spin-doublet channel for a wider range of $p^{2}$. For the NNLO calculation we show data for $c_{D}=1.0$ fitted to the physical value for $E_{\text{triton}}$. The experimental results are $nd$ and $pd$ scattering data from the partial wave analysis in Ref. [@vanOers:1967]. The dashed line shows an empirical model introduced in Ref. [@vanOers:1967] with a pole singularity in $p\cot\delta$ just below zero energy. This empirical model also accommodates data points for the triton and $^{3}$He bound states at negative $p^{2}$. In our lattice data we also find non-trivial scattering behavior just below zero energy. The interpretation of these results and possible connections with the Efimov effect at finite volume are currently being studied [@Efimov:1971a; @Efimov:1993a; @Kreuzer:2008bi]. The deuteron break-up threshold is near $p^{2}=0.07$ fm$^{-2}$, and the agreement between lattice and experimental results for $nd$ scattering is quite good below break-up. Above the break-up threshold our analysis using Lüscher’s finite volume formula does not take into account mixing between $nd$ and $nnp$ three-nucleon states. Therefore we expect significant errors in the case of strong mixing.
\[ptb\]
[nd\_doublet.eps]{}
In Fig. \[nd\_quartet\] we plot $p\cot\delta$ for the spin-quartet channel. Again we show experimental results for $nd$ and $pd$ scattering from Ref. [@vanOers:1967], and for the NNLO calculation we present data for $c_{D}=1.0$ fitted to the physical value for $E_{\text{triton}}$. The lattice data agree with experimental results for $nd$ scattering below deuteron break-up. However significant deviations appear above the break-up threshold. This may indicate mixing effects between $nd$ and $nnp$ states.
\[ptb\]
[nd\_quartet.eps]{}
Transfer matrices with auxiliary fields
=======================================
For systems with more than three nucleons, sparse-matrix calculations using the lattice transfer matrix are not practical at large volume. Instead we use projection Monte Carlo with auxiliary fields. A review of the auxiliary-field formalism can be found in Ref. [@Lee:2008fa]. We define $M^{(n_{t})}(\pi_{I}^{\prime},s,s_{I})$ as the leading-order auxiliary-field transfer matrix at time step $n_{t}$,$$\begin{aligned}
M^{(n_{t})}(\pi_{I}^{\prime},s,s_{I}) & =\colon\exp\left\{ -H_{\text{free}}\alpha_{t}-\frac{g_{A}\alpha_{t}}{2f_{\pi}\sqrt{q_{\pi}}}{\displaystyle\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}}
\Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec
{n})\right. \nonumber\\
& \qquad\left. +\sqrt{-C\alpha_{t}}\sum_{\vec{n}}s(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n})+i\sqrt{C_{I^{2}}\alpha_{t}}\sum_{\vec{n},I}s_{I}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho_{I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n})\right\} \colon.\end{aligned}$$ We can write $M_{\text{LO}}$ as the normalized integral$$M_{\text{LO}}=\frac{{\displaystyle\int}
D\pi_{I}^{\prime}DsDs_{I}\;e^{-S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}-S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}}M^{(n_{t})}(\pi_{I}^{\prime},s,s_{I})}{{\displaystyle\int}
D\pi_{I}^{\prime}DsDs_{I}\;e^{-S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}-S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}}},
\label{LOaux}$$ where $S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}$ is the piece of the instantaneous pion action at time step $n_{t}$,$$S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}(\pi_{I}^{\prime})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\vec{n},I}\pi
_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})-\frac{\alpha_{t}}{q_{\pi}}\sum_{\vec{n},I,l}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime
}(\vec{n}+\hat{l},n_{t}),$$ and $S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}$ is the auxiliary-field action at time step $n_{t}$,$$S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\vec{n},\vec{n}^{\prime}}s(\vec{n},n_{t})f^{-1}(\vec{n}-\vec{n}^{\prime})s(\vec{n}^{\prime},n_{t})+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{I}\sum_{\vec{n},\vec{n}^{\prime}}s_{I}(\vec{n},n_{t})f^{-1}(\vec
{n}-\vec{n}^{\prime})s_{I}(\vec{n}^{\prime},n_{t}),$$ with $$f^{-1}(\vec{n}-\vec{n}^{\prime})=\frac{1}{L^{3}}\sum_{\vec{q}}\frac{1}{f(\vec{q})}e^{-i\vec{q}\cdot(\vec{n}-\vec{n}^{\prime})}\text{.}$$
The NLO and NNLO interactions are treated using perturbation theory. We let$$\begin{aligned}
U^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon) & =\sum_{\vec{n}}\varepsilon_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum_{\vec{n},S}\varepsilon_{\rho_{S}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum_{\vec{n},S}\varepsilon_{\Delta_{S}\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\nonumber\\
& +\sum_{\vec{n},S,S^{\prime}}\varepsilon_{\Delta_{S}\rho_{S^{\prime}}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\rho_{S^{\prime}}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum
_{\vec{n},l}\varepsilon_{\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\nonumber\\
& +\sum_{\vec{n},l,S}\varepsilon_{\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{S}}(\vec
{n},n_{t})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum_{\vec
{n},l}\varepsilon_{\Pi_{l}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Pi_{l}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec
{n})+\sum_{\vec{n},l,S}\varepsilon_{\Pi_{l,S}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Pi
_{l,S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}),\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
U_{I^{2}}^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon) & =\sum_{\vec{n},I}\varepsilon_{\rho_{I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}\varepsilon_{\rho_{S,I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec
{n})+\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}\varepsilon_{\Delta_{S}\rho_{I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\nonumber\\
& +\sum_{\vec{n},S,S^{\prime},I}\varepsilon_{\Delta_{S}\rho_{S^{\prime},I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\rho_{S^{\prime},I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum_{\vec{n},l,I}\varepsilon_{\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})\nonumber\\
& +\sum_{\vec{n},l,S,I}\varepsilon_{\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{S,I}}(\vec
{n},n_{t})\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum
_{\vec{n},l,I}\varepsilon_{\Pi_{l,I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Pi_{l,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})+\sum_{\vec{n},l,S,I}\varepsilon_{\Pi_{l,S,I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Pi_{l,S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n}).\end{aligned}$$ With these extra fields and linear functionals we define$$\begin{aligned}
& M^{(n_{t})}(\pi_{I}^{\prime},s,s_{I},\varepsilon)\nonumber\\
& =\colon\exp\left\{ -H_{\text{free}}\alpha_{t}-\frac{g_{A}\alpha_{t}}{2f_{\pi}\sqrt{q_{\pi}}}{\displaystyle\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}}
\Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec
{n})\right. \nonumber\\
& \left. +\sqrt{-C\alpha_{t}}\sum_{\vec{n}}s(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n})+i\sqrt{C_{I^{2}}\alpha_{t}}\sum_{\vec{n},I}s_{I}(\vec{n},n_{t})\rho_{I}^{a^{\dag},a}(\vec{n})+U^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)+U_{I^{2}}^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)\right\} \colon.\end{aligned}$$ In Ref. [@Borasoy:2007vk; @Lee:2008fa; @Epelbaum:2008vj] there were factors of $\sqrt{\alpha_{t}}$ multiplying $U^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)$ and $U_{I^{2}}^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)$. We have removed these factors here as they complicate the discussion of the three-body interactions at NNLO. Let $M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)$ be the normalized integral,$$M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)=\frac{{\displaystyle\int}
D\pi^{\prime}DsDs_{I}\;e^{-S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}-S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}}M^{(n_{t})}(\pi_{I}^{\prime},s,s_{I},\varepsilon)}{{\displaystyle\int}
D\pi^{\prime}DsDs_{I}\;e^{-S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}-S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}}}.$$ When all $\varepsilon$ fields are set to zero we recover $M_{\text{LO}}$,$$M^{(n_{t})}(0)=M_{\text{LO}}\text{.}$$
To first order in perturbation theory the NLO interactions in $M_{\text{NLO}}$ can be written as a sum of bilinear derivatives of $M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)$ with respect to the $\varepsilon$ fields at $\varepsilon=0$,$$\begin{aligned}
M_{\text{NLO}} & =M_{\text{LO}}\nonumber\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\Delta C\alpha_{t}\sum_{\vec{n}}\left. \frac{\delta}{\delta\varepsilon_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}\frac{\delta}{\delta\varepsilon
_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)\right\vert _{\varepsilon
=0}\nonumber\\
& +\frac{1}{2}C_{q^{2}}\alpha_{t}\sum_{\vec{n}}\left. \frac{\delta}{\delta\varepsilon_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}\frac{\delta}{\delta\varepsilon
_{\triangledown_{l}^{2}\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon
)\right\vert _{\varepsilon=0}+\;\cdots.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly for NNLO we have $$M_{\text{NNLO}}=M_{\text{NLO}}+\frac{{\displaystyle\int}
D\pi^{\prime}DsDs_{I}\;e^{-S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}-S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}}\Delta
M_{\text{NNLO}}^{(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) }{{\displaystyle\int}
D\pi^{\prime}DsDs_{I}\;e^{-S_{\pi\pi}^{(n_{t})}-S_{ss}^{(n_{t})}}},$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta M_{\text{NNLO}}^{(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) &
=M_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) +M_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) \nonumber\\
& +M_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) +M_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) +M_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ The three-nucleon contact interaction is$$M_{\text{contact}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) =-\frac{1}{6}D_{\text{contact}}\alpha_{t}\sum_{\vec{n}}\left. \left[ \frac{\delta
}{\delta\varepsilon_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}\right] ^{3}M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)\right\vert _{\varepsilon=0},$$ and the one-pion exchange interaction has the form$$M_{\text{OPE}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) =-D_{\text{OPE}}\frac{\alpha_{t}}{\sqrt{q_{\pi}}}\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}\left. \Delta_{S}\pi
_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\frac{\delta}{\delta\varepsilon_{\rho_{S,I}}(\vec{n},n_{t})}\frac{\delta}{\delta\varepsilon_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)\right\vert _{\varepsilon=0}\text{.}$$ The three two-pion exchange terms are$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{\text{TPE1}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) =-D_{\text{TPE1}}\frac{\alpha_{t}}{q_{\pi}}\nonumber\\
& \times\sum_{\vec{n},S,I}\left[ \Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})-\left\langle \Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle \right] \left. \frac{\delta M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon
)}{\delta\varepsilon_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}\right\vert _{\varepsilon=0},\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{\text{TPE2}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) =-D_{\text{TPE2}}\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}\alpha_{t}}{q_{\pi}}\nonumber\\
& \times\sum_{\vec{n},I}\left[ \square\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\square\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})-\left\langle \square\pi_{I}^{\prime
}(\vec{n},n_{t})\square\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right\rangle \right]
\left. \frac{\delta M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)}{\delta\varepsilon_{\rho}(\vec{n},n_{t})}\right\vert _{\varepsilon=0},\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{\text{TPE3}}^{(3N)(n_{t})}\left( \pi^{\prime}\right) =-D_{\text{TPE3}}\frac{\alpha_{t}}{q_{\pi}}\nonumber\\
& \times\sum_{\vec{n},S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}}\sum_{I_{1},I_{2},I_{3}}\varepsilon_{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}}\varepsilon_{I_{1},I_{2},I_{3}}\Delta_{S_{1}}\pi_{I_{1}}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S_{2}}\pi_{I_{2}}^{\prime}(\vec
{n},n_{t})\left. \frac{\delta M^{(n_{t})}(\varepsilon)}{\delta\varepsilon
_{\rho_{S_{3},I_{3}}}(\vec{n},n_{t})}\right\vert _{\varepsilon=0}.\end{aligned}$$
We extract the properties of the ground state using Euclidean-time projection. Let $\left\vert \Psi^{\text{free}}\right\rangle $ be a Slater determinant of free-particle standing waves on the lattice. We construct the trial state $\left\vert \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\rangle $ using$$\left\vert \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\rangle =\left( M_{\text{SU(4)}\not \pi
}\right) ^{L_{t_{o}}}\left\vert \Psi^{\text{free}}\right\rangle ,
\label{L_t_o}$$ where $t^{\prime}=L_{t_{o}}\alpha_{t}$ and $L_{t_{o}}$ is the number of outer time steps. As the notation suggests, the transfer matrix $M_{\text{SU(4)}\not \pi }$ is invariant under an exact Wigner SU(4) symmetry and acts as an approximate low-energy filter. The amplitude $Z(t)$ is defined as$$Z(t)=\left\langle \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\vert \left( M_{\text{LO}}\right)
^{L_{t_{i}}}\left\vert \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\rangle , \label{L_t_i}$$ where $t=L_{t_{i}}\alpha_{t}$ and $L_{t_{i}}$ is the number of inner time steps. The transient energy$$E_{\text{LO}}(t+\alpha_{t}/2)$$ is given by the ratio of the amplitudes for $t$ and $t+\alpha_{t}$,$$e^{-E_{\text{LO}}(t+\alpha_{t}/2)\cdot\alpha_{t}}=\frac{Z(t+\alpha_{t})}{Z(t)}.$$ The ground state energy $E_{0,\text{LO}}$ equals the asymptotic limit,$$E_{0,\text{LO}}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}E_{\text{LO}}(t+\alpha_{t}/2).$$ We calculate these Euclidean-time projection amplitudes using auxiliary fields. For a given configuration of auxiliary and pion fields, the contribution to the amplitude $Z(t)$ is proportional to the determinant of an $A\times A$ matrix of one-body amplitudes where $A$ is the number of nucleons. Integrations over auxiliary and pion field configurations are computed using hybrid Monte Carlo. Details of the method can be found in Ref. [@Lee:2005fk; @Lee:2006hr; @Borasoy:2006qn; @Lee:2008fa].
For the ground state energy at NLO and NNLO we compute expectation values of $M_{\text{LO}}$, $M_{\text{NLO}}$, $M_{\text{NNLO}}$ inserted in the middle of a string of $M_{\text{LO}}$ transfer matrices,$$Z_{M_{\text{LO}}}(t)=\left\langle \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\vert \left(
M_{\text{LO}}\right) ^{L_{t_{i}}/2}M_{\text{LO}}\left( M_{\text{LO}}\right)
^{L_{t_{i}}/2}\left\vert \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\rangle ,$$$$Z_{M_{\text{NLO}}}(t)=\left\langle \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\vert \left(
M_{\text{LO}}\right) ^{L_{t_{i}}/2}M_{\text{NLO}}\left( M_{\text{LO}}\right) ^{L_{t_{i}}/2}\left\vert \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\rangle ,$$$$Z_{M_{\text{NNLO}}}(t)=\left\langle \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\vert \left(
M_{\text{LO}}\right) ^{L_{t_{i}}/2}M_{\text{NNLO}}\left( M_{\text{LO}}\right) ^{L_{t_{i}}/2}\left\vert \Psi(t^{\prime})\right\rangle .$$ From the ratio of amplitudes,$$\frac{Z_{M_{\text{NLO}}}(t)}{Z_{M_{\text{LO}}}(t)}=1-\Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\alpha_{t}+\cdots,$$ we define the transient NLO energy correction $\Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)$. The ellipsis denotes terms which are beyond first order in the NLO coefficients. The NLO ground state energy $E_{0,\text{NLO}}$ is calculated using$$E_{0,\text{NLO}}=E_{0,\text{LO}}+\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\Delta
E_{\text{NLO}}(t).$$ Similarly at NNLO we have$$\frac{Z_{M_{\text{NNLO}}}(t)}{Z_{M_{\text{LO}}}(t)}=1-\Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)\alpha_{t}+\cdots,$$ and $$E_{0,\text{NNLO}}=E_{0,\text{NLO}}+\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\Delta
E_{\text{NNLO}}(t).$$
Precision tests of Monte Carlo simulations
==========================================
We use the three-nucleon system to test the auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulations. The same observables are calculated using both auxiliary-field Monte Carlo and the exact transfer matrix without auxiliary fields. We choose a small system so that stochastic errors are small enough to expose disagreement at the $0.1\%-1\%$ level. We choose the spatial length of the lattice to be $L=3$ and set the outer time steps $L_{t_{o}}=0$ and inner time steps $L_{t_{i}}=4$. With $2048$ processors we generate a total of about $10^{8}$ hybrid Monte Carlo trajectories. Each processor runs completely independent trajectories, and we compute averages and stochastic errors by comparing the results of all processors.
We choose $\left\vert \Psi^{\text{free}}\right\rangle $ to be a spin-doublet isospin-doublet state built from the Slater determinant of standing waves $\left\vert \psi_{1}\right\rangle $, $\left\vert \psi_{2}\right\rangle $, $\left\vert \psi_{3}\right\rangle $ with$$\left\langle 0\right\vert a_{i,j}(\vec{n})\left\vert \psi_{1}\right\rangle
\propto\delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,1},\qquad\left\langle 0\right\vert a_{i,j}(\vec{n})\left\vert \psi_{2}\right\rangle \propto\delta_{i,1}\delta
_{j,1},\qquad\left\langle 0\right\vert a_{i,j}(\vec{n})\left\vert \psi
_{3}\right\rangle \propto\delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,0}\text{.}$$ In Table \[precision\_summary\] we show Monte Carlo results for the energy (MC) versus exact transfer matrix calculations (Exact) at LO, NLO, and NNLO. The NNLO data uses $c_{D}=1.0$ with $c_{E}$ fitted to the physical triton energy. In Table \[precision\_nlo\] we compare Monte Carlo results with exact transfer matrix calculations for the derivative of the energy with respect to each NLO coefficient. In Table \[precision\_nnlo\] we make the same comparison for the derivative of the energy with respect to each NNLO coefficient. The numbers in parentheses are the estimated stochastic errors. In all cases the agreement between Monte Carlo results and exact transfer calculations is consistent with estimated stochastic errors.
\[c\][||c|c|c||]{}Energies & MC & Exact\
$E_{\text{LO}}(t+\alpha_{t}/2)$ \[MeV\] & $-48.873(18)$ & $-48.8823$\
$\Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)$ \[MeV\] & $0.5509(8)$ & $0.55100$\
$\Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)$ \[MeV\] & $-0.967(3)$ & $-0.96718$\
\[c\][||c|c|c||]{}NLO energy derivatives & MC & Exact\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
\Delta C\right) }$ \[$10^{4}$ MeV$^{3}$\] & $3.9037(12)$ & $3.90226$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
\Delta C_{I^{2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{4}$ MeV$^{3}$\] & $-4.847(2)$ & $-4.84331$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{q^{2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $-2.0105(6)$ & $-2.01059$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{I^{2},q^{2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $2.9230(14)$ & $2.92424$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{S^{2},q^{2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $0.1860(12)$ & $0.18411$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{S^{2},I^{2},q^{2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $5.094(2)$ & $5.09371$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}_{3}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{(q\cdot S)^{2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $-1.5892(3)$ & $-1.58898$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{I^{2},(q\cdot S)^{2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $6.8019(11)$ & $6.80197$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{(iq\times S)\cdot k}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $0.3417(2)$ & $0.34164$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
C_{I^{2},(iq\times S)\cdot k}\right) }$ \[$10^{9}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $-1.0092(5)$ & $-1.00932$\
\[c\][||c|c|c||]{}NNLO energy derivatives & MC & Exact\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
D_{\text{contact}}\right) }$ \[$10^{8}$ MeV$^{6}$\] & $1.162(4)$ & $1.1609$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
D_{\text{OPE}}\right) }$ \[$10^{7}$ MeV$^{5}$\] & $-5.858(6)$ & $-5.8623$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
D_{\text{TPE1}}\right) }$ \[$10^{5}$ MeV$^{4}$\] & $14.46(5)$ & $14.468$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
D_{\text{TPE2}}\right) }$ \[$10^{5}$ MeV$^{4}$\] & $2.24(3)$ & $2.2595$\
$\frac{\partial\left( \Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)\right) }{\partial\left(
D_{\text{TPE3}}\right) }$ \[$10^{5}$ MeV$^{4}$\] & $-10.02(6)$ & $-10.022$\
Energy of the $\alpha$ particle
===============================
We simulate the $\alpha$ particle on cubic periodic lattices with length $L=5,6,7,8$. These correspond with physical lengths $L=9.9$, $11.8$, $13.8$, $15.8$ fm. For $\left\vert \Psi^{\text{free}}\right\rangle $ we take the Slater determinant formed by standing waves$$\left\langle 0\right\vert a_{i,j}(\vec{n})\left\vert \psi_{1}\right\rangle
\propto\delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,1},\qquad\left\langle 0\right\vert a_{i,j}(\vec{n})\left\vert \psi_{2}\right\rangle \propto\delta_{i,1}\delta_{j,1},$$$$\left\langle 0\right\vert a_{i,j}(\vec{n})\left\vert \psi_{3}\right\rangle
\propto\delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,0},\qquad\left\langle 0\right\vert a_{i,j}(\vec{n})\left\vert \psi_{4}\right\rangle \propto\delta_{i,1}\delta
_{j,0}\text{.}$$ For each value of $L_{t_{i}}$ a total of about $6\times10^{6}$ hybrid Monte Carlo trajectories are generated by $2048$ processors, each running completely independent trajectories. Averages and stochastic errors are computed by comparing the results of all processors.
For $L=5,6,7,8$ we show Monte Carlo results in Fig. \[alpha\_lt\_all\] for$$E_{\text{LO}}(t),\quad E_{\text{LO}}(t)+\Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t),\quad
E_{\text{LO}}(t)+\Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)+\Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t),
\label{energies_v_time}$$ versus Euclidean time $t$. These are labelled as LO, NLO, and NNLO respectively. The NNLO data uses $c_{D}=1.0$ with $c_{E}$ fitted to the physical triton energy. In addition to the Monte Carlo data we plot the asymptotic forms for each term in Eq. (\[energies\_v\_time\]) using$$E_{\text{LO}}(t)\approx E_{0,\text{LO}}+A_{\text{LO}}e^{-\delta E\cdot t},
\label{asymptotic1}$$$$\Delta E_{\text{NLO}}(t)\approx E_{0,\text{NLO}}-E_{0,\text{LO}}+B_{\text{NLO}}e^{-\delta E\cdot t/2}, \label{asymptotic2}$$$$\Delta E_{\text{NNLO}}(t)\approx E_{0,\text{NNLO}}-E_{0,\text{NLO}}+B_{\text{NNLO}}e^{-\delta E\cdot t/2}. \label{asymptotic3}$$ The unknown coefficients $A_{\text{LO}}$, $B_{\text{NLO}}$, $B_{\text{NNLO}}$, and energy gap $\delta E$, are determined by least squares fitting. The $e^{-\delta E\cdot t}$ dependence in Eq. (\[asymptotic1\]) comes from the contribution of low-energy excitations with energy gap $\delta E$ above the $\alpha$ particle. The $e^{-\delta E\cdot t/2}$ dependence in Eq. (\[asymptotic2\]) is due to matrix elements of $M_{\text{NLO}}$ between the $\alpha$ particle and low-energy excitations at $\delta E$. Similarly the $e^{-\delta E\cdot t/2}$ dependence in Eq. (\[asymptotic3\]) is from matrix elements of $M_{\text{NNLO}}$. The chi-squared per degree of freedom for the fits are $1.5$ for $L=5,$ $1.0$ for $L=6$, $0.7$ for $L=7$, and $0.6$ for $L=8$. The small relative size of the NLO and NNLO energy corrections suggest that the perturbative treatment of these terms appears reasonable.
\[ptb\]
[alpha\_Lt\_all.eps]{}
\[ptb\]
[alpha\_cD.eps]{}
In Fig. \[alpha\_cd\] we plot the NNLO $\alpha$-particle energy versus $c_{D}$, with $c_{E}$ fitted to the physical triton energy. The bands indicate the estimated error due to stochastic noise and asymptotic fits at large $t$. The $\alpha$ energy should approach the infinite volume limit from below, similar to our results for the triton energy. Hence the deviation between data at $L=7$ and $L=8$ is likely due to stochastic noise and fit errors rather than finite volume effects. The $\alpha$ energy shown at $-29.0$ MeV is the estimated Coulomb-subtracted energy [@Pudliner:1997ck]. At large volumes the best agreement with the Coulomb-subtracted $\alpha$ energy occurs at $c_{D}\approx-4$. The $\alpha$ binding increases in strength by $0.2$ MeV for each unit increase in $c_{D}$, and so we find reasonable agreement for all values of $c_{D}\sim O(1)$. If instead we fit $c_{E}$ according to the pseudo triton energy, then the lines in Fig. \[alpha\_cd\] shift downward in energy by about $2$ MeV. The pseudo $\alpha$ energy with $pp$- and $nn$-forces matched to $np$-forces is estimated to be $-29.8(1)$ MeV [@Epelbaum:2002vt].
Summary and discussion
======================
We have presented the first study of low-energy few-nucleon systems on the lattice at next-to-next-to-leading order in chiral effective field theory. We computed nucleon-nucleon phase shifts and $S$-$D$ mixing angle on the lattice and used scattering data to determine unknown two-nucleon operator coefficients. In the three-nucleon system we calculated the triton energy and determined neutron-deuteron phase shifts using Lüscher’s finite volume method. These were used to constrain the two cutoff-dependent three-body coefficients, $c_{D}$ and $c_{E}$. For the four-nucleon system we recast the lattice action in terms of auxiliary fields and used projection Monte Carlo to calculate the energy of the $\alpha$ particle.
There are several ways in which the lattice calculations presented here can be improved and extended in future work. One improvement is the inclusion of isospin-breaking effects due to Coulomb interactions and quark mass differences. The framework for isospin-violating effects in chiral effective field theory has been developed over the past decade [@vanKolck:1996rm; @vanKolck:1997fu; @Friar:1999zr; @Epelbaum:1999zn; @Walzl:2000cx; @Friar:2003yv; @Friar:2004ca; @Epelbaum:2004xf; @Epelbaum:2005fd]. Work is currently underway to implement these effects within the lattice formalism.
Another area of improvement concerns the $P$-wave phase shifts for our leading-order lattice action. NLO corrections to the phase shifts are substantial for nucleon momenta above $100$ MeV. This seems not to cause any problems for the light $S$-shell nuclei considered here. However for $P$-shell nuclei we may find corrections strong enough to spoil the perturbative treatment of higher-order effects. In Ref. [@Epelbaum:2008vj] this problem has already been resolved in neutron matter calculations using a new leading-order action LO$_{3}$. This lattice action uses spin-isospin projection operators to produce Gaussian smearing only in even partial wave channels. The implementation of the LO$_{3}$ action in Monte Carlo simulations with both protons and neutrons is computationally more intensive than the pure neutron simulations in Ref. [@Epelbaum:2008vj]. The auxiliary-field formalism requires a total of $16$ auxiliary fields and some increase in the sign/phase cancellations relative to the LO$_{2}$ action. Nevertheless studies of light $P$-shell nuclei using the LO$_{3}$ action are planned in the near future.
One recent paper constrains the cutoff-dependent coefficient $c_{D}$ from the triton beta decay rate [@Gazit:2008ma]. From the point of view of computing the spectrum of light nuclei, the easiest method for determining $c_{D}$ is by means of the $\alpha$-particle energy. This has the added benefit of removing systematic errors from the four nucleon system. If however we also want to accurately describe the chiral interactions of nucleons and light nuclei with soft pions, then it would be best to measure $c_{D}$ directly from the SU(2) axial coupling to two nucleon states. This is studied in Ref. [@Hanhart:2000gp] using pion production data in $pp$ scattering. Unfortunately the pion production energy threshold is too high to be accessible at our lattice spacing and extrapolations are required. In the future another approach may be possible using direct theory-to-theory matching. In this technique lattice QCD would be used to calculate the axial charge of two-neutron scattering states in a periodic cube. This calculated value of the axial charge could then be used to fix $c_{D}$ for any chosen lattice spacing in lattice chiral effective field theory.
Acknowledgements
================
We are grateful for discussions with Hans Hammer and Simon Kreuzer. Partial financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB/TR 16), Helmholtz Association (contract number VH-NG-222 and VH-VI-231), and U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FG02-03ER41260) are acknowledged. This work was further supported by the EU HadronPhysics2 project Study of strongly interacting matter. The computational resources for this project were provided by the Jülich Supercomputing Centre at the Forschungszentrum Jülich.
Lattice notation
================
The vector $\vec{n}$ represents integer-valued lattice vectors on a three-dimensional spatial lattice, and $\vec{p},$ $\vec{q},$ $\vec{k}$ represent integer-valued momentum lattice vectors.$\ \ \hat{l}=\hat{1}$, $\hat{2}$, $\hat{3}$ are unit lattice vectors in the spatial directions, $a$ is the spatial lattice spacing, and $L$ is the length of the cubic spatial lattice in each direction. The lattice time step is $a_{t}$, and $n_{t}$ labels the number of time steps. We define $\alpha_{t}$ as the ratio between lattice spacings, $\alpha_{t}=a_{t}/a$. Throughout our lattice discussion we use dimensionless parameters and operators, which correspond with physical values multiplied by the appropriate power of $a$. Final results are presented in physical units with the corresponding unit stated explicitly.
We use $a$ and $a^{\dagger}$ to denote annihilation and creation operators. We make explicit all spin and isospin indices,$$\begin{aligned}
a_{0,0} & =a_{\uparrow,p},\text{ \ }a_{0,1}=a_{\uparrow,n},\\
a_{1,0} & =a_{\downarrow,p},\text{ \ }a_{1,1}=a_{\downarrow,n}.\end{aligned}$$ The first subscript is for spin and the second subscript is for isospin. We use $\tau_{I}$ with $I=1,2,3$ to represent Pauli matrices acting in isospin space and $\sigma_{S}$ with $S=1,2,3$ to represent Pauli matrices acting in spin space.
We use the eight vertices of a unit cube on the lattice to define spatial derivatives. For each spatial direction $l=1,2,3$ and any lattice function $f(\vec{n})$, let$$\Delta_{l}f(\vec{n})=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\substack{\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1}}(-1)^{\nu_{l}+1}f(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}),\qquad\vec{\nu}=\nu_{1}\hat{1}+\nu_{2}\hat{2}+\nu_{3}\hat{3}. \label{derivative}$$ We also define the double spatial derivative along direction $l$,$$\triangledown_{l}^{2}f(\vec{n})=f(\vec{n}+\hat{l})+f(\vec{n}-\hat{l})-2f(\vec{n}).$$ For the three-body NNLO interactions we also use the notation$$\square f(\vec{n})=\frac{1}{8}\sum_{\substack{\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1}}f(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}),\qquad\vec{\nu}=\nu_{1}\hat{1}+\nu_{2}\hat{2}+\nu_{3}\hat{3}.$$
Local densities and currents
----------------------------
We define the local density,$$\rho^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\sum_{i,j=0,1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})a_{i,j}(\vec{n}),$$ which is invariant under Wigner’s SU(4) symmetry [@Wigner:1937]. Similarly we define the local spin density for $S=1,2,3,$$$\rho_{S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\sum_{i,j,i^{\prime}=0,1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger
}(\vec{n})\left[ \sigma_{S}\right] _{ii^{\prime}}a_{i^{\prime},j}(\vec{n}),$$ isospin density for $I=1,2,3,$$$\rho_{I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\sum_{i,j,j^{\prime}=0,1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger
}(\vec{n})\left[ \tau_{I}\right] _{jj^{\prime}}a_{i,j^{\prime}}(\vec{n}),$$ and spin-isospin density for $S,I=1,2,3,$$$\rho_{S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\sum_{i,j,i^{\prime},j^{\prime}=0,1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})\left[ \sigma_{S}\right] _{ii^{\prime}}\left[ \tau_{I}\right] _{jj^{\prime}}a_{i^{\prime},j^{\prime}}(\vec{n}).$$
For each static density we also have an associated current density. Similar to the definition of the lattice derivative $\Delta_{l}$ in Eq. (\[derivative\]), we use the eight vertices of a unit cube, $$\vec{\nu}=\nu_{1}\hat{1}+\nu_{2}\hat{2}+\nu_{3}\hat{3},$$ for $\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1$. Let $\vec{\nu}(-l)$ for $l=1,2,3$ be the result of reflecting the $l^{\text{th}}$-component of $\vec{\nu}$ about the center of the cube,$$\vec{\nu}(-l)=\vec{\nu}+(1-2\nu_{l})\hat{l}.$$ Omitting factors of $i$ and $1/m$, we can write the $l^{\text{th}}$-component of the SU(4)-invariant current density as$$\Pi_{l}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\substack{\nu_{1},\nu
_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1}}\sum_{i,j=0,1}(-1)^{\nu_{l}+1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}(-l))a_{i,j}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}).$$ Similarly the $l^{\text{th}}$-component of spin current density is$$\Pi_{l,S}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\substack{\nu_{1},\nu
_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1}}\sum_{i,j,i^{\prime}=0,1}(-1)^{\nu_{l}+1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger
}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}(-l))\left[ \sigma_{S}\right] _{ii^{\prime}}a_{i^{\prime
},j}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}),$$ $l^{\text{th}}$-component of isospin current density is$$\Pi_{l,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\substack{\nu_{1},\nu
_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1}}\sum_{i,j,j^{\prime}=0,1}(-1)^{\nu_{l}+1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger
}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}(-l))\left[ \tau_{I}\right] _{jj^{\prime}}a_{i,j^{\prime
}}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}),$$ and $l^{\text{th}}$-component of spin-isospin current density is$$\Pi_{l,S,I}^{a^{\dagger},a}(\vec{n})=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\substack{\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1}}\sum_{i,j,i^{\prime},j^{\prime}=0,1}(-1)^{\nu_{l}+1}a_{i,j}^{\dagger}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}(-l))\left[ \sigma_{S}\right]
_{ii^{\prime}}\left[ \tau_{I}\right] _{jj^{\prime}}a_{i^{\prime},j^{\prime}}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}).$$
Instantaneous free pion action
------------------------------
The lattice action for free pions with purely instantaneous propagation is$$S_{\pi\pi}(\pi_{I})=\alpha_{t}(\tfrac{m_{\pi}^{2}}{2}+3)\sum_{\vec{n},n_{t},I}\pi_{I}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}(\vec{n},n_{t})-\alpha_{t}\sum_{\vec{n},n_{t},I,l}\pi_{I}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}(\vec{n}+\hat{l},n_{t}),$$ where $\pi_{I}$ is the pion field labelled with isospin index $I$. It is convenient to define a rescaled pion field, $\pi_{I}^{\prime}$,$$\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})=\sqrt{q_{\pi}}\pi_{I}(\vec{n},n_{t}),$$$$q_{\pi}=\alpha_{t}(m_{\pi}^{2}+6).$$ Then$$S_{\pi\pi}(\pi_{I}^{\prime})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\vec{n},n_{t},I}\pi_{I}^{\prime
}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})-\frac{\alpha_{t}}{q_{\pi}}\sum_{\vec{n},n_{t},I,l}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n}+\hat{l},n_{t}). \label{pionaction}$$
In momentum space the action is$$S_{\pi\pi}(\pi_{I}^{\prime})=\frac{1}{L^{3}}\sum_{I,\vec{k}}\pi_{I}^{\prime
}(-\vec{k},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{k},n_{t})\left[ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha_{t}}{q_{\pi}}\sum_{l}\cos k_{l}\right] .$$ The instantaneous pion correlation function at spatial separation $\vec{n}$ is$$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{0},n_{t})\right\rangle & =\frac{\int D\pi_{I}^{\prime}\;\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{0},n_{t})\;\exp\left[ -S_{\pi\pi
}\right] }{\int D\pi_{I}^{\prime}\;\exp\left[ -S_{\pi\pi}\right] }\text{
\ (no sum on }I\text{)}\nonumber\\
& =\frac{1}{L^{3}}\sum_{\vec{k}}e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{n}}D_{\pi}(\vec{k}),\end{aligned}$$ where$$D_{\pi}(\vec{k})=\frac{1}{1-\tfrac{2\alpha_{t}}{q_{\pi}}\sum_{l}\cos k_{l}}.$$ It is also useful to define the two-derivative pion correlator, $G_{S_{1}S_{2}}(\vec{n})$,$$\begin{aligned}
G_{S_{1}S_{2}}(\vec{n}) & =\left\langle \Delta_{S_{1}}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n},n_{t})\Delta_{S_{2}}\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{0},n_{t})\right\rangle
\text{ \ (no sum on }I\text{)}\nonumber\\
& =\frac{1}{16}\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\nu_{3}=0,1}\sum_{\nu_{1}^{\prime},\nu_{2}^{\prime},\nu_{3}^{\prime}=0,1}(-1)^{\nu_{S_{1}}}(-1)^{\nu_{S_{2}}^{\prime}}\left\langle \pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{n}+\vec{\nu}-\vec{\nu}^{\prime
},n_{t})\pi_{I}^{\prime}(\vec{0},n_{t})\right\rangle .\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems commonly leverage bag-of-words co-occurrence techniques to capture semantic and syntactic word relationships. The resulting word-level distributed representations often ignore morphological information, though character-level embeddings have proven valuable to NLP tasks. We propose a new neural language model incorporating both word order and character order in its embedding. The model produces several vector spaces with meaningful substructure, as evidenced by its performance of 85.8% on a recent word-analogy task, exceeding best published syntactic word-analogy scores by a 58% error margin [@pennington-socher-manning:2014:EMNLP2014]. Furthermore, the model includes several parallel training methods, most notably allowing a skip-gram network with 160 billion parameters to be trained overnight on 3 multi-core CPUs, 14x larger than the previous largest neural network [@coates2013deep].'
bibliography:
- 'example\_paper.bib'
nocite: '[@langley00]'
---
Introduction {#submission}
============
NLP systems seek to automate the extraction of useful information from sequences of symbols in human language. These systems encounter difficulty due to the complexity and sparsity in natural language. Traditional systems have represented words as atomic units with success in a variety of tasks [@Katz1987]. This approach is limited by the curse of dimensionality and has been outperformed by neural network language models (NNLM) in a variety of tasks [@Bengio:2003:NPL:944919.944966; @morin2005hierarchical; @NIPS2008_3583]. NNLMs overcome the curse of dimensionality by learning distributed representations for words [@g.e.hintonj.l.mcclellandd.e.rumelhart1986; @Bengio:2003:NPL:944919.944966]. Specifically, neural language models embed a vocabulary into a smaller dimensional linear space that models “the probability function for word sequences, expressed in terms of these representations" [@Bengio:2003:NPL:944919.944966]. The result is a vector space model [@maas2010probabilistic] that encodes semantic and syntactic relationships and has defined a new standard for feature generation in NLP [@manning2008introduction; @Sebastiani:2002:MLA:505282.505283; @turian2010word].
NNLMs generate word embeddings by training a symbol prediction task over a moving local-context window such as predicting a word given its surrounding context [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781; @NIPS2013_5021]. This work follows from the distributional hypothesis: words that appear in similar contexts have similar meaning [@harris54]. Words that appear in similar contexts will experience similar training examples, training outcomes, and converge to similar weights. The ordered set of weights associated with each word becomes that word’s dense vector embedding. These distributed representations encode shades of meaning across their dimensions, allowing for two words to have multiple, real-valued relationships encoded in a single representation [@liang2015semantics].
[@conf/naacl/MikolovYZ13] introduced a new property of word embeddings based on word analogies such that vector operations between words mirror their semantic and syntactic relationships. The analogy ”king is to queen as man is to woman” can be encoded in vector space by the equation king - queen = man - woman. A dataset of these analogies, the Google Analogy Dataset [^1], is divided into two broad categories, semantic queries and syntactic queries. Semantic queries idenfity relationships such as “France is to Paris as England is to London” whereas syntactic queries identify relationships such as “running is to run as pruning is to prune”. This is a standard by which distributed word embeddings may be evaluated.
Until recently, NNLMs have ignored morphology and word shape. However, including information about word structure in word representations has proven valuable for part of speech analysis [@icml2014c2_santos14], word similarity [@luong2013better], and information extraction [@qi2014deep].
We propose a neural network architecture that explicitly encodes order in a sequence of symbols and use this architecture to embed both word-level and character-level representations. When these two representations are concatenated, the resulting representations exceed best published results in both the semantic and syntactic evaluations of the Google Analogy Dataset.
Related Work
============
Word-level Representations (Word2vec)
-------------------------------------
Our technique is inspired by recent work in learning vector representations of words, phrases, and sentences using neural networks [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781; @NIPS2013_5021; @DBLP:journals/corr/LeM14]. In the CBOW configuration of the negative sampling training method by [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781], each word is represented by a row-vector in matrix $syn_0$ and is concatenated, summed, or averaged with other word vectors in a context window. The resulting vector is used in a classifier $syn_1$ to predict the existence of the whole context with the the focus term (positive training) or absence of other randomly sampled words in the window (negative sampling). The scalar output is passed through a sigmoid function $(\sigma(z) = (1 + e^{(-z)})$, returning the network’s probability that the removed word exists in the middle of the window, without stipulation on the order of the context words. This optimizes the following objective:
$$\arg\max_\theta \prod_{(w,C)\in d} p(w=1|C;\theta) \prod_{(w,C)\in d'} p(w=0|C;\theta)$$
where $d$ represents the document as a collection of context-word pairs $(w,C)$ and $C$ is an unordered group of words in a context window. $d'$ is a set of random $(w,C)$ pairs. $\theta$ will be adjusted such that $p(w=1,C;\theta)$ = $1$ for context-word pairs that exist in $d$, and $0$ for random context-word pairs that do not exist in $d'$. In the skip-gram negative sampling work by [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781; @NIPS2013_5021], each word in a context is trained in succession. This optimizes the following objective:
$$\arg\max_\theta \prod_{(w,c)\in d} p(w=1|c;\theta) \prod_{(w,c)\in d'} p(w=0|c;\theta)$$
where $d$ represents the document as a collection of context-word pairs $(w,c)$ and $c$ represents a single word in the context. Modeling an element-wise probability that a word occurs given another word in the context, the element-wise nature of this probability allows (2) to be an equivalent objective to the skip-gram objective outlined in [@NIPS2013_5021; @DBLP:journals/corr/GoldbergL14].
Reducing the window size under these models constrains the probabilities to be more localized, as the probability that two words co-occur will reduce when the window reduces which can be advantageous for words subject to short-windowed statistical significance. For example, currency symbols often co-occur with numbers within a small window. Outside of a small window, currency symbols and numbers are not likely to co-occur. Thus, reducing the window size reduces noise in the prediction. Words such as city names, however, prefer wider windows to encode broader co-occurrence statistics with other words such as landmarks, street-names, and cultural words which could be farther away in the document.
0.0in
![Diagram of word2vec’s Continuous Bag of Words training method over the sentence “SEE SPOT RUN". Embeddings for “SEE" and “RUN" are summed into a third vector that is used to predict the probability that the middle word is “SPOT". []{data-label="icml-historical"}](word2vec.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
-0.3in
Neither skip-gram nor CBOW explicitly preserve word order in their word embeddings [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781; @NIPS2013_5021; @DBLP:journals/corr/LeM14]. Ordered concatenation of $syn_0$ vectors does embed order in $syn_1$, but this is obfuscated by the fact that the same embedding for each word must be linearly compatible with the feature detectors in every window position. In addition to changing the objective function, this has the effect of cancelling out features that are unique to only one window position by those in other window positions that are attempting to be encoded in the same feature detector dimension. This effect prevents word embeddings from preserving order based features. The other methods (sum, average, and skip-gram) ignore all order completely in their modeling and model only co-occurrence based probability in their embeddings.
Character-level Representations
-------------------------------
Recent work has explored techniques to embed word shape and morphology features into word embeddings. The resulting embeddings have proven useful for a variety of NLP tasks.
### Deep Neural Network
[@icml2014c2_santos14] proposed a Deep Neural Network (DNN) that “learns character-level representation\[s\] of words and associate\[s\] them with usual word representations to perform POS tagging." The resulting embeddings were used to produce state-of-the-art POS taggers for both English and Portuguese data sets. The network architecture leverages the convolutional approach introduced in [@Waibel:1990:PRU:108235.108263] to produce local features around each character of the word and then combines them into a fixed-sized character-level embedding of the word. The character-level word embedding is then concatenated with a word-level embedding learned using word2vec. Using only these embeddings, [@icml2014c2_santos14] achieves state-of-the-art results in POS tagging without the use of hand-engineered features.
### Recursive Neural Network
[@luong2013better] proposed a “novel model that is capable of building representations for morphologically complex words from their morphemes." The model leverages a recursive neural network (RNN) [@socher2011parsing] to model morphology in a word embedding. Words are decomposed into morphemes using a morphological segmenter [@creutz2007unsupervised]. Using the “morphemic vectors", word-level representations are constructed for complex words. In the experiments performed by [@luong2013better], word embeddings were borrowed from [@huang2012improving] and [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1103-0398]. After conducting a morphemic segmentation, complex words were then enhanced with morphological feature embeddings by using the morphemic vectors in the RNN to compute word representations “on the fly". The resulting model outperforms existing embeddings on word similarity tasks accross several data sets.
The Partitioned Embedding Neural Network Model (PENN)
=====================================================
-0in
![The Windowed configuration of PENN when using the CLOW training method modeling “SEE SPOT RUN". []{data-label="icml-historical"}](Penn.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
-0.3in
We propose a new neural language model called a Partitioned Embedding Neural Network (PENN). PENN improves upon word2vec by modeling the order in which words occur. It models order by partitioning both the embedding and classifier layers. There are two styles of training corresponding to the CBOW negative sampling and skip-gram negative sampling methods in word2vec, although they differ in key areas.
The first property of PENN is that each word embedding is partitioned. Each partition is trained differently from each other partition based on word order, such that each partition models a different probability distribution. These different probability distributions model different perspectives on the same word. The second property of PENN is that the classifier has different inputs for words from different window positions. The classifier is partitioned with equal partition dimensionality as the embedding. It is possible to have fewer partitions in the classifier than the embedding, such that a greater number of word embeddings are summed/averaged into fewer classifier partitions. This configuration has better performance when using smaller dimensionality feature vectors with large windows as it balances the (embedding partition size) / (window size) ratio. The following subsection presents the two opposite configurations under the PENN framework.
Plausible Configurations
------------------------
### Windowed
The simplest configuration of a PENN architecture is the *windowed* configuration, where each partition corresponds to a unique window position in which a word occurs. As illustrated in Figure 2, if there are two window positions (one on each side of the focus term), then each embedding would have two partitions. When a word is in partition p = +1 (the word before the focus term), the partition corresponding to that position is propagated forward, and subsequently back propagated into, with the p = -1 partition remaining unchanged.
### Directional
The opposite configuration to windowed PENN is the *directional* configuration. Instead of each partition corresponding to a window position, there are only two partitions. One partition corresponds to every positive, forward predicting window position (left of the focus term) and the other partition corresponds to every negative, backward predicting window position (right of the focus term). For each partition, all embeddings corresponding to that partition are summed or averaged when being propagated forward.
![The Directional configuration of PENN when using the CLOW training method. It is modeling the sentence “SEE SPOT RUN FAST". []{data-label="icml-historical"}](Penn_Directional_jpg.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
-0.2in
Training Styles
---------------
### Continuous List of Words (CLOW)
The Continuous List of Words (CLOW) training style under the PENN framework optimizes the following objective function:
$$\arg\max_\theta (\prod_{(w,C)\in d}\prod_{-c\leq j\leq c, j\neq 0} p(w=1|c_j^j;\theta)$$
$$\prod_{(w,C)\in d'}\prod_{-c\leq j\leq c, j\neq 0} p(w=0|c_j^j;\theta))$$
where $c_j^j$ is the *location specific representation* (partition $^j$) for the word at window position $j$ relative to the focus word $w$. Closely related to the CBOW training method, the CLOW method models the probability that in an ordered list of words, a specific word is present in the middle of the list, given the presence and location of the other words. For each training example out of a windowed sequence of words, the middle “focus” term is removed. Then, a partition is selected from each remaining word’s embedding based on that word’s position relative to the focus term. These partitions are concatenated and propagated through the classifier layer. All weights are updated to model the probability that the presence of the focus term is 100% (positive training) and other randomly sampled words 0% (negative sampling).
### Skip-Gram
The skip-gram training style under the PENN framework optimizes the following objective function
$$\arg\max_\theta (\prod_{(w,C)\in d}\sum_{-c\leq j\leq c, j\neq 0} p(w_j=1|c_j^j;\theta)$$
$$\prod_{(w,C)\in d'}\sum_{-c\leq j\leq c, j\neq 0} p(w_j=0|c_j^j;\theta))$$
where, like CLOW, $c_j^j$ is the *location specific representation* (partition $^j$) for the word at window position $j$ relative to the focus word $w$. $w_j$ is the relative location specific probability (partition) of the focus term. PENN skip-gram is almost identical to the CLOW method with one key difference. Instead of each partition of a word being concatenated with partitions from neighboring words, each partition is fed forward and back propagated in isolation. This models the probability that, given a single word, the “focus” term is present a relative number of words away in a given direction. This captures information lost in the word2vec skip-gram architecture by modeling based on the relative location of a context word in the window as opposed to an arbitrary location within the window.
The intuition behind modeling $w$ and $c$ based on $j$ at the same time becomes clear when considering the neural architecture of these embeddings. Partitioning the context word into $j$ partitions gives a *location specific representation* for a word’s relative position. Location specific representations are important even for words with singular meanings. Consider the word “going", a word of singular meaning. This word’s effect on a task predicting a word immediately before it is completely different than predicting a word immediately after it. The phrase “am going" is a plausible phrase. The phrase “going am" is not. Thus, forcing this word to have a consistent embedding across these tasks forces it to convey identical information optimizing for nonidentical problems.
Partitioning the classifier incorporates this same principle with respect to the focus word. The focus word will read features presented to it in a different light with a different weighting given its position. For example, “dollars" is far more likely to be predicted accurately based on the word before it; whereas, it is not likely to be predicted correctly by a word ten window positions after. Thus, the classifier responsible for looking for features indicating that “dollars" is next should not have to be the same classifier that looks for features ten window positions into the future. Training separate classifier partitions based on window position avoids this phenomenon.
Distributed Training Optimizations
----------------------------------
### Skip-Gram
When skip-gram is used to model ordered sets of words under the PENN framework each classifier partition and its associated embedding partitions may be trained in full-parallel (with no inter-communication) and reach the exact same state as if they were not distributed. A special case of this is the *windowed* embedding configuration, where every window position can be trained in full parallel and concatenated (embeddings and classifiers) at the end of training. This allows very large, rich embeddings to be trained on relatively small, inexpensive machines in a small amount of time with each machine optimizing a part of the overall objective function. Given machine $j$, training skip-gram under the *windowed* embedding configuration optimizes the following objective function:
$$\arg\max_\theta (\prod_{(w,C)\in d} p(w_j=1|c_j^j;\theta)$$
$$\prod_{(w,C)\in d'}p(w_j=0|c_j^j;\theta))$$
Concatenation of the weight matrices $syn_0$ and $syn_1$ then incorporates the sum over $j$ back into the PENN skip-gram objective function during the forward propagation process, yielding identical training results as a network trained in a single-threaded, single-model PENN skip-gram fashion. This training style achieves parity training results with current state-of-the-art methods while training in parallel over as many as $j$ separate machines.
### CLOW
The CLOW method is an excellent candidate for the ALOPEX distributed training algorithm [@unnikrishnan1994alopex] because it trains on very few (often single) output probabilities at a time. Different classifier partitions may be trained on different machines, with each training example sending a short list of floats per machine across the network. They all share the same global error and continue on to the next iteration.
A second, nontrivial optimization is found in the strong performance of the *directional* CLOW implementation with very small window sizes (pictured below with a window size of 1). *Directional* CLOW is able to achieve a parity score using a window size of 1, contrasted with word2vec using a window size of 10 when all other parameters are equal, reducing the overall training time by a factor of 10.
Dense Interpolated Embedding Model
==================================
[|c|c|c|c|]{}\
**a** & **A** & **1** & **s**\
o & E & 5 & p\
e & O & 7 & h\
i & I & 4 & x\
u & ! & 8 & d\
[|c|c|c|c|]{} &\
\
secretary & 0.619 & gneral & 0.986\
elections & 0.563 & genral & 0.978\
motors & 0.535 & generally & 0.954\
undersecretary & 0.534 & generation & 0.944\
\
firestone & 0.580 & banks & 0.970\
yard & 0.545 & bank & 0.939\
peres & 0.506 & balks & 0.914\
c.c & 0.500 & bans & 0.895\
We propose a second new neural language model called a Dense Interpolated Embedding Model (DIEM). DIEM uses neural embeddings learned at the character level to generate a fixed-length syntactic embedding at the world level useful for syntactic word-analogy tasks, leveraging patterns in the characters as a human might when detecting syntactic features such as plurality.
Method
------
wordlength $I$, list char embeddings (e.g. the word) $char_i$, multiple $M$, char dim $C$, vector $v_m$ $s = $M \* $i / $l $d$ = $pow$(1 - ($abs$($s$ - $m$)) / $M$,2) $v_m$ = $v_m$ + $d$ \* $char_{i}$
-0.0in
Generating syntactic embeddings begins by generating character embeddings. Character embeddings are generated using vanilla word2vec by predicting a focus character given its context. This clusters characters in an intuitive way, vowels with vowels, numbers with numbers, and capitals with capitals. In this way, character embeddings represent morphological building blocks that are more or less similar to each other, based on how they have been used.
Once character embeddings have been generated, interpolation may begin over a word of length $I$. The final embedding size must be selected as a multiple $M$ of the character embedding dimensionality $C$. For each character in a word, its index $i$ is first scaled linearly with the size of the final “syntactic" embedding such that $s$ = $M$ \* $i$ / $l$. Then, for each length $C$ position $m$ (out of $M$ positions) in the final word embedding $v_m$, a squared distance is calculated relative to the scaled index such that distance $d$ = $pow$(1-(abs($s$ - $j$)) / $M$,2). The character vector for the character at position $i$ in the word is then scaled by $d$ and added elementwise into position $m$ of vector $v$.
A more efficient form of this process caches a set of transformation matrices, which are cached values of $d_{i,m}$ for words of varying size. These matrices are used to transform variable length concatenated character vectors into fixed length word embeddings via vector-matrix multiplication.
These embeddings are useful for a variety of tasks, including syntactic word-analogy queries. Furthermore, they are useful for syntactic query expansion, mapping sparse edge cases of a word (typos, odd capitalization, etc.) to a more common word and its semantic embedding.
Distributed Use and Storage Optimizations
-----------------------------------------
Syntactic vectors also provide significant scaling and generalization advantages over semantic vectors. New syntactic vectors may be inexpensively generated for words never before seen, giving loss-less generalization to any word from initial character training, assuming only that the word is made up of characters that have been seen. Syntactic embeddings can be generated in a fully distributed fashion and only require a small vector concatenation and vector-matrix multiplication per word. Secondly, the character vectors (typically length 32) and transformation matrices (at most 20 or so of them) can be stored very efficiently relative to the semantic vocabularies, which can be several million vectors of dimensionality 1000 or more. Despite their significant positive impact on quality, DIEM optimally performs using 6+ orders of magnitude less storage space, and 5+ orders of magnitude fewer training examples than word-level semantic embeddings.
Experiments
===========
{width="\textwidth"}
Evaluation Methods
------------------
We conduct experiments on the word-analogy task of [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781]. It is made up of a variety of word similarity tasks, as described in (Luong et al., 2013). Known as the “Google Analogy Dataset”, it contains 19,544 questions asking ”a is to b as c is to \_” and is split into semantic and syntactic sections. Both sections are further divided into subcategories based on analogy type, as indicated in the results tables below.
All training occurs over the dataset available from the Google word2vec website[^2], using the packaged word-analogy evaluation script. The dataset contains approximately 8 billion words collected from English News Crawl, 1-Billion-Word Benchmark, UMBC Webbase, and English Wikipedia. The dataset used leverages the default data-phrase2.txt normalization in all training, which includes both single tokens and phrases. Unless otherwise specified, all parameters for training and evaluating are identical to the default parameters specified in the default word2vec “big” model, which is freely available online.
Embedding Partition Relative Evaluation
---------------------------------------
Figure 4 displays the relative accuracy of each partition in a PENN model as judged by row-relative word-analogy scores. Other experiments indicated that the pattern present in the heat-map is consistent across parameter tunings. There is a clear quality difference between window positions that predict forward (left side of the figure) and window positions that predict backward (right side of the figure). “currency” achieves most of its predictive power in short range predictions, whereas “capital-common countries” is a much smoother gradient over the window. These patterns support the intuition that different window positions play different roles in different tasks.
Evaluation of CLOW and CBOW
---------------------------
Configuration Style W2V Window (see tbl. 5)
----------------------- ---------- ----------- --------------
Training Style CBOW CLOW ENSEM
Word Vector Size **2000** **2000** **7820**
Partition Size 2000 500 (see tbl. 5)
Window Size 10 2 (see tbl. 5)
capital-common 85.18 **98.81** 95.65
capital-world 75.38 90.01 **93.90**
currency 0.40 16.89 **17.32**
city-in-state 65.18 78.31 **78.88**
family 49.01 84.39 **85.35**
SEMANTIC 65.11 80.62 **82.70**
adjective-to-adverb 15.62 30.04 **90.73**
opposite 8.50 38.55 **73.15**
comparative 51.95 94.37 **99.70**
superlative 33.87 79.77 **91.89**
present-participle 45.45 81.82 **93.66**
nationality-adjective 88.56 89.38 **91.43**
past-tense 55.19 **76.99** 60.01
plural 73.05 83.93 **97.90**
plural-verbs 28.74 73.33 **95.86**
SYNTACTIC 49.42 75.11 **88.29**
TOTAL 56.49 77.59 **85.77**
: Comparison between Word2vec, CLOW, and Penn-DIEM Ensemble
Table 3 shows the performance of the default CBOW implementation of word2vec relative to CLOW and DIEM when configured to 2000 dimensional embeddings. Between tables 3 and 4, we see that increasing dimensionality of baseline CBOW word2vec past 500 achieves sub-optimal performance. Thus, a fair comparison of two models should be between optimal (as opposed to just identical) parameterization for each model. This is especially important given that PENN models are modeling a much richer probability distribution, given that order is being preserved. Thus, optimal parameter settings often require larger dimensionality. Unlike the original CBOW word2vec, we have found that bigger window size is not always better. Larger windows tend to create slightly more semantic embeddings, whereas smaller window sizes tend to create slightly more syntactic embeddings. This follows the intuition that syntax plays a huge role in grammar, which is dictated by rules about which words make sense to occur immediately next to each other. Words that are +5 words apart cluster based on subject matter and semantics as opposed to grammar. With respect to window size and overall quality, because partitions slice up the global vector for a word, increasing the window size decreases the size of each partition in the window if the global vector size remains constant. Since each embedding is attempting to model a very complex (hundreds of thousands of words) probability distribution, the partition size in each partition must remain high enough to model this distribution. Thus, modeling large windows for semantic embeddings is optimal when using either the *directional* embedding model, which has a fixed partition size of 2, or a large global vector size. The *directional* model with optimal parameters has slightly less quality than the *windowed* model with optimal parameters due to the vector averaging occurring in each window pane.
Evaluation of DIEM Syntactic Vectors on Syntactic Tasks
-------------------------------------------------------
-0.1in
Semantic Architecture CLOW DIEM
----------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Semantic Vector Dim. 500 500 500
SEMANTIC TOTAL 81.02 80.19 80.19
adjective-to-adverb 37.70 35.08 **94.55**
opposite 36.21 40.15 **74.60**
comparative 86.71 87.31 **92.49**
superlative 80.12 82.00 **87.61**
present-participle 77.27 80.78 **93.27**
nationality-adjective **90.43** 90.18 71.04
past-tense 72.37 **73.40** 47.56
plural 80.18 81.83 **93.69**
plural-verbs 58.51 63.68 **95.97**
SYNTACTIC TOTAL 72.04 73.45 **81.53**
COMBINED SCORE 76.08 76.49 **80.93**
: Above we see can observe the boost that syntactic based DIEM feature vectors gives our unsupervised semantic models, relative to both word2vec-CBOW and CLOW[]{data-label="my-label"}
-0.0in
Conf. Training Style Window Size Dimensionality
---------------------- ------------- ----------------
Windowed 10 500
Directional 5 500
Windowed 2 2000
Directional 5 2000
Directional 10 2000
Directional 1 500
DIEM x 320
: Concatenated Model Configurations
Table 4 documents the change in syntactic analogy query quality as a result of the interpolated DIEM vectors. For the DIEM experiment, each analogy query was first performed by running the query on CLOW and DIEM independently, and selecting the top thousand CLOW cosine similarities. We summed the squared cosine similarity of each of these top thousand with each associated cosine similarity returned by the DIEM and resorted. This was found to be an efficient estimation of concatenation that did not reduce quality.
Table 5 documents the parameter selection for a combined neural network partitioned according to several training styles and dimensionalities. As in the experiments of Table 3, each analogy query was first performed by running the query on each model independently, selecting the top thousand cosine similarities. We summed the cosine similarity of each of these top thousand entries across all models (excluding DIEM for semantic queries) and resorted. (For normalization purposes, DIEM scores were raised to the power of 10 and all other scores were raised to the power of 0.1 before summing).
High Level Comparisons
----------------------
**Algorithm** **GloVe**
--------------- ----------- ------- ------- --------- ----------
Config x CBOW SG SG ENS
Params x 7.6 B 7.6 B **40B** **59B**
Sem. Dims 300 500 500 5000 7820
Semantic 81.9 81.0 82.2 69.6 **82.7**
Syntactic 69.3 72.0 71.3 80.0 **88.3**
Combined 75.0 76.1 76.2 75.3 **85.8**
: Scores reflect best published results in each category, semantic, syntactic, and combined when parameters are tuned optimally for each individual category.
-0.2in
Our final results show a lift in quality and size over previous models with a 58% syntactic lift over the best published syntactic result, and a 40% overall lift over the best published overall result [@pennington-socher-manning:2014:EMNLP2014]. Table 5 also includes the highest word2vec scores we could achieve through better parameterization (which also exceeds the best published word2vec scores). Within PENN models, there exists a speed vs. performance tradeoff between SG-DIEM and CLOW-DIEM. In this case, we achieve a 20x level of parallelism in SG-DIEM relative to CLOW, with each model training partitions of 250 dimensions (250 \* 20 = 5000 final dimensionality). A 160 billion parameter network was also trained overnight on 3 multi-core CPUs, however it yielded 20000 dimensional vectors for each word and subsequently overfit the training data. This is because a dataset of 8 billion tokens with a negative sampling parameter of 10 has 80 billion training examples. Having more parameters than training examples overfits a dataset, whereas 40 billion performs at parity with current state of the art, as pictured in Table 5. Future work will experiment with larger datasets and vocabularies. The previous largest neural network contained 11.2 billion parameters [@coates2013deep], whereas CLOW and the largest SG contain 16 billion (trained all together) and 160 billion (trained across a cluster) parameters respectively as measured by the number of weights.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
Encoding both word and character order in neural word embeddings is beneficial for word-analogy tasks, particularly syntactic tasks. These findings are based upon the intuition that order matters in human language and has been validated through the methods above. Future work will further investigate the scalability of these word embeddings to larger datasets with reduced runtimes.
[^1]: http://word2vec.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/
[^2]: https://code.google.com/p/word2vec/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A magneto-structural phase transition is investigated in single crystal CrN thin films grown by rf plasma molecular beam epitaxy on MgO(001) substrates. While still within the vacuum environment following MBE growth, [*in-situ*]{} low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy, and [*in-situ*]{} variable low-temperature reflection high energy electron diffraction are applied, revealing an atomically smooth and metallic CrN(001) surface, and an [*in-plane*]{} structural transition from 1$\times$1 (primitive CrN unit cell) to $\mathrm{\sqrt{2}\times\sqrt{2}-R45^\circ}$ with a transition temperature of $\sim$ 278 K, respectively. [*Ex-situ*]{} temperature dependent measurements are also performed, including x-ray diffraction and neutron diffraction, looking at the structural peaks and likewise revealing a first-order structural transition along both \[001\] and \[111\] [*out-of-plane*]{} directions, with transition temperatures of 256 K and 268 K, respectively. Turning to the magnetic peaks, neutron diffraction confirms a clear magnetic transition from paramagnetic at room temperature to antiferromagnetic at low temperatures with a sharp, first-order phase transition and a Néel temperature of 270 K or 280 K for two different films. In addition to the experimental measurements of structural and magnetic ordering, we also discuss results from first-principles theoretical calculations which explore various possible magneto-structural models.
[**Keywords:**]{} chromium nitride; magnetic phase transition; structural phase transition; low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy; molecular beam epitaxy; variable-temperature reflection high energy electron diffraction; variable-temperature x-ray diffraction; neutron diffraction
author:
- '[Khan Alam$^{1}$, Steven M. Disseler$^{2}$, William D. Ratcliff$^{2}$, Julie A. Borchers$^{2}$, Rodrigo Ponce-Pérez$^{1,3}$, Gregorio H. Cocoletzi$^{3}$, Noboru Takeuchi$^{1,4}$, Andrew Foley$^{1}$, Andrea Richard$^{1}$, David C. Ingram$^{1}$, and Arthur R. Smith$^{1,*}$]{}'
title: Structural and Magnetic Phase Transitions in Chromium Nitride Thin Films Grown by RF Nitrogen Plasma Molecular Beam Epitaxy
---
Introduction
============
Although originally known for its impressive physical properties including high hardness and corrosion resistance [@wiklund1997cracking; @nouveau2001stress], chromium nitride (CrN) has attracted considerable attention in recent years due to its potential use as an electronic or spintronic material resulting from observed semiconducting-like behavior over a variety of temperatures[@gall2002band], and its antiferromagnetic ordering at low temperatures[@anderson2005magnetic]. Besides potential electronic applications, CrN could be a model system for studying first-order phase transitions in which structural, electronic, and magnetic properties are intertwined.
The structural, electronic, and magnetic properties of CrN were originally understood based only on results from bulk powder samples [@corliss1960antiferromagnetic; @bhobe2010evidence]. For example, it was known since 1960 that bulk CrN is paramagnetic (PM) with a rock-salt crystal structure at room temperature (RT), but becomes antiferromagnetic (AFM) at low temperature (LT), with a Néel temperature T$_{N}$ of 273-283 K and with an orthorhombic crystal structure [@corliss1960antiferromagnetic; @mrozinska1979first]. Then Filippetti [*et al.*]{} proposed in 2000 that magnetic stress is the driving force for the structural transition,[@filippetti2000magnetic] thus linking the magnetic with the structural.
While the properties of CrN seemed quite well understood for bulk material by 2000, since then various groups have reported highly discrepant properties for CrN in thin film form. For example, Gall *et al.* reported that CrN thin films grown on MgO(001) by reactive magnetron sputtering, due to epitaxial constraints, do not exhibit a structural transition and that the resistivity varies by orders of magnitude, increasing with decreasing temperature[@gall2002band]. Whereas in 2004, Constantin [*et al.*]{} found instead, semiconducting behavior at room temperature but a clear transition to metallic behavior at low temperature for CrN thin films grown by radio-frequency nitrogen plasma molecular beam epitaxy (rf N-plasma MBE); however, Constantin [*et al.*]{} did not address the presence or absence of either structural or magnetic transitions in their films [@constantin2004metal].
In 2011, Zhang *et al.* reported the absence of a structural transition for single crystal CrN thin films grown on MgO(001) and MgO(111) substrates by sputtering, but they did observe a transition for a polycrystalline CrN film grown on quartz[@zhang2011epitaxial]. Yet again, Inumaru *et al.* studied CrN/MgO(001) and CrN/sapphire(0001) thin films grown by pulsed laser deposition, and while they did observe a structural transition for CrN/MgO(001), they did not for the case of CrN/sapphire(0001) [@inumaru2007controlling].
Ney *et al.* investigated the magnetic properties of CrN thin films grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) on two different substrates, MgO(001) and sapphire(0001). They reported that CrN/MgO(001) showed no magnetic transition from PM to AFM upon cooling, although CrN/sapphire(0001) showed ferromagnetic-like behavior at low temperatures[@ney2006magnetic].
Herwadkar and Lambrecht’s 2009 paper examined and attempted to address some of the discrepant reports by means of electronic structure calculations using the local spin density approximation including Hubbard correction (LSDA+U) applied to the Corliss AFM model (referred to as AFM-\[110\]$_2$) as well as some competing models. They proposed possible reasons for the widely differing transport properties reported, and the observation or lack thereof, of structural/magnetic phase transitions suggesting, for example, that the various properties could be strongly affected by the presence/abscence of N vacancies and possible localization effects [@herwadkar2009electronic].
In this paper, we apply variable temperature reflection high energy electron diffraction (VT-RHEED), variable temperature x-ray diffraction (VT-XRD), and variable temperature neutron diffraction (VT-ND) to investigate a possible structural phase transition, and variable temperature neutron diffraction to investigate a possible magnetic phase transition in CrN thin films grown using rf N-plasma MBE. The experimental results may be compared to, and are consistent with, the temperature-dependent resistivity results reported by Constantin *et al.* in 2004 [@constantin2004metal]. We also carry out first-principles theoretical calculations for CrN using several different computational methods in order to investigate structural and magnetic models which are consistent with our experimental results. Although we will show that the measurements do not uniquely support one particular structural model, the structural phase transition is very clear, both for the [*in-plane*]{} as well as [*out-of-plane*]{} measurements, although there are some variations in the measured structural transition temperatures. On the other hand, we will also show that the magnetic measurements uniquely support the magnetic model (AFM-\[110\]$_2$) put forth by Corliss [*et al.*]{} in 1960.[@corliss1960antiferromagnetic] We also find that sample stoichiometry (nitrogen deficiency) appears to affect the transition temperature slightly.
Methods
=======
Growth and VT-RHEED experiments are performed in a custom designed ultra-high vacuum (UHV) system combining MBE with low temperature spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy (LT-SP-STM), which makes excellent conditions for *in situ* characterization of as-grown thin films [@lin2014facility]. High quality CrN thin films are grown on MgO(001) substrates initially cleaned *ex situ* with acetone followed by isopropyl-alcohol and further prepared in vacuum by heating up to 1000$\pm$30 $^{^\circ}$C while being exposed to nitrogen plasma flux until a streaky RHEED pattern is obtained. All four samples (film thicknesses are given in the parentheses) S45 (670 nm), S61 (980 nm), S73 (150 nm), and S75 (37 nm) investigated in this experiment are grown under nitrogen rich conditions at 650$\pm$30 $^{^\circ}$C without any buffer layer except for S45, where a 21 nm CrN buffer layer was grown at 400$\pm$20 $^{^\circ}$C. The Cr flux is obtained by heating a carefully degassed effusion cell, and nitrogen flux (1.38$\times$10$^{14}$ atoms/cm$^{2}$s) is obtained from a radio frequency N-plasma generator, which uses 99.999% ultra high pure nitrogen gas source and operates at 450 W forward power. The growths are controlled by opening and closing the Cr effusion cell shutter, and the entire growth process is monitored with RHEED. The Cr flux is measured using quartz crystal thickness monitor, and N flux is calibrated by growing a 1$\times$1 GaN film [@alam2015native]. During S45 growth, Cr flux is varied in a range of 2-5$\times$10$^{13}$ atoms/cm$^{2}$s whereas the flux is kept constant at 2 $\pm$ 0.2$\times$10$^{13}$ atoms/cm$^{2}$s during S61, S73, and S75.
Chromium nitride samples are further studied to optimize growth conditions for high quality films using a wide variety of surface and bulk sensitive techniques including LT-STM, Rutherford back-scattering spectrometery (RBS), and x-ray diffraction (XRD).
A possible *in-plane* structural transition is studied *in situ* in CrN samples S73 and S75 using VT-RHEED. The possible *out-of-plane* structural transition is studied *ex situ* in S45 and S61 using VT-XRD, and VT-ND, respectively. The VT-RHEED setup consists of a custom designed VT sample stage, which can be heated up to 1273 K and cooled down to 193 K and a RHEED system for continuously monitoring surfaces. We used liquid nitrogen to cool down the samples while observing changes in the surfaces with a 20 keV e-beam. The experiments are performed one at a time for four crystallographic directions: \[100\], \[110\], \[130\], and \[$\underline{1}$20\], and the patterns are recorded above and below the transition temperature. In the VT-XRD experiment nitrogen vapor is used to cool down the sample. X-ray spectra of the 002 peak of MgO and CrN are continuously recorded as the sample is either cooling down or warming up. The CrN temperature is determined by using lattice constant and thermal expansion coefficient of MgO in the linear thermal expansion equation.
We performed variable temperature neutron diffraction (VT-ND) experiments at the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR). Neutron diffraction measurements were performed to study the magnetic and structural transitions in S45 and S61 using the BT-4 triple axis spectrometer with neutrons of incident energy 14.7 meV (corresponding to wavelength 2.359 Å) for the magnetic reflections and 30.5 meV (corresponding to wavelength 1.638 Å) for the structural reflections. Energies were selected with a pyrolitic graphite monochromator and analyzer and also pyrolitic graphite filters were placed in the beam to remove contamination from higher order wavelengths. To maximize signal intensity, 40$\prime$ collimations were used before and after the sample with open collimation before the monochromator and after the analyzer. Collimation settings for both neutron diffraction experiments were the same. Samples were mounted on single-crystal silicon wafers with fluorinated grease and sealed with He atmosphere inside an aluminum can for temperature control via a closed-cycle refrigerator. In addition to the BT-4 triple axis spectrometer data presented in this paper, polarized neutron beam experiments were also performed using the BT-7 triple-axis spectrometer with 14.7 meV neutrons and $^3$He neutron spin filters.[@lynn2012double; @chen20073]
Calculations have been done within the periodic density functional theory (DFT) as implemented in the PWscf code of the Quantum ESPRESSO package [@giannozzi2009quantum]. Exchange-correlation energies are modeled using three different approximations: the local density approximation with the Perdew-Zunger (PZ) parametrization [@perdew1981self] plus Hubbard correction (LDA+U) [@anisimov1997first] with 3 eV $\leq$ U $\leq$ 5 eV employing the simplified version of Cococcioni [@cococcioni2005linear]; the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) as stated by the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) gradient corrected functional [@perdew1996generalized] and the GGA-PBE functional plus Hubbard correction (GGA+U) with 1 eV $\leq$ U $\leq$ 5 eV using the Cococcioni simplified version [@cococcioni2005linear]. In all cases, Vanderbilt ultra-soft pseudopotentials [@vanderbilt1990soft] have been employed to replace the core electrons. The cut-off energy to truncate the electronic states expansion in plane waves has been optimized, finding a cutoff of 30 Ry to be appropriate. For the charge density, we have used a density cutoff of 240 Ry. Convergence was achieved when the forces acting on each ion were smaller than 0.002 eV/Å, and the energy difference between two consecutive steps was less than 0.01 eV. Moreover, Brillouin zone integration has been done using a Methfessel-Paxton [@methfessel1989high] smearing of 0.01 Ry and an optimized and equally spaced k-points mesh of 5x5x5 [@monkhorst1976special] centered at Gamma.
Results and Discussion
======================
Growth and [*In-situ*]{} Sample Characterization
------------------------------------------------
Shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1-a\] is a characteristic RHEED pattern of CrN, which is taken along \[110\] at the end of the growth of S45 at room temperature. Five sharp and continuous streaks in the zeroth-order Laue ring (Z$_{[110]}$) corresponding to the cubic symmetry of CrN are visible in this pattern. The streak spacing corresponds to an *in-plane* lattice constant (a$_{\Vert}$) of 4.14 Å, which shows that this sample is more relaxed than the Constantin *et al.* samples (4.04-4.13 Å) and matches the Ney *et al.* sample (4.14 Å) and can be taken as the bulk value[@constantin2004metal; @ney2006magnetic]. The bulk lattice parameter of MgO is 4.213 Å.[@yang2002crystalline]
A 38 nm $\times$ 42 nm LT-STM image of S45 taken at 4.2 K is presented in Fig. \[fig:fig1-b\]. Five atomically smooth terraces with consistent contrast are visible in the image. As well, some visible darker spots in all terraces corresponding to CrN surface vacancies can be seen. All terraces do not show any long-range-topographic distortions (LTDs) associated with semiconducting behavior, which were observed using STM by Constantin *et al.* in CrN thin films at room temperature [@constantin2004metal]. The absence of LTDs indicates a metallic nature of our sample at low temperatures.
In order to find the *out-of-plane* lattice constant (a$_{\bot}$), a line profile is taken across three terraces in the STM image as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1-c\]. The step height of each terrace is 2.07 Å, which is half of the a$_{\bot}$ of CrN.
[*Ex-situ*]{} Sample Characterization
-------------------------------------
Shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1-d\] is an XRD pattern of S45, where 002 and 004 peaks of CrN and the same peaks of MgO can be seen. Scattering of K$_{\alpha1}$ x-rays coming from the Cu target produce the main peaks and K$_{\alpha2}$ appears as a bulge on the side of the MgO 002 peak and as a second peak on the right side of the MgO 004 reflection. The XRD pattern is first calibrated with respect to the MgO substrate, and then the lattice parameter of CrN is measured. The 002 peak of CrN occurs at 2$\theta$ = 43.56$^{^\circ}$ corresponding to a$_{\bot}$ = 4.15 Å, and it is in the range of the previously reported values of 4.13-4.17 Å[@ney2006magnetic; @constantin2004metal; @corliss1960antiferromagnetic; @gall2002growth].
The CrN samples are characterized $\textit{ex situ}$ with RBS to find their stochiometry. Best fit to the RBS data of S61 reveals a 7% N deficiency while S45 is found to be ideally stochiometric with Cr:N = 1.0:1.0. As measured by RHEED and XRD, we do not see any secondary phases in any samples; therefore, a N deficiency is attributed to N vacancies in the sample.
Observation of [*In-plane*]{} Structural Transition Using RHEED
---------------------------------------------------------------
A possible *in-plane* structural transition is studied in S73 and S75 using VT-RHEED. If the room-temperature fcc crystal structure transforms into orthorhombic with a 2 degrees distortion, then the RHEED patterns may be affected by the structural changes. For example, if the entire CrN film is distorted coherently along \[110\] then the LT-RHEED patterns taken along \[100\] and \[010\] should be misaligned with respect to the RT-RHEED pattern, which should result in asymmetry of the streak pattern. Alternatively, if half of the sample domains of the film are stretched along \[110\] and the other half along \[10\] then one would expect to see split streaks or streak broadening in RHEED patterns along \[110\] and \[10\]. Such effects are not obvious in the RHEED patterns taken below T$_{N}$.
On the other hand, we do observe new streaks/spots in the RHEED patterns of S73 and S75 at 277 K and 278 K, respectively, upon cooling, as shown in Fig. \[fig:VT-RHEED\]. The relative brightness of the new streaks/spots increases with further decrease in the sample temperature while the overall patterns stay the same. It is an abrupt transition with a transition temperature of $\sim$ 278 K. As described in the following, the appearance of these additional streaks/spots below the transition temperature corresponds to a transition from a 1$\times$1 unit cell to a $\mathrm{\sqrt{2}\times\sqrt{2}-R45^\circ}$ unit cell (alternatively, from a primitive 1$\times$1 to a conventional 1$\times$1 unit cell).
Shown in Fig. \[fig:VT-RHEED\] are eight RHEED patterns of S73, where patterns shown in \[, , , and \] are recorded above, and patterns shown in \[, , , and \] are recorded below, the phase transition. The patterns are furthermore grouped in columns as follows: \[110\] (a,b); \[130\] (c,d); \[$\underline{1}$20\] (e,f); and \[100\] (g,h). These crystallographic directions can be identified by their characteristic streak spacings. For example, U is the streak spacing along \[110\]; and V, W, and X are larger than U by $\sqrt{5}$, $\sqrt{10}$, and $\sqrt{2}$ times, respectively. Unique streaks/spots in each RHEED pattern are marked with Miller indices which correspond to the reciprocal space map presented in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-b\].
When we compare Fig. \[fig:VT-RHEED-a\] with Fig. \[fig:VT-RHEED-b\], above the transition only a zeroth-order-Laue ring (Z$_{[110]}$) is visible while below the transition, in addition to Z$_{[110]}$, a first-order Laue ring (F$_{[110]}$) appears. Additionally, one can notice two points: first, the spacing between F$_{[110]}$ streaks (U) is the same as for Z$_{[110]}$; however, each F$_{[110]}$ streak occupies a 1/2-order position referenced to Z$_{[110]}$.
Similarly, in the case of \[130\], only zeroth-order and second-order (S$_{[130]}$) Laue rings are visible above the transition, and the streak spacing (V) in both rings is the same. Below the transition temperature, a first-order-Laue ring (F$_{[130]}$) appears midway along the vertical between Z$_{[130]}$ and S$_{[130]}$, but each spot of F$_{[130]}$ is laterally offset midway between the adjacent streaks of Z$_{[130]}$ and S$_{[130]}$, another sign of the abrupt transition.
The VT-RHEED experiments were also performed along \[$\underline{1}$20\] and \[100\] directions, and in each case 1/2-order streaks appear while cooling through the transition temperature as is clear within the zeroth-order and first-order Laue rings for \[$\underline{1}$20\] and within the zeroth-order Laue ring for \[100\].
Model to Explain the [*In-plane*]{} Transition Seen in VT-RHEED
---------------------------------------------------------------
To understand the origin of the diffraction streaks/spots seen in RHEED above and below the transition temperature, a detailed model of the CrN surface is shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model\]. Using this model, each RHEED streak/spot from the experimental patterns can be precisely accounted for. The direct lattice is shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-a\], and the corresponding reciprocal lattice map is shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-b\].
The basic structure for CrN(001) surface above the transition can be viewed as just a primitive 1$\times$1 square lattice (yellow atom lattice, labeled with vectors $\vec{\mathrm{b}}_{1}$ and $\vec{\mathrm{b}}_{2}$ primitive cell vectors) as shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-a\]. Corresponding to this 1$\times$1 primitive lattice in real space is the reciprocal space 2D square lattice (yellow spots) shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-b\]. This yellow spot reciprocal space map explains all the spots seen in RHEED in all 4 azimuthal directions (\[110\], \[130\], \[$\underline{1}$20\], and \[100\]) above the transition.
The b$_{1}$-b$_{2}$ primitive lattice can also be viewed as a conventional face-centered square lattice \[unit vectors $\vec{\mathrm{a}}_{1}$ and $\vec{\mathrm{a}}_{2}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-a\]\] with an identical 2-atom basis. The new model below the transition can be attained simply by lifting the degeneracy between corner and face-centered atoms, leading to half yellow and half blue atoms seen in the model. And then the corresponding reciprocal lattice map consists of the previous set of (yellow) spots plus an additional new set of (blue) spots seen in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-b\]. These new edge-center spots account for all the new spots seen in the LT-RHEED patterns. Sets of reciprocal space points along certain directions (indicated by straight lines in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-b\]) correspond to particular Laue zones seen in the RHEED patterns. Every Laue zone and every reciprocal space lattice point is labeled in the figure in a manner consistent with markings in Fig. \[fig:VT-RHEED\]. Based on the model shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-a\], appearance of the new F$_{[110]}$ Laue ring along \[110\] azimuth is associated with the lifting of the degeneracy and corresponds to a periodicity doubling (2$\times$a$_{\Vert}$/$\sqrt{2}$) along \[110\]. Similarly the appearance of the F$_{[130]}$ Laue zone spots for the \[130\] azimuth is associated with the same degeneracy lifting as for \[110\] and corresponds to an atomic periodicity doubling (2$\times\sqrt{2.5}$ a$_{\Vert}$) along \[130\]. Lastly, the appearance of the 1/2-order spots/streaks for \[$\underline{1}$20\] and \[100\] is consistent with the degeneracy lifting shown in the model of Fig. \[fig:LT-RHEED-Model-a\], and corresponds to a periodicity doubling (2$\times$a$_{\Vert}$/$\sqrt{20}$) along \[2$\underline{1}$0\] for the \[$\underline{1}$20\] azimuth and a doubling (2$\times$a$_{\Vert}$/2) along \[010\] for the \[100\] azimuth.
We find that the simple model having a cubic unit cell fully explains the RHEED spots observed at LT; however, the cause of this super-periodicity seen on the surface is unknown. It may indicate a structural distortion. Since RHEED is not spin sensitive, we cannot conclude anything about the spin ordering at the surface, and we assume that it corresponds to some kind of cooling-induced surface buckling or other structural effect. It is possible however, that the surface phase transition corresponds to the bulk phase transition for two reasons. First, the RT 1$\times$1 surface structure is bulk-like; and second, the phase transition coincides pretty closely with the one observed in neutron diffraction described below for bulk.
Observation of [*Out-of-plane*]{} Structural Transition Using VT-XRD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We performed VT-XRD experiments to investigate a possible *out-of-plane* structural transition in the CrN films. We cooled down sample S45 from 293 K to 203 K by flowing nitrogen vapor over the sample, and x-ray spectra were continuously recorded as the sample was either cooling down or warming up. During cooling/heating, the 002 peak of MgO as well as of CrN shift to the right/left, respectively, as shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-XRD-S45-a\]. Since this experiment was not done under vacuum, intensities of the peaks as well as the shape of the MgO peak change during cooling/heating, likely due to problems with icing. Despite this problem, we observed the CrN lattice constant decrease with decreasing temperature, over the range around the expected phase transition. This is seen in Fig. \[fig:LT-XRD-S45-b\] where a$_{\bot}$ is plotted versus temperature. A fit to the data is obtained by using a Boltzmann equation: a$_{\bot}$(T)=4.152Å-0.008Å/\[1+exp((T-T$_{N}$)/$\bigtriangleup$T)\], which gives a transition temperature of 256 $\pm$ 6 K, which is lower than what we observed in the VT-RHEED experiment. The difference could be related to the manner in which temperature for the CrN is determined; in this experiment sample temperature is estimated from the MgO temperature determined by assuming the expected linear thermal expansion of MgO based on its linear thermal expansion coefficient ($\alpha_{MgO}$) of 9.84$\times$10$^{-6}$ K$^{-1}$ [@madelung2004semiconductors]; however, there was a time delay between the CrN and MgO spectra at every temperature step, which may lead to a systematic error. Therefore the result is only semi-quantitative; nonetheless, we see that the [*out-of-plane*]{} CrN lattice parameter appears to change in a non-linear fashion with temperature, as shown in Fig. \[fig:LT-XRD-S45-b\], consistent with a phase transition. Further support for this conclusion is that if we assume a linear thermal expansion model for the CrN, then we find that the CrN thermal expansion coefficient ($\alpha_{CrN}$) is 2.9$\times$10$^{-5}$ K$^{-1}$, which is 3-4$\times$ larger than reported values 0.75-1.06$\times$10$^{-5}$ K$^{-1}$.[@zhang2011epitaxial; @janssen2006stress; @zhou2014structural; @daniel2011size]
Investigation of the Structural Transition Using VT-ND
------------------------------------------------------
To more accurately investigate the structural transition in our CrN thin films, we monitored three structural peaks (111, 002, and 220, indexed relative to the pseudo-cubic unit cell) above and below the transition temperature using neutron diffraction for S61. At room temperature, all of these three peaks occur as small shoulders on the high angle side of the large 111, 002, and 220 MgO peaks since the MgO substrate thickness is substantially greater than the CrN film thickness. Three $\theta$-2$\theta$ scans through the 111 peak collected at 305, 270, and 240 K are shown in Fig. 5(a). From the 305 K and 270 K curves, we find that the position of the 111 MgO peak at 2$\theta$ = 39.6$^\circ$, in comparison to the position 39.4$^\circ$ expected for bulk MgO, does not change (note that the difference between the measured and nominal MgO 2$\theta$ values is within experimental error for the $E$ = 30.5 meV neutrons that results from the coarse resolution utilized to detect the small film reflections; uncertainties in the shift in the peak position with temperature are significantly smaller). At 305 K and 270 K, a clear shoulder is evident on the right side of the 111 MgO peak near 2$\theta$ = 40.2$^\circ$, corresponding to a $d$-spacing $d$$_{111}$ = 2.38 Å, consistent with RT CrN lattice constants a = b = c = 4.13 Å.
The center of the CrN shoulder at 240 K (as obtained from Gaussian fits), however, has shifted to a higher angle of 40.6$^\circ$, corresponding to a LT CrN $d$-spacing $d$$_{111}$ = 2.36 Å. These data clearly show that there is a sudden lattice distortion (contraction) along the \[111\] axis of the pseudocubic cell, which is tipped at an angle of 35$^\circ$ relative to the film growth axis. These data are consistent with a bulk-like orthorhombic distortion of the CrN lattice in which the 111 peak at high temperatures splits into 201 and 011 reflections (indexed relative to the orthorhombic cell) at low temperatures. The position of the shoulder at 240 K approximately matches that expected for the bulk CrN 201 reflection (40.6$^\circ$), but the 011 orthorhombic reflection, if present, would be obscured by the 111 MgO reflection (near an angle of 39.7$^\circ$).
To determine if this structural transition is first-order, we monitored the peak intensity at 2$\theta$ = 40.2$^\circ$ as a continuous function of temperature upon heating from 240 K after cooling from room temperature. We see an abrupt change in intensity at T = 268 K, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The transition spans a range of about 12 K, but the actual transition could be sharper due to our finite temperature equilibration times (2.6 minutes per point).
Using VT-ND, we also investigated the temperature dependence of the 002 peak, as shown in Fig. 5(c). Three curves are shown, one above the transition (305 K), one near the transition (270 K), and one below the transition (240 K). A full orthorhombic distortion of the CrN (similar to what was seen for bulk powders), if it occurred, would be expected to produce only a subtle shift in the 002 peak position, from (approximately) 2$\theta$ = 46.72$^\circ$ at high temperatures to 2$\theta$ = 46.68$^\circ$ at low temperatures. This tiny shift is below the instrument resolution, and all that is seen at 240 K is a slightly decreased intensity (compared to the 270 K and 305 K data) on the right side of the MgO 002 peak near the anticipated RT CrN peak position.
To isolate any [*in-plane*]{} component of the lattice distortion, we performed similar neutron diffraction measurements for the 220 peak, as shown in Fig. 5(d). In this case, the anticipated RT CrN 220 peak for the curve taken at 305 K is at 68.2$^\circ$, and a shoulder near this angle is seen well separated from the MgO 220 peak (note that the fitted position of the 220 MgO peak is 2$\theta$ = 67.3$^\circ$, relative to the expected position 66.8$^\circ$ for bulk MgO). The 220 curve for 240 K (in Fig. 5d) also shows a shoulder at the same angle (Note that the 240 K data were obtained in different conditions with reduced shielding). This indicates that the lattice constant along the \[220\] direction does not shift as the sample is cooled. If a full bulk-like, orthorhombic distortion occurs within the film plane, we would expect a splitting of the 220 peak at high temperatures into 020, 212 and 400 reflections (indexed relative to the orthorhombic cell) at low temperatures. The 020 (with an expected angle of 67.1$^\circ$) is obscured by the MgO substrate 220 reflection, and the 212 (with an expected angle of 68.2$^\circ$) effectively coincides with the 220 pseudocubic CrN reflection at high temperature. At low temperature, we do not see any significant increase in scattering near the expected position of the 400 (69.4$^\circ$) though any scattering may be masked by the instrument background, which is larger due to instrument configuration differences (as noted above). So therefore, we do not find any definitive evidence of a LT lattice distortion along the [*in-plane*]{} direction for these CrN films, though the neutron measurements cannot rule out this possibility.
The overall conclusion from these structural studies is that a structural transition is observed for CrN in the \[002\] [*out-of-plane*]{} (by VT-XRD) and \[111\] directions (by VT-ND), whereas the results from VT-RHEED as well as VT-ND indicate that an expected [*in-plane*]{} structural distortion at low temperatures is suppressed. These data are consistent with (but not uniquely supportive of) a reduction or clamping of the [*in-plane*]{} lattice distortion at low temperatures due to the epitaxial constraints from the rocksalt fcc MgO substrate. The VT-ND and VT-RHEED results are consistent with a possible tetragonal type structure at low temperatures. In any case, a structural transition is definitely observed within our films.
Measuring the Magnetic Phase Transition Using VT-ND
---------------------------------------------------
Based on the work of Filippetti [*et al.*]{},[@filippetti2000magnetic] it is expected in CrN that spin ordering drives structural distortion. Therefore, we expect a connection between the observed structural transition and a magnetic phase transition in our films. Neutron diffraction is the most accurate way to probe the onset of long-range magnetic order, particularly in the case of antiferromagnetism. Sample S45 (670 nm thick) was aligned in the hhl zone, within the pseudocubic notation for the high-temperature rock-salt structure. Both the $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$0 and $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$1 peaks, each related to the antiferromagnetic ordering of CrN, were found below the structural transition point. Scans taken along the scattering wave vector at 100 K, namely the $\frac{h}{2}$$\frac{h}{2}$0 and $\frac{h}{2}$$\frac{h}{2}$h directions, for Figs. \[fig:BT4-S45-a\] and respectively, are well described by simple Gaussian line shapes when compared to the flat background at higher temperatures. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of each peak determined from the fit is within error of the calculated resolution limit for each reflection, indicating extended correlation length and long-range magnetic order over the entirety of the sample.
The temperature dependencies of the peak intensities of the $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$0 and $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$1 reflections are shown in Figs. \[fig:BT4-S45-c\] and , respectively. The intensities of both reflections increase sharply upon cooling, consistent with a first-order phase transition. The temperature dependencies below T$_{N}$ results from a small temperature-dependent background apparent in Fig. \[fig:BT4-S45-a\] and rather than the sample itself. Polarized neutron beam experiments furthermore confirm that these peaks are magnetic in origin. Therefore, from the temperature dependent data, a Néel temperature is determined by fitting it with a simple order-parameter and linear background (solid line in the figure), from which we find T$_{N}$ = 280 $\pm$ 2 K. Similar measurements of the $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$0 reflection for a thicker sample (S61, 980 nm and having a 7% nitrogen deficiency) were also performed, finding a first-order transition at a lower T$_{N}$ (270 K) than for S45.
Interestingly, the determined Néel temperature for S45 (280 $\pm$ 2 K) is very close to the structural transition temperature determined from VT-RHEED measurements (278 K), although those samples were much thinner (S73/150 nm and S75/37 nm). This suggests a possible close correspondence between magnetic and structural transitions in these CrN films. However, the correspondence is not as close when comparing the Néel temperature (280 K) with the structural transition temperature determined for the same sample by means of VT-XRD (256 K), possibly due to temperature equilibration issues in the VT-XRD measurement. On the other hand, the reduced Néel temperature (270 K) for 7% nitrogen deficient S61 matches the transition temperature obtained for the same sample using VT-ND (268 K). In any case, it is clear that these CrN films exhibit both magnetic and structural transitions, and over similar temperature ranges.
Theoretical Calculations of Cubic, Tetragonal, and Orthorhombic Models
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When we compare our experimental results to the Corliss model (AFM-\[110\]$_2$), which was also investigated by Filippetti *et al.*,[@corliss1960antiferromagnetic; @filippetti2000magnetic] as shown in Fig. \[fig:aFM-Model-a\] and , we find excellent agreement magnetically but structurally the picture appears more complicated. Certainly, the Corliss model with its alternating double-layer ferromagnetic sheets (Type 4 antiferromagnetism according to the Cox fcc classification system) gives rise to $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$0 and $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$1 magnetic peaks which we observed, and yet the RHEED did not observe any [*in-plane*]{} distortion expected for the orthorhombic model, consistent with the VT-ND results which did not observe any changes in the 220 peak position after cooling the sample. On the other hand, the 111 peak was observed to shift, exhibiting a first-order phase transition versus temperature. These results suggested the possibility of other models which could explain the magnetism while also giving a better agreement structurally. For example, the LT-RHEED data suggest a square lattice unit cell, and given the results from VT-XRD and VT-ND, it would therefore make sense to consider both cubic and tetragonal AFM models, in addition to the AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model. Two such models are presented in Fig. \[fig:aFM-Model-c\] (AFM-cubic, Type 1 AFM) and Fig. \[fig:aFM-Model-e\] (AFM-tetragonal, Type 3 AFM). Additional motivation to consider other models comes from the theoretical work of Liangcai *et al.* who showed that the AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model in bulk CrN has lower total energy compared to the AFM-cubic model by only 0.06 eV/atom or 0.04 eV/atom depending on the particular method,[@zhou2014structural] which is not a big difference, and therefore epitaxial constraints as well as strain in actual films could be enough to change the sign of the inequality.
We therefore performed numerical calculations for non-magnetic, ferromagnetic, and antiferromagnetic ordering in the cases of cubic, tetragonal, and orthorhombic models using GGA (generalized gradient approximation) and LDA+U (local density approximation + Hubbard correction, with 3 eV $\leq$U$\leq$ 5 eV). Our models are divided into two categories based on the number of monolayers (ML’s). The models with $<$ 9 ML’s (surface) give a lattice constant of 4.140 Å, whereas models with $\geq$ 9 ML’s (bulk) are relatively relaxed and give a lattice constant of 4.145 Å.
For the AFM-cubic model, both the surface and bulk models show metallic behavior. Whereas the surface model of the AFM-tetragonal shows metallic behavior, while the bulk model shows semiconducting behavior with a band gap of 0.03 eV. Similarly, for the AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model, we find metallic behavior for the surface model but semiconducting behavior with a band gap of 0.16 eV for the bulk model. These findings are comparable to the results of Herwadkar and Lambrecht who obtained a gap of 0.4 eV for U = 3 eV in LSDA+U calculations [@herwadkar2009electronic] (see also Supplementary material, figure 3). The fact that our LT-STM data is consistent with metallic behavior, which is also consistent with the results of Constantin [*et al.’s*]{} LT resistivity measurements for similarly grown samples [@constantin2004metal], is therefore not obviously in the best agreement with the existence of a finite gap as seen in the AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model, as compared to a zero gap model such as AFM-cubic. However, as discussed in detail by Herwadkar and Lambrecht, this LT metallic behavior could arise from exceeding a critical electron density owing to N vacancies acting as donors.
We should emphasize here that for each model we began our calculations from a perfect cubic structure and the models were allowed to relax in all directions. The AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model shows a shear distortion similar to what was observed by Corliss [*et al.*]{} and Filippetti *et al.*,[@corliss1960antiferromagnetic; @filippetti2000magnetic], while the AFM-cubic model shows no distortion \[shown in Figs. \[fig:aFM-Model-c\] and \], and the AFM-tetragonal model \[shown in Figs. \[fig:aFM-Model-e\] and \] shows a contraction of -0.01855 Å in a$_{\bot}$. The shear distortion only occurs if we choose the Corliss (AFM-\[110\]$_2$) magnetic model (alternating double ferromagnetic layers).
Concerning the cubic (Type 1 AFM) and tetragonal (Type 3 AFM) models, these both have very similar spin ordering. However, in the AFM-cubic model, single ferromagnetic planes alternate along \[010\]; while in the AFM-tetragonal model, spin rows appear rotated by 90$^\circ$ after every 1 ML when viewed along \[001\] as shown in Fig. \[fig:aFM-Model-e\], and spin rows in the layers stacked vertically along \[001\] shift by a/2 along \[100\] after every 2 ML as shown in Fig. \[fig:aFM-Model-f\].
To determine the best model, we employed the minimum energy criteria. Energies of the ferromagnetic and non-magnetic models are both higher than all the AFM models; therefore, they are not shown in this paper. The energies of the AFM-cubic and AFM-tetragonal compared to the AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model are found to be 0.040 eV/atom higher (consistent with the 0.04-0.05 eV/atom reported by Liangcai *et al.* [@zhou2014structural]) and 0.023 eV/atom higher, respectively. Therefore, we confirmed that not only the AFM-cubic but also the AFM-tetragonal models are energetically less favorable compared to the AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model.
Most importantly, it must be realized that the observed $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$0 and $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$1 magnetic peaks seen in LT-ND at low temperature are forbidden in the cases of both Type 1 and Type 3 FCC AFM ordering. This can easily be realized if one simply considers that for a 1/2-order magnetic peak to exist in reciprocal space, it requires a spatial doubling of the magnetic unit cell. Such a doubling occurs in the case of the Type 4 AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:aFM-Model-a\]. This doubling also occurs along one axis only in the case of the AFM-tetragonal model; however, this will not give rise to $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$0 and $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$1 peaks since we require spatial doubling along not one but [*two*]{} orthogonal axes. Therefore, neither the AFM-cubic nor the AFM-tetragonal models can explain the observed magnetic ordering in these films. It is then surprising that although the LT-RHEED data suggests a possible cubic/tetragonal structural model, and the LT-ND data do not uniquely support an orthorhombic structural model, nonetheless only the Type 4 AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model can explain the magnetic results.
It remains to investigate the (001) surface of CrN using atomic resolution STM and spin-resolved STM in order to probe the surface structure and its spin magnetic ordering and compare that with the results from measurements reported here. Such future studies could address possible differences between surface and bulk properties, and between structural and magnetic behaviors. Really thin films could differ from thicker ones and even possibly stabilize the AFM-tetragonal state, and in any case STM measurements could prove essential in order to fully understand the CrN system.
Conclusions
===========
Variable temperature RHEED reveals a clear structural transition with a transition temperature of 277-278 K in high-quality, MBE grown CrN/MgO(001) films as thin as 37 nm. The epitaxial samples were also investigated at NCNR using a triple axis spectrometer, and the results confirm a magnetic phase transition at 280 K and at 270 K (for a nitrogen deficient film). These observed structural and magnetic transitions may be correlated with an electronic phase transition observed by Constantin *et al.* and occurring near 280 K (T increasing) or 260 K (T decreasing) for similarly grown films.[@constantin2004metal]
First-principles theoretical calculations were employed to investigate possible structural/magnetic models including non-magnetic, ferromagnetic, and antiferromagnetic models. The three antiferromagnetic models: AFM-\[110\]$_2$ (Corliss model), AFM-cubic, and AFM-tetragonal, are energetically better than non-magnetic or ferromagnetic, with the AFM-\[110\]$_2$ model being the energetically most favorable model. Whereas the structural symmetry observed by LT-RHEED suggests a cubic or tetragonal model, and although VT-XRD and VT-ND do not uniquely determine a full orthorhombic model, required magnetic symmetry to explain the observed $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$0 and $\frac{1}{2}$$\frac{1}{2}$1 magnetic peaks seen in ND precludes the possibility of having either the AFM-cubic or AFM-tetragonal model. It is therefore somewhat surprising that despite the possibility that the film is prevented from undergoing a full orthorhombic distortion, possibly due to the epitaxial constraint of the cubic MgO substrate, nonetheless the double-layer AFM-\[110\]$_2$ magnetism is still established.
acknowledgments
===============
Research supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering under Award \# DE-FG02-06ER46317. The authors thank Joseph P. Corbett for useful discussion and help in figure preparation. The authors would also like to acknowledge Martin E. Kordesch for back-coating MgO(001) substrates with titanium. The authors also acknowledge WSxM software for STM image processing [@horcas2007wsxm]. N.T. thanks Conacyt project 164485 and DGAPA-UNAM project IN100516 for partial financial support. Calculations were performed in the DGCTIC-UNAM supercomputing center, project SC16-1-IG-31.
U. Wiklund, M. Bromark, M. Larsson, P. Hedenqvist, and S. Hogmark, Surf. Coat. Technol. [**91**]{}, 57 (1997). C. Nouveau, M. Djouadi, O. Banakh, R. Sanjinés, and F. Lévy, Thin Solid Films [**398**]{}, 490 (2001). D. Gall, C. Shin, R. Haasch, I. Petrov, and J. Greene, J. Appl. Phys. [**91**]{}, 5882 (2002). P. Anderson et al., J. Appl. Phys. [**98**]{}, 043903 (2005). L. Corliss, N. Elliott, and J. Hastings, Phys. Rev. [**117**]{}, 929 (1960). P. Bhobe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 236404 (2010). A. Mrozińska, J. Przystawa, and J. Sólyom, Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 331 (1979). A. Filippetti and N. A. Hill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5166 (2000). C. Constantin, M. B. Haider, D. Ingram, and A. R. Smith, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**85**]{}, 6371 (2004). X. Zhang, J. Chawla, R. Deng, and D. Gall, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 073101 (2011). K. Inumaru, K. Koyama, N. Imo-Oka, and S. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 054416 (2007). A. Ney, R. Rajaram, S. Parkin, T. Kammermeier, and S. Dhar, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**89**]{}, 112504 (2006). A. Herwadkar and W. R. Lambrecht, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 035125 (2009). W. Lin et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**85**]{}, 043702 (2014). K. Alam, A. Foley, and A. R. Smith, Nano Lett. [**15**]{}, 2079 (2015). J. Lynn et al., Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology [**117**]{}, 61 (2012). W. Chen et al., Physica B: Condens Matter [**397**]{}, 168 (2007). P. Giannozzi et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 395502 (2009). J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B [**23**]{}, 5048 (1981). V. I. Anisimov, F. Aryasetiawan, and A. Lichtenstein, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**9**]{}, 767 (1997). M. Cococcioni and S. De Gironcoli, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 035105 (2005). J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3865 (1996). D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 7892 (1990). M. Methfessel and A. Paxton, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 3616 (1989). H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 5188 (1976). H. Yang, H. Al-Brithen, E. Trifan, D. C. Ingram, and A. R. Smith, J. Appl. Phys. [**91**]{}, 1053 (2002). D. Gall et al., J. Appl. Phys. [**91**]{}, 3589 (2002). O. Madelung, Semiconductors: data handbook, Springer Science & Business Media, 3rd edition, 2004. G. Janssen, F. Tichelaar, and C. Visser, J. Appl. Phys. [**100**]{}, 093512 (2006). L. Zhou et al., Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 184102 (2014). R. Daniel, D. Holec, M. Bartosik, J. Keckes, and C. Mitterer, Acta Mater. 59, 6631 (2011). I. Horcas et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**78**]{}, 013705 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A globally supersymmetric model of inflation will not work in a generic supergravity theory because the higher order, nonrenormalisable supergravity corrections destroy the flatness of the inflaton’s potential. In this talk I derive a form for the Kähler potential which eliminates these corrections if $ W = W_\varphi = \psi = 0 $ during inflation (where $W$ is the superpotential, the inflaton $\in \varphi$, and $W_\psi \neq 0$). I then point out that Kähler potentials of the required form often occur in superstrings and that the target space duality symmetries of superstrings often contain $R$-parities which would make $ W = W_\varphi = 0 $ automatic for $ \psi = 0 $.'
author:
- |
Ewan D. Stewart [^1]\
Department of Physics\
Kyoto University\
Kyoto 606, Japan
title: 'A General Supergravity Formalism for a Naturally Flat Inflaton Potential [^2] '
---
\
Introduction
============
The approximate isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation implies that the inflation that inflated the observable universe beyond the Hubble radius must have occurred at an energy scale $ V^{1/4} \leq 4 \times 10^{16}\,$GeV [@Liddle]. Thus models of inflation should be constructed in the context of supergravity [@susy].
However, this immediately leads to a problem. The positive potential energy $V>0$ required for inflation spontaneously breaks supersymmetry.[^3] This would generally be expected to give an effective mass squared $ m_{\rm soft}^2 \sim 8\pi V / m_{\rm Pl}^2 \sim H^2 $ to any would-be inflaton. But the effective mass of the inflaton must be much less than the inflationary Hubble parameter $H$.
In this talk I will present a general formalism that solves this problem.
Notation and basic formulae
---------------------------
I set $m_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{8\pi} = 1$ throughout. $\phi$ will represent a vector whose components $\phi^\alpha$ are complex scalar fields, and subscript $\phi$ will denote the derivative with respect to $\phi$, so for example $W_\phi$ represents the vector with components $ \partial W / \partial \phi^\alpha $.
The scalar potential in a globally supersymmetric theory is $$V = \left| W_\phi \right|^2 + D{\rm -term} \,,$$ where the superpotential $W(\phi)$ is an analytic function of $\phi$. The first term is called the $F$-term. For simplicity I will ignore the $D$-term in this talk.
The $F$-term part of the scalar potential in a supergravity theory is $$\label{V}
V = e^K \left[ \left( W_\phi + W K_\phi \right)
K^{-1}_{\bar{\phi} \phi}
\left( \bar{W}_{\bar{\phi}} + \bar{W} K_{\bar{\phi}} \right)
- 3 |W|^2 \right] \,,$$ where the Kähler potential $K(\phi,\bar{\phi})$ is a real function of $\phi$ and its hermitian conjugate $\bar{\phi}$.
The Problem {#prob}
===========
At any point in the space of scalar fields $\phi$ we can make a combination of a Kähler transformation and a holomorphic field redefinition such that $\phi=0$ at that point and, in the neighbourhood of that point, the Kähler potential takes the form $$K = \left| \phi \right|^2 + \ldots \,,$$ where … stand for higher order terms. Then the scalar kinetic terms will be canonical at $\phi=0$ and, from Eq. (\[V\]), the scalar potential will have the form $$\begin{aligned}
V & = & e^{ \left| \phi \right|^2 + \ldots }
\left\{ \left[ W_\phi + W \left( \bar{\phi} + \ldots \right)
\right] \left( 1 + \ldots \right) \left[ \bar{W}_{\bar{\phi}}
+ \bar{W} \left( \phi + \ldots \right) \right] - 3|W|^2 \right\}
\,, \\
& = & V|_{\phi=0} + V|_{\phi=0} \left| \phi \right|^2
+ {\rm other\ terms} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus at $\phi=0$ the exponential term gives a contribution $V$ to the effective mass squared of [*all*]{} scalar fields. Therefore, $$\frac{ V''}{V} = 1 + {\rm other\ terms} \,,$$ where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the canonically normalised inflaton field. But $|V''/V| \ll 1$ is necessary for inflation to work. So a sucessful model of inflation must arrange for a cancellation between the exponential term and the terms inside the curly brackets. This will require fine tuning unless a symmetry is used to enforce it.
A Solution
==========
Divide the vector of scalar fields $\phi$ into two separate vectors, $\varphi$ and $\psi$, with the inflaton contained in $\varphi$: $$\phi = (\varphi,\psi) \,,\;\;\;\; {\rm inflaton} \in \varphi \,.$$ Assume the $R$-parity $$\label{R}
\psi \rightarrow -\psi \,,\;\;\;\; \varphi \rightarrow \varphi
\,,\;\;\;\;W \rightarrow -W \,,\;\;\;\; K \rightarrow K \,,$$ and that during inflation $$\psi = 0$$ (a natural value since the necessary condition $V_\psi = 0$ is then guaranteed by the $R$-parity). Then the $R$-parity ensures that during inflation $$W = W_\varphi = 0 \,.$$ Thus the scalar potential Eq. (\[V\]) simplifies to $$V = e^K W_\psi K^{-1}_{\bar{\psi} \psi} \bar{W}_{\bar{\psi}} \,.$$ Now it becomes possible to choose a form for the Kähler potential that cancels the inflaton dependent corrections to the global supersymmetric potential in a natural way.
Expanding the $R$-parity invariant Kähler potential about $\psi = 0$ gives $$K = A(\varphi,\bar{\varphi}) + \bar{\psi}\, B(\varphi,\bar{\varphi})
\,\psi + {\cal O} \left( \psi^2 , \bar{\psi}^2 \right) \,,$$ where $A$ is real and $B$ is hermitian. Therefore $$V = e^A W_\psi B^{-1} \bar{W}_{\bar{\psi}} \,,$$ and so to eliminate the inflaton dependent corrections to the global supersymmetric potential we require $$B^{-1} = f(\varphi,\bar{\varphi}) \, C^{-1}(\chi,\bar{\chi}) \,,$$ and $$A = - \ln f(\varphi,\bar{\varphi}) + g(\chi,\bar{\chi}) \,,$$ where $f$ and $g$ are real functions, $C$ is a hermitian matrix, and $\chi$ are non-inflaton $\varphi$ fields. This gives the inflationary potential $$V = e^{ g(\chi,\bar{\chi}) }
W_\psi\, C^{-1}(\chi,\bar{\chi}) \,\bar{W}_{\bar{\psi}} \,,$$ and the Kähler potential is required to have the general form $$\begin{aligned}
K & = & - \ln f(\varphi,\bar{\varphi})
+ \frac{ \bar{\psi}\, C(\chi,\bar{\chi}) \,\psi }
{ f(\varphi,\bar{\varphi}) } + g(\chi,\bar{\chi})
+ {\cal O} \left( \psi^2 , \bar{\psi}^2 \right) \,, \\
\label{K}
& = & - \ln \left[ f(\varphi,\bar{\varphi})
- \bar{\psi}\, C(\chi,\bar{\chi}) \,\psi \right]
+ g(\chi,\bar{\chi}) + {\cal O} \left( \psi^2 , \bar{\psi}^2 \right)
\,.\end{aligned}$$
Superstring Examples
====================
Orbifold compactifications
--------------------------
The Kähler potential of the untwisted sector of the low-energy effective supergravity theory derived from orbifold compactification of superstrings always contains [@Ferrara] $$K = - \ln \left( S + \bar{S} \right)
- \sum_{i=1}^{3} \ln \left( T_i + \bar{T}_i
- \left| \phi_i \right|^2 \right) \,,$$ where $S$ is the dilaton, $T_i$ are the untwisted moduli associated with the radii of compactification, and $\phi_i$ are the untwisted matter fields associated with $T_i$. Now if we divide the scalar fields into $\varphi$, $\psi$ and $\chi$ fields as follows $$\begin{aligned}
T_1 & \in & \varphi \,, \\
\phi_1 & \in & \psi \,, \\
S \,,\, T_2 \,,\, T_3 \,,\, \phi_2 \;{\rm and}\; \phi_3 & \in &
\chi \subset \varphi \,,\end{aligned}$$ then we get a Kähler potential of the required form \[Eq. (\[K\])\] $$K = - \ln \left( \varphi + \bar{\varphi} - \left| \psi \right|^2
\right) + g(\chi,\bar{\chi}) \,,$$ and the target space duality symmetries, $$T_i \rightarrow \frac{a_i T_i - i b_i}{i c_i T_i + d_i} \,,\;\;\;\;
\phi_i \rightarrow \frac{\phi_i}{i c_i T_i + d_i} \,,\;\;\;\;
a_i d_i - b_i c_i = 1 \,,$$ contain the desired $R$-parity \[Eq. (\[R\])\] on setting $ b_i = c_i = 0 $, $ a_1 = d_1 = -1 $ and $ a_2 = a_3 = d_2 = d_3 = 1 $.
Fermionic four-dimensional string models
----------------------------------------
The Kähler potential of the untwisted sector of the revamped flipped SU(5) model [@flipped] is [@Lopez] $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ K = -\ln \left( 1 - \left| \Phi_1 \right|^2
- \left| \Phi_{23} \right|^2 - \left| \Phi_{\overline{23}} \right|^2
- \left| h_1 \right|^2 - \left| h_{\overline{1}} \right|^2
+ \frac{1}{4} \left| \Phi_{1}^{2} + 2 \Phi_{23} \Phi_{\overline{23}}
+ 2 h_1 h_{\overline{1}} \right|^2 \right) } \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} - \ln \left( 1 - \left| \Phi_2 \right|^2
- \left| \Phi_{31} \right|^2 - \left| \Phi_{\overline{31}} \right|^2
- \left| h_2 \right|^2 - \left| h_{\overline{2}} \right|^2
+ \frac{1}{4} \left| \Phi_{2}^{2} + 2 \Phi_{31} \Phi_{\overline{31}}
+ 2 h_2 h_{\overline{2}} \right|^2 \right) \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} - \ln \left( 1 - \left| \Phi_4 \right|^2
- \left| \Phi_5 \right|^2 - \left| \Phi_3 \right|^2
- \left| \Phi_{12} \right|^2 - \left| \Phi_{\overline{12}} \right|^2
- \left| h_3 \right|^2 - \left| h_{\overline{3}} \right|^2
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \hspace{3em} \mbox{} + \frac{1}{4} \left| \Phi_{4}^{2}
+ \Phi_{5}^{2} + \Phi_{3}^{2} + 2 \Phi_{12} \Phi_{\overline{12}}
+ 2 h_3 h_{\overline{3}} \right|^2 \right) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Now if we divide the fields as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_4 \;{\rm and}\; \Phi_5 & \in & \varphi \,, \\
\Phi_3 \,,\, \Phi_{12} \,,\, \Phi_{\overline{12}} \,,\, h_3
\;{\rm and}\; h_{\overline{3}} & \in & \psi \,, \\
\Phi_1 \,,\, \Phi_2 \,,\, \Phi_{23} \,,\, \Phi_{\overline{23}} \,,\,
\Phi_{31} \,,\, \Phi_{\overline{31}} \,,\, h_1 \,,\,
h_{\overline{1}} \,,\, h_2 \;{\rm and}\; h_{\overline{2}} & \in &
\chi \subset \varphi \,,\end{aligned}$$ then we get a Kähler potential of the required form \[Eq. (\[K\])\] $$K = - \ln \left( 1 - \left| \varphi \right|^2
+ \frac{1}{4} \left| \varphi^{\rm T} \varphi \right|^2
- \left| \psi \right|^2 \right) + g(\chi,\bar{\chi})
+ {\cal O} \left( \psi^2 , \bar{\psi}^2 \right) \,,$$ and the target space duality symmetries [@Lopez] contain the desired $R$-parity \[Eq. (\[R\])\].
More orbifold compactifications
-------------------------------
A Kähler potential of the form $$K = - \ln \left[
\left( A_1 + \bar{A}_1 \right) \left( A_2 + \bar{A}_2 \right)
- \left( A_3 + \bar{A}_4 \right) \left( A_4 + \bar{A}_3 \right)
\right]$$ often occurs in orbifold compactifications [@Ferrara; @Cvetic; @Cardoso] and is of the required form.
Calabi-Yau compactifications
----------------------------
Kähler potentials of the form $$K = - \ln \left( 1 - |N|^2 - |C|^2 \right)
+ {\cal O} \left( C^2 , \bar{C}^2 \right)$$ occur for subspaces of enhanced symmetry of the moduli space of a simple Calabi-Yau manifold [@Dixon]. They are of the required form \[Eq. (\[K\])\].
Summary
=======
A globally supersymmetric model of inflation will not work in a generic supergravity theory because the higher order, nonrenormalisable supergravity corrections destroy the flatness of the inflaton’s potential. In this talk I have derived a form for the Kähler potential which eliminates these corrections if $ W = W_\varphi = \psi = 0 $ during inflation (where $W$ is the superpotential, the inflaton $\in \varphi$, and $W_\psi \neq 0$). It is encouraging that Kähler potentials of the required form often occur in superstrings and that the target space duality symmetries of superstrings often contain $R$-parities which would make $ W = W_\varphi = 0 $ automatic for $ \psi = 0 $.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I thank D. H. Lyth for his help in simplifying the presentation of this work. I am supported by a JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship and this work was supported by Monbusho Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists No. 92062.
[99]{} E. D. Stewart, ‘Inflation, Supergravity and Superstrings’, hep-ph/9405389. A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 739. For reviews of supersymmetry and supergravity, see H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1 and D. Bailin and A. Love, [*Supersymmetric Gauge Field Theory and String Theory*]{}, IOP, Bristol (1994). S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B181 (1986) 263. I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B231 (1989) 65. J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. Yuan, ‘Moduli and Kähler Potential in Fermionic Strings’, hep-th/9405120. M. Cvetič, J. Louis and B. A. Ovrut, Phys. Lett. B206 (1988) 227. G. L. Cardoso, D. Lüst and T. Mohaupt, ‘Moduli Spaces and Target Space Duality Symmetries in (0,2) $\mbox{\boldmath $Z$}_N$ Orbifold Theories with Continuous Wilson Lines’, hep-th/9405002. L. J. Dixon, V. S. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Nucl. Phys. B329 (1990) 27.
[^1]: e-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: Talk given at the Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Stanford University, 24-29 July 1994, and based on Ref. 1.
[^3]: After inflation $V$ disappears and so supersymmetry is restored modulo whatever breaks supersymmetry in our vacuum.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Sudhakar Mishra
- Uma Shanker Tiwary
title: 'A Cognition-Affect Integrated Model of Emotion'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
Earlier model of emotion were more inclined towards classical and deterministic aspects of it [@panksepp2004affective; @ekman1979facial; @fehr1970peripheral]. With the continuous development in understanding [@lazarus1980emotions; @leventhal1980toward; @russell2003core; @lindquist2008constructing; @gendron2009reconstructing; @barrett2013psychological], later proposed models started modeling emotion as a non-deterministic and distributed phenomena. Following the same line of development, we have proposed here a conceptual model of emotion supported by the analytical observations of long-range cortico-cortical and cortico-subcortical coactivations, calculated cognitive functions, and description in the framework of brain’s organization (functional asymmetry, the laminar organization, microscopic descriptions). As the laminar organization [@von2009cellular; @barbas1997cortical] and functional asymmetry [@d2016recruitment] are reported to be the general structural and functional organization of the brain, we considered this concept for the processing of emotions too.
The presented layered model (see fig \[fig:model\_\]) signifies the interaction between affect and cognition in loop to construct an event of emotion. Based on our results and the model, we suggest that communications among different brain regions, which are responsible for social context and self related event processing (for example places, objects, goals and so on), salient feature detection, attention, reward/punishment, hedonic value, and physiological sensations (all discussed separately in the next section), takes place to create an event of emotion.
Our model explicitly explains the nature of emotion against the universality of it in a way that emotion itself is part of the process underlying on the brain’s dynamic connectivity organization. And, these dynamic interactions construct an affective subjective experience which is called an emotion. Our model also argues beyond the concept of appraisal model in a way that emotion is not merely reaction to the appraised stimulus but encoded in experience. Our model is inferred from calculated cognitive functions (using neural decoding and MVPA analysis) rather than speculative arguments on the involvement of different cognitive functions unlike in social constructionist model of emotions.
Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives {#concluding-remarks-and-future-perspectives .unnumbered}
==========================================
**Allostasis:** Brain anticipates needs and provides organism’s physiological infrastructure to fulfil these needs in order to regulate the organism’s internal milieu[@sterling2015principles]. Allostasis is different from homeostasis in that it has experience based variable stable point regulating the organism’s behavior, whereas homeostasis is based on constant setpoint and an error mechanism to regain this constant set point[@sterling2012allostasis].\
**Core Affect:** Core affects are the behavioural-action tendencies with instinctual-arousal tools of nature rather than constructions of nature. Core affects reflect relatively invisible neurodynamics of ancient brain systems. In the words of Jaak Panksepp “at their core, raw affective experiences appear to be pre-propositional gifts of nature—cognitively impenetrable tools for living that inform us about the states of our body, the sensory aspects of the world that support or detract from our survival, and various distinct types of emotional arousal that can inundate our minds. Affects reflect the heuristic value codes that magnificently assist survival, and give ‘value’ to life.”\
**Predictive coding:** A finding by[@rao1999predictive] which signifies top-down and bottom-up processing as feedback and feedforward projections carrying prediction based on the inference from past and prediction error(in terms of predicted minus what is actually observed), respectively.\
**Recurrent Circuits or Microcircuits or Neural ensemble:** A group of excitatory and inhibitory cells which co-activate together in a specific pattern upon receiving a cue and performing specific information processing relevant to a task. For example, neural ensemble creating concepts in the hippocampus, orientation columns in visual cortex and so on.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
[100]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixdoiprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, & . ().
****, ().
& . ****, ().
** (, ).
, & . In **, (, ).
().
. In **, vol. , (, ).
& . ****, ().
**, chap. , (, ).
& . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
. ****, ().
& ****, ().
& ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
****, ().
. In **, (, ).
, , & . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
. ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , , & . ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
*et al.* . ().
& . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ().
& . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
** (, ).
& ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
& ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
. ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
. ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
& ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
**. Ph.D. thesis, ().
** (, ).
*et al.* . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
. ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
, , & . **** ().
& . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
. ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
().
, , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
. ****, ().
****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
. ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
. ****, ().
& . ****, ().
. ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
& ** (, ).
& . ****, ().
. . .
& . ****, ().
. ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, & ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
, , , & ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
*et al.* ** (, ).
, & . ****, ().
. . .
& . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
. ****, ().
, , & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
. ****, ().
****, ().
& . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
*et al.* . ****, ().
, & . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
& . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
, , , & . ****, ().
Processed Data and Code Availability {#processed-data-and-code-availability .unnumbered}
====================================
All the code and processed data will be made available upon publication.
Ethics declarations {#ethics-declarations .unnumbered}
===================
This study was carried out in compliance with the DEAP data [@koelstra2011deap] (available online) end user license agreement (available on [@Deap2020Eula]). All the ethical guidelines provided in the above mentioned license agreement form have been rigorously followed. Consent information for each participant is included in the participant questionnaire file (available on [@Deap2020Data]). The authors also declare no competing interests.
Author contributions statement {#author-contributions-statement .unnumbered}
==============================
S.M and U.S.T. both have developed the presented idea and model. S.M did the coding whereas S.M and U.S.T. both discussed and decided the computational procedure. The interpretation of the calculated results is done by both U.S.T and S.M.. The first draft of the manuscript is prepared by the S.M. U.S.T. and S.M. both refined the manuscript to the presentation and submission level.
Additional information {#additional-information .unnumbered}
======================
The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a [competing interests statement](http://www.nature.com/srep/policies/index.html#competing) on behalf of all authors of the paper.
Figures {#figures .unnumbered}
=======
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[Using a recently proposed Ginzburg-Landau-like lattice free energy functional due to Banerjee et al. Phys. Rev. B 83, 024510 (2011) we calculate the fluctuation diamagnetism of high-$T_\mr{c}$ superconductors as a function of doping, magnetic field and temperature. We analyse the pairing fluctuations above the superconducting transition temperature in the cuprates, ranging from the strong phase fluctuation dominated underdoped limit to the more conventional amplitude fluctuation dominated overdoped regime. We show that a model where the pairing scale increases and the superfluid density decreases with underdoping produces features of the observed magnetization in the pseudogap region, in good qualitative and reasonable quantitative agreement with the experimental data. In particular, we explicitly show that even when the pseudogap has a pairing origin the magnetization actually tracks the superconducting dome instead of the pseudogap temperature, as seen in experiment. We discuss the doping dependence of the ‘onset’ temperature for fluctuation diamagnetism and comment on the role of vortex core-energy in our model.]{}'
author:
- Kingshuk Sarkar
- Sumilan Banerjee
- Subroto Mukerjee
- 'T. V. Ramakrishnan'
title: 'Doping dependence of fluctuation diamagnetism in High $T_\mr{c}$ superconductors'
---
Introduction {#sec.Introduction}
============
In recent years fluctuation diamagnetism and the Nernst effect in the pseudogap regime of cuprate superconductors have generated great interest both theoretically [@Podolsky; @Oganesyan; @Mukerjee; @Ussishkin; @Serbyn; @Bolech; @Wachtel2014; @Jiang2014] and experimentally [@Ong_2003; @Romano_2002; @Romano_2003; @Wang_2005; @Wang_2006; @Li_2010; @Li_2013; @Chang_2012; @Taillefer_2009]. Experiments have found a very large diamagnetic and Nernst response in the enigmatic pseudogap phase of the cuprates. A large diamagnetic signal naturally points towards fluctuating superconductivity as one of the possible origins. Also, the fact that the Nernst response is usually very small in typical nonmagnetic metals and a much stronger response is observed in the vortex-liquid regime as is expected in a fluctuating superconductor supports this point of view. Compared to conventional superconductors, the Nernst and diamagnetic response have been found to exist over an anomalously large region [@Wang_2006; @Li_2010] in the pseudogap phase, extending to temperatures far above the superconducting transition temperature $T_\mr{c}$ (see however ref. ). This, and other mysterious features of the pseudogap phase[@Timusk1999], have lead to an intense debate over whether these responses originate purely from superconducting (SC) fluctuations [@Wang_2005; @Wang_2006; @Li_2010; @Li_2013] or have a significant contribution from quasiparticles and other possible competing orders [@Chang_2012; @Taillefer_2009; @Daou2010; @Hackl2010].
Another important piece of the debate is related to the fact that the putative boundary [@Wang_2006; @Li_2010] of the large Nernst and diamagnetic response regime, the so-called ‘onset’ temperature $T_\mr{onset}$, tracks $T_\mr{c}(x)$ and follows a dome-shaped curve as a function of doping $x$ instead of tracking the pseudogap temperature scale $T^*(x)$, which monotonically decreases with $x$. This has been argued as evidence against a pairing origin of the pseudogap, mainly due to the expectation that if the pseudogap arises from pairing then SC fluctuations and associated Nernst and diamagnetic responses should persist all the way up to pseudogap temperature [@Lee2006].
Several theoretical works in the past have studied the Nernst effect and diamagnetism in the models of SC fluctuations in various parameter regimes. One of the pertinent issues in this context is the relative importance of amplitude and phase fluctuations of the SC order parameter $\psi=\Delta e^{i\phi}$ and the role of vortices in the observed signal. Microscopically, the effect of Gaussian fluctuations around the BCS state has been investigated[@Ussishkin] near $T_c$ and, more recently, over a broad range of temperature and magnetic field [@Michaeli2009]. Also, fluctuations beyond that of the BCS paradigm have been studied using a more phenomenological description [@Levchenko2011]. The thermo-electric response has also been calculated in numerical simulations [@Mukerjee] capturing fluctuations beyond the Gaussian level through a Ginzburg-Landau functional, modeling overdoped cuprates.
Other complementary theoretical works, more relevant for the underdoped region, have utilized a ‘phase-only’ description, by studying a two-dimensional (2D) XY model and its variants via various numerical [@Podolsky; @Raghu2008] and analytical methods [@Oganesyan; @Benfatto2007; @Wachtel2014]. Such a description for underdoped cuprates is based on the phase-fluctuation scenario [@Emery1995], where, unlike in BCS theory, $T_c$ is controlled by the superfluid density $\rho_s$ rather than the pairing gap scale $\Delta\gg \rho_s$. As a result, superconductivity gets destroyed at $T_c$ by strong phase fluctuations in the underdoped regime, whereas local pairing survives up to a much higher temperature scale $\propto \Delta$. The importance of phase fluctuations has also been emphasized in the analysis of diamagnetism [@Li_2010] and the Nernst effect [@Wang_2006] by Ong and co-workers, but this interpretation of the Nernst data has been challenged recently [@Chang_2012]. However, there is considerable independent evidence in underdoped cuprates that the SC order is destroyed by phase-disordering [@Uemura1989; @Emery1995; @Broun2007; @Hetel2007] rather than a gap collapse. This is also what one expects in a doped Mott insulator [@Lee2006; @Paramekanti2001].
Studies of fluctuation diamagnetism [@Podolsky; @Oganesyan; @Benfatto2007; @Wachtel2014; @Raghu2008] based on the phase-fluctuation scenario have mostly ignored the effect of amplitude fluctuations and thus are constrained to describe only the extreme underdoped part of the cuprate phase diagram. A complete theoretical calculation of either diamagnetism or the Nernst effect based on a single model of SC fluctuations over the entire range of experimentally realized doping has so far not been performed.
In this work, we aim to address the above issue and calculate the fluctuation diamagnetism (an equilibrium property, unlike the Nernst effect which is a consequence of nonequilibrium transport) based on a recently proposed phenomenological model of high-$T_\mr{c}$ superconductors [@Banerjee_1]. This model is of the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) type with doping and temperature dependent coefficients and is motivated by a large amount of spectroscopic data obtained from the cuprates such as ARPES[@Damascelli2003], STM [@Fischer2007] as well as thermodynamic and transport measurements[@Timusk1999]. The starting point of our description is the premise that to understand several aspects of their phenomenology, the free energy of cuprate superconductors can be expressed solely as a functional of the complex pair amplitude (e.g. for investigating the role of pairing fluctuations in diamagnetic response), other degrees of freedom e.g. electrons, CDW being not explicit.
There are two main inputs to our phenomenological theory[@Banerjee_1] – (i) a pairing temperature scale $T^*(x)$ below which local pairing amplitude becomes substantial and (ii) the superfluid density $\rho_s(x)\propto x$, that linearly increases with doping for small x, as implied by well-known Uemura correlation [@Uemura1989]. As shown in the schematic phase diagram for our model in Fig. \[fig.PhaseDiagram\], the temperature scale $T^*(x)$ mimics the doping dependence of the pseudogap temperature scale [@Timusk1999] and is much larger than $\rho_s$ in the underdoped regime. The model effectively interpolates between a phase-only description in the extreme underdoped side to a conventional Ginzburg-Landau model in the overdoped region and also accesses the intermediate regime around optimal doping. The model is also able to produce several other experimentally observed properties of the cuprates, such as the doping dependence of the phase stiffness or $\mr{T_c}$ and the fluctuation specific heat [@Banerjee_1] and when coupled to nodal quasiparticles can produce Fermi arcs with details that agree well with experiments [@Banerjee_2]. A summary of the model and the parameters occurring in it is provided in Appendix A.
We note that there is considerable evidence for other ordering tendencies in the cuprates, e.g., nematic[@Kivelson1998], stripes[@Kivelson2003], checkerboard[@Hoffman1995], circulating current [@Fauque2006] and charge density wave (CDW) [@Fradkin2014]. The strength and significance of each varies with the material, doping and temperature. Recently detection of short-range CDW order by X-ray [@Achkar2012; @Chang2012; @Ghiringhelli2012] and NMR measurements [@Wu2011] in the pseudogap and superconducting states of underdoped cuprates has attracted a lot of attention. In zero magnetic field, short-range CDW order competes with superconductivity and seems to become long-ranged only at high fields, presumably giving rise to Fermi surface reconstruction, as suggested by quantum oscillation experiments [@Leyraud2007]. Motivated by these findings a phenomenological nonlinear sigma model (NLSM), in terms of a coupled SC and CDW order parameter has been proposed recently [@Hayward_Science; @Hayward_PRB]. Subsequent work [@Wachtel2015] has pointed out that the observed magnetization and Nernst effect could arise primarily from the vortex physics that results after the charge ordering degrees of freedom have been integrated out. Further, it also attributes the rise of the X-ray structure factor, seen in experiments, to a proliferation of vortices. Our theory is similar in spirit to these ideas and the parameters in our GL-like free energy functional can be thought to be renormalized values of those that occur in a theory with a larger order parameter space after the other orders have been integrated out.
In this work we obtain the magnetization by performing classical Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations on the GL-like model described above. Calculations of the Nernst effect will be reported elsewhere [@Sarkar]. As our model effectively reduces to a phase-only description on the underdoped side for the temperature range $T_c<T{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }T^*$, vortices play a major role in determining the Nernst and diamagnetic responses in this regime. The vortex core energy is one of the important quantities in this regard ; we calculate its doping dependence from our model and show that it is consistent with the available estimates [@Wachtel2014] for underdoped cuprates.
Our main results could be summarized as follows –\
1. We calculate the diamagnetic response over the entire doping-temperature phase diagram for a range of magnetic fields and show that our results match well with the available experiments.\
2. We obtain a region of enhanced fluctuation diamagnetism in the pseudogap phase extending far above the transition temperature $T_c$ and show that the boundary of the region, namely the onset temperature $T_\mr{onset}(x)$, follows a dome shaped curve tracking $T_c$ as a function of doping (Fig. \[fig.PhaseDiagram\]).
![ A schematic phase diagram for the model \[Eq. \] in the hole doping $x$ and temperature $T$ plane. The local pairing temperature scale $T^*(x)$, (solid black line) is an input to our phenomenological model \[Eq. \] and it mimics the experimental pseudogap temperature scale. The model reproduces a dome-shaped superconducting region (shaded in pink). The region of enhanced fluctuation diamagnetism (shaded in blue) in the pseudogap phase and corresponding onset temperature $T_\mr{onset}$ are shown. The two arcs shown by dotted lines denote regions where quantum fluctuation effects, as well as other low-energy degrees of freedom, such as electronic and spin plus their coupling with pair degrees of freedom, need to be explicitly included in the free energy functional.[]{data-label="fig.PhaseDiagram"}](PhaseDiagram.eps){height="6cm"}
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec.GLfunctional\], we provide a brief introduction to the model employed and describe the details of the calculation of the magnetization in Sec. \[sec.mag\] with Sec. \[sec.method\] outlining the methodology of the numerical simulation. We then present our results for magnetization and vortex core-energy in Sec. \[sec.Results\] with a discussion in Sec. \[sec.disc\] and a brief conclusion in Sec. \[sec.conc\]. In Appendix \[app.Parameters\], we also describe in detail the various features of the model and parameters in it along with a summary of how the cuprate dome can be obtained from it. A discussion of the effects of quantum phase fluctuations and other competing orders on the superconducting dome is given in appendix \[app.TcQuantum\].
Model {#sec.GLfunctional}
=====
In our model, the highly anisotropic cuprate superconductor is modeled as a weakly coupled stack of $\mathrm{CuO_2}$ planes. As a first approximation, we ignore the interplane coupling. The free energy functional [@Banerjee_1] $\mathcal{F}$ is defined on the $\mr{CuO}_2$ planes of the superconductor. The model describes the free energy as a functional in which the effects of the fluctuations of the order parameter phase and magnitude are coupled, and the relative importance of the latter increases with hole doping $x$. The pairing field $\psi_m=\Delta_m \exp(i\phi_m)$, with amplitude $\Delta_m$ and phase $\phi_m$, is defined on the sites $m$ of a square lattice. Microscopically, the field $\psi_m$ is expected to be related to the complex spin-singlet pairing amplitude defined on the Cu-O-Cu bonds [@Banerjee_1; @Baskaran1988]. The functional $\mc{F}=\mc{F}_0+\mc{F}_1$ is defined as
\[Eq.functional\] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{F}_0(\{\Delta_m\})=\sum_m \left(A\Delta_m^2 + \frac{B}{2}\Delta_m^4\right),\\
&&\mathcal{F}_1(\{\Delta_m,\phi_m\})=-C \sum_{\langle mn\rangle} \Delta_m \Delta_n \cos(\phi_m-\phi_n),~~~~~~\end{aligned}$$
where $\langle mn\rangle$ represents pairs of nearest neighbour sites. The details of the choice of parameters for a specific cuprate material, e.g. Bi2212, that we study here, are discussed in Appendix \[app.Parameters\]. We note that the two main inputs from cuprate phenomenology are the doping and temperature dependence of the parameters $A$ and $C$. $B$ is assumed a doping independent positive number.
Magnetization {#sec.mag}
==============
The effect of a magnetic field is incorporated in our model through a bond flux $A_{mn}$, which modifies $(\phi_m-\phi_n)$ to $(\phi_m-\phi_n-A_{mn})$ in $\mathcal{F}_1$ \[Eq.\]. Assuming extreme type-II (infinite penetration depth) limit as appropriate for the cuprate superconductors, the magnetic field $H$ is given by the condition $\sum_{\Box} A_{mn} = \Phi$, where $\sum_{\Box}$ is a sum over a plaquette of the lattice and $\Phi=Ha^2/\Phi_0$ is the magnetic flux per plaquette in units of the universal flux quantum $\Phi_0$. As mentioned earlier the lattice constant $a$ introduces a field scale $H_0=\Phi_0/(2\pi a^2)$, which, in principle, can be deduced by comparing our results with experimental data. Here we study the phase diagram as a function of $H/H_0$.
Introducing a magnetic field gives rise to a diamagnetic moment ${\bf M}$ in the system. The principal goal of our calculation is to find ${\bf M}$ as a function of $T$, $H$ and $x$. To achieve this, we first define the diamagnetic current along a bond between nearest neighbour sites $m$ and $n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
j_{mn} = -\frac{\partial \mathcal {F}}{\partial A_{mn}}=C\Delta_m\Delta_n\sin(\phi_m-\phi_n-A_{mn}) \label{Eq.Current}\end{aligned}$$ ${\bf M}$ is then obtained from ${\bf j} = {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}{\bf \times} {\bf M}$ by an appropriate integration. To this end we perform our calculations in a cylindrical geometry with periodic boundary conditions along the $x$ and zero current conditions along the $y$ direction. The magnetic field is radially outwards which yields a magnetization ${\bf M}$ along the same direction. We work in the Landau gauge where the $A_{mn}$ are non-zero only for $\langle mn\rangle$ along the $y$ direction and ${\bf j}$ is only along the $x$ direction. We integrate the current along the $y$ direction from the edge of the sample to the middle to obtain $M$. We use Metropolis sampling for the MC simulations. We have verified that our results are independent of gauge choice and also boundary conditions.
We would like to emphasize that there is no Meissner effect in our system since it is strictly two dimensional. Thus, the expression for the current we use is different from the standard London expression $\mathbf{J} \propto \mathbf{A}$, which holds only for the so-called Coulomb gauge (${\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}{\bf .}{\bf A} = 0$) and where the complex superconducting order parameter is spatially uniform. Here, we are concerned with diamagnetism at field scales for real materials much higher than $H_{c1}$, where the Meissner effect sets in. In our numerical grid, the direction of the current is always in the periodic direction for all choice of gauges as can be seen from the gauge invariance of the expression for the current Eq.. Gauge invariance here is invariance under the simulatenous transformations ${\bf A} \rightarrow {\bf A} +
\nabla f_i$ and $\theta_i \rightarrow \theta_i + f_i$ for an arbitrary function $f_i$ of $i$. Note that such a transformation is not allowed if the $\Delta$ is spatially uniform (a necessary condition for the London expression for the current). As mentioned earlier, we have verified the gauge invariance of our results by choosing different gauges for ${\bf A}$ in our simulation.
Simulation Methodology {#sec.method}
======================
We perform our simulations using the standard Metropolis Monte-Carlo scheme. For obtaining the superfluid density $\rho_s$, we perform the simulations on a square lattice of size 100$\times$100 with periodic boundary conditions along both directions. At each value of doping $x$ we let the system equilibrate for about $10^5$ MC steps per site and then average over $4\times 10^5$ MC steps. As mentioned in section \[sec.superconductingTc\] we determine the actual transition temperature $T_c$ accurately by employing the standard finite-size scaling analysis [@Weber_1987] of KT transition for small system sizes.
To calculate the magnetization we perform our simulations on a cylindrical grid with periodic boundary conditions in one direction and zero current conditions along the other. The magnetic flux is in the the radial direction of the cylinder with uniform flux per plaquette. The allowed values of flux are in the radial direction and determined by the condition of zero flux in the axial direction. The current is in the azimuthal direction (in the direction in which we have periodic boundary conditions), is maximum at the edges and falls to zero and changes direction at the centre. As a consistency check, we calculate the magnetization at zero, $\pi$ and $2\pi$ flux/plaquette and find it to be zero as it should be. For each $(x,T,H)$, we perform $10^6$ MC steps per site for equilibration and a further $4 \times 10^6$ steps for thermal averaging for our largest system size. Even though we perform the simulation for a single 2D layer we assume that the actual 3D system is a collection of 2D layers with a negligible Josephson coupling between them. Thus, the only possible interaction between the pancake vortices is electromagnetic in nature. This type of interaction has been shown to not change the BKT universality class of the superfluid transition and gives a very small non-universal correction to the superfluid density jump [@Raman_2009]. We thus also ignore the electromagnetic interaction among the vortices in different layers. The conversion from 2D magnetization to 3D magnetization involves division by an appropriate length along the $c$ axis. For Bi2212, the lattice spacing along the $c$ axis is 3.07 nm and the appropriate length is half this value $\sim 1.5$ nm [@Kogan; @Oganesyan]. The dimensionless temperature is converted into Kelvin by multiplying with $T_{0}$ which is suitably chosen for Bi2212 (see Appendix \[app.Parameters\]).
Results {#sec.Results}
=======
In this section we report our results for fluctuation diamagnetism. Based on these, we analyse the superconducting fluctuation regime in the pseudogap phase. We also discuss the role of vortex core-energy in our model.
Fluctuation diamagnetism
------------------------
We have obtained the values of magnetization as a function of temperature, doping and field in our model. The overall features of diamagnetism over the phase diagram are summarized in Fig.\[Fig:magcolor\] through color map plots of the strength of diamagnetic signal as a function of $T$ and $H$ for three different values of doping from underdoped to overdoped. Having already fixed the parameters of our model, we convert the magnetization to physical units as mentioned above. The magnetic field also could be converted to Tesla by a suitable choice of the field scale $H_0$ or equivalently the coarse-graining length $a$ in our model. We can achieve good qualitative and reasonable quantitative agreement with the experimental data of Li [*et al.*]{} [@Li_2010] with magnetization values at worst being within a factor of 2 with the measured values by choosing $H_0\approx 30-50$ T, i.e. $a\approx 25 -30~\AA$.
Fig. \[Fig:magvsf\] shows the magnetization as a function of magnetic field for $x=0.05$ and $x=0.15$ at different temperatures. The main qualitative observation that one can immediately make is that as the field decreases the magnetization appears to go to zero for temperatures $T>T_\mr{c}$ and to diverge for $T<T_\mr{c}$. This is consistent with the predictions of a renormalization group calculation in the vicinity of the BKT transition [@Oganesyan]. As mentioned earlier, we do not have a Meissner effect in our calculations. The full Meissner effect diamagnetic signal for real materials is much larger than the values of magnetization that we obtain here. For the range of magnetic fields we apply, it is of the order of $10^6$ A/m per Tesla. Since this is several orders of magnitude larger than the fluctuation diamagnetic response we calculate (about 1500 A/m at its largest), we do not show it in the plots with the experimental data. Our assumption of working with a strictly two dimensional system is valid only for fields substantially larger than $H_{c1}$, which holds for the specific range of fields for which we perform our calculations.
In the following we analyse the temperature dependence of the magnetization above $T_c$ in more detail and discuss the onset temperature $T_\mathrm{onset}$ for fluctuation diamagnetism in the pseudogap state.
The ‘onset’ temperature for fluctuation diamagnetism
----------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[Fig:magvsT\], we show plots of the magnetization as a function of temperature for two different values of doping. It is evident that there is a significant diamagnetic signal persisting much above $T_c$ as seen in experiments [@Li_2010]. To clearly demonstrate this point, we have plotted the magnetization above in the $x$-$T$ plane for $T>T_c$ for two values of magnetic field as in Fig. \[Fig:magxt\]. The diamagnetic signal is found to extend till a temperature which is weakly dependent on the field and approximately scales as $\sim 1.5 T_c$ for the particular choice of parameters here.
. \[Fig:magvsT\]
Experimentally, both the Nernst effect [@Wang_2006] and diamagnetism [@Li_2010] have been seen to track the superconducting dome. The persistence of the Nernst and diamagnetism signal over a dome-shaped region above $T_c$, instead of the entire pseudogap state till $T^*(x)$, has been argued as evidence against the pairing origin of the pseudogap line. This is due to the expectation that if the pseudogap line is related to pairing then superconducting fluctuations should continue till $T^*$. However, on the basis of our results, we can argue that this expectation is not justified since pairing fluctuations identifiable as superconducting fluctuations, e.g. those detected through Nernst effect or diamagnetism, are mainly controlled by $\rho_s$ or the $T_c$ scale. The GL-like model we study has the pseudogap temperature $T^*(x)$ explicitly set as the local pairing scale by construction, but, even then, the diamagnetic signal tracks the superconducting $T_c$ that is governed by the superfluid density rather than the pairing scale $T^*$ on the underdoped side.
![The diamagnetic signal in the $x-T$ plane for two different values of $\mr{H/H_0}$. It can be clearly seen that diamagnetic signal follows the superconducting dome. The magnetization at these fields is obtained by interpolating between our numerical data points for fixed values of fields.[]{data-label="Fig:magxt"}](Tx.eps){height="8cm" width="11"}
The putative boundary of the region of substantial fluctuation diamagnetism can be defined as the onset temperature $T_\mathrm{onset}(x)$. Experimentally the onset temperature is inferred from both Nernst [@Wang_2006] effect and diamagnetism [@Li_2010] measurements. In the former case $T_\mathrm{onset}$ is defined as the temperature at which the measured Nernst signal starts deviating from the high-temperature background quasiparticle contribution and, in the latter case, as the temperature where the magnetization starts decreasing rapidly away from a weakly $T$-dependent paramagnetic Van Vleck signal. In our model $T_\mathrm{onset}$ can be deduced by defining, albeit in an ad hoc manner, a threshold value of the magnetization. However, more concretely, a good qualitative measure of the onset temperature can be obtained from our model by estimating the transition temperature $T_c^\mathrm{mf}$ via a single-site mean-field approximation [@Banerjee_1]. $T_c^\mathrm{mf}(x)$ gives a measure of the temperature scale corresponding to the local superfluid density and is found to be approximately $1.5T_c$. Fluctuation effects destroy the global phase coherence and reduce the mean-field transition temperature from $T_c^\mathrm{mf}$ to the actual transition temperature $T_c$. However, one would expect a manifestation of substantial SC fluctuations, such as fluctuation diamagnetism, to persist over a temperature range $T_c<T<T_c^\mathrm{mf}\approx T_\mathrm{onset}$. These considerations lead to the schematic phase diagram of Fig. \[fig.PhaseDiagram\].
Phase and amplitude fluctuations
--------------------------------
The suppression of $T_\mr{c}(x)$ relative to $T^*(x)$ is an indicator of the strength of superconducting fluctuations. The fact that $T_\mr{c}(x)$ is dome shaped while $T^*(x)$ decreases monotonically with increasing $x$ shows that fluctuations get weaker with increasing doping. The two extremes of the strength of fluctuations are represented by the phase-only $XY$ model (‘strong fluctuations’) and the Gaussian model (‘weak fluctuations’). The magnetization in the former model has been calculated and found to be in reasonable agreement with experimental data [@Podolsky]. Our data for extreme underdoped samples are in agreement with the results of these calculations as shown in Fig \[Fig.Mag\_2dUD\].
The strong fluctuation limit corresponds to the fluctuations essentially in the phase $\phi$ of the superconducting order parameter with the amplitude $\Delta$ being frozen. As $x$ increases, amplitude fluctuations start becoming more significant even as the overall strength of fluctuations decreases till one arrives at regime where the fluctuations are Gaussian and cannot be divided into contributions from amplitude and phase in any meaningful sense. As can be seen from Fig. \[Fig:magvsf\], our calculations show that the qualitative behavior obtained from the $XY$ model persists even when amplitude fluctuations develop changing only the overall magnitude of the magnetization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Our numerically calculated 2D magnetization $\mr{-M^{2d}}$ scaled by our obtained $\mr{T_{KT}}$ for UD (x=0.05) overlaps with the $\mr{-M^{2d}/T_{KT}}$ results obtained by Podolsky et al. [@Podolsky] in XY model at three different temperatures $\mr{T<T_{KT}}$, $\mr{T=T_{KT}}$ and $\mr{T>T_{KT}}$. It essentially reveals that in our extreme UD region amplitude $\Delta$ gets frozen and the region is effectively described by ‘phase only’ model.[]{data-label="Fig.Mag_2dUD"}](Mag_2dUD.eps "fig:"){height="6cm" width="9.5"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vortex core-energy and superconducting fluctuations
---------------------------------------------------
In this section we analyse the doping dependence of vortex core-energy in our model [@Banerjee_1]. As we discuss here, vortex core-energy has important consequences for the fluctuation regime above $T_c$, especially in the underdoped side.
We use the free-energy functional of Eq. to find the core energy of vortices at $T=0$. We expect the core-energy to be weakly temperature dependent for the underdoped side in the temperature range of interest here. To generate a single vortex configuration we minimize $\mathcal{F}$ with respect to $\Delta_m$ and $\phi_m$ at each site while keeping the topological constraint of total $2\pi$ winding of the phase variables at the boundary of a $N\times N$ lattice. This is a standard way of obtaining a vortex configuration of vorticity $k=1$ with the vortex core at the middle of the central square plaquette in the computational lattice. In this manner we obtain the optimal energy $E_v$ of a vortex for system of size $N\times N$.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Vortex core energy $E_c$ as a function of the transition temperature $T_c$ in the underdoped side. The core-energy is found to be $\approx 5T_c$ for small $x$. The inset shows $E_c(x)$ over the entire doping range.[]{data-label="fig.VortexCoreEnergy"}](VortexCoreEnergy.eps "fig:"){height="6cm"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The core energy $E_c$ of a single vortex is naturally described as the extra energy $\Delta E_v=E_v-E_0$ where $E_0$ is the energy of the ground state configuration and $E_v$ is the total energy of a single vortex configuration, from which the elastic energy due to phase deformation is subtracted, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E_v&=&E_c+\pi \rho_s(0) \ln(R/l)\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $R$ is defined as $R=(N-1)a/\sqrt{\pi}$ so that $\pi R^2$ is the area of the computational lattice. We have estimated $E_c$ from the intercept of the $\Delta E_v$ vs. $\ln(R/l)$ (different system sizes) straight line [@Banerjee_1]. As shown in Fig. \[fig.VortexCoreEnergy\] (inset) the core energy $E_c$ follows a dome shaped curve as a function of $x$. In the underdoped side, $E_c$ is found to scale linearly with $T_c$. Such a scaling in our phenomenological description is in conformity with the phase-fluctuation scenario [@Emery1995] and the idea of cheap vortices [@Lee2006].
In a recent work Wachtel et al. have developed [@Wachtel2014] a vortex-only description, presumably applicable to underdoped cuprates, to calculate the magnetization and Nernst coefficient above $T_c$. For low fields, they obtain the magnetization $M\simeq -T H/\Phi_0^2n_f$ and the Nernst coefficient $\alpha_{xy}\simeq (E_c/T)(cM/T)$, where $n_f$, the density of free vortices, is controlled by the vortex core-energy, i.e. $n_f\propto 2 e^{-E_c/T}$ as $H\rightarrow 0$. Based on our model and the calculated vortex core-energy a similar vortex-only description could also be obtained for the underdoped side where our model effectively reduces to a XY model. By fitting temperature dependence of $\lim_{H\to 0} \alpha_{xy}/H$ with their model Wachtel et al. found the core-energy $E_c\approx 4-5 T_c$. As shown in Fig. \[fig.VortexCoreEnergy\], we also obtain similar ratio for $E_c/T_c$ for small $x$.
Discussions {#sec.disc}
===========
GL-like functional and the upper critical field
-----------------------------------------------
An important and rather controversial issue of recent interest is the value and the doping dependence of the upper critical field $H_{c2}$ in the cuprates. One of the experimental methods to determine $H_{c2}$ involves extrapolation of the measured Nernst signal of Bi2212 at $T_c$ and obtaining the $H_{c2}$ from a scaled plot of Bi2201, for which the putative $H_{c2}$ can be directly accessed. This approach has been advocated by Ong and coworkers [@Ong_2003; @Wang_2006] who reported the increase of $H_{c2}$ with underdoping. Other approaches utilizing either analysis of the magnetoconductivity [@Ando_2002; @Albenque_2011] of YBCO above $T_c$ or obtaining a characteristic field $H^*$ from the peaks of the Nernst signal versus magnetic field isotherms of Eu-LSCO cuprate and fitting $H^*$ to a Gaussian fluctuation form [@Chang_2012] give a completely different dependence where $H_{c2}$ decreases with underdoping. The values of $H_{c2}$ obtained from the two methods can differ by as much as a factor of 2 in the UD region.
In our coarse-grained model, we assume the lattice spacing $a{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }\xi_0$, the zero-temperature coherence length and hence focus on low fields $H<H_0{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }H_{c2}$. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to mention that one can take a continuum limit of the model \[Eq.\] and deduce that the coherence length $\xi_0$ goes as $\sqrt{x}$ for small $x$ due to the fact that the coefficient $C\sim x$. This would suggest $H_{c2}(T=0)\sim 1/x$. We note that this is indeed the rough $x$ dependence of this quantity obtained by Ong et al. [@Ong_2003]. However, the validity of the above mentioned continuum limit of Eq. to the scale of $\xi_0$, which could be order of a few Cu-Cu lattice spacing in the underdoped side, is not entirely clear and one needs more microscopic considerations to settle this issue.
Pseudogap and Competing orders {#subsec.Competing}
------------------------------
Our free energy functional only contains the pairing order parameter. Since there are experimental evidences of the presence of other kinds of order in the cuprates, it is natural to ask how reliable our model is. The point we would like to make is that we seek to elucidate the role of only the superconducting fluctuations in the phenomenology of the cuprates. To that extent, we work with a model which only contains superconductivity and no other types of order. As mentioned in the introduction, the model can be thought of as arising from one with other types of order integrated out.
Nevertheless, an important question is how much of the phenomenology of the pseudo gap can be attributed to the presence of orders other than superconductivity. It appears that the evidence is not sufficiently compelling yet as to ascribe the pseudgap entirely to some order competing with superconductivity. While a large number of ordering tendencies, e.g., orbital current [@Fauque2006], spin density wave (SDW) [@Fradkin2014], charge density wave (CDW) [@Achkar2012; @Chang2012; @Ghiringhelli2012] etc., have been detected experimentally, their explicit role in the origin of the pseudogap is still not very well understood. For example, it is not clear how the orbital current order, detected by polarized neutron scattering [@Fauque2006], can lead to a large ($\sim 50$ meV) pseudogap and the phenomena of SDW ordering does not seem to be ubiquitous in all cuprates [@Kivelson2003; @Fradkin2014].
Recent experiments [@Achkar2012; @Chang2012; @Ghiringhelli2012] have detected strong CDW correlations in several cuprates. But the CDW is at best a short-rang order with a small correlation length in zero field and only becomes long ranged at high fields and low-temperature [@Chang2012; @Wu2011]. The interplay between superconductivity and short-range CDW order can be studied within our framework by incorporating additional terms for the CDW order parameter. This would be similar in spirit to a recent work [@Hayward_Science; @Hayward_PRB; @Allais], where the effect of fluctuating CDW order in an addition to superconductivity has been taken into account in terms of an expanded $O(6)$ order parameter. To our understanding, one of the conclusions of the above mentioned study is that the fluctuating CDW, due to its short correlation length, does not significantly influence the pseudogap and other related features seen in ARPES [@Allais] or low-field diamagnetism[@Hayward_PRB], as obtained solely from pairing fluctuations. This validates our approach of retaining only superconducting fluctuations to study diamagnetism.
Conclusion {#sec.conc}
==========
We have used a phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau-like energy functional for the superconducting order parameter which allows us to determine the doping dependence of diamagnetism in the cuprates in addition to its dependence on temperature and magnetic field. We find that our results are in good qualitative and quantitative agreement within a factor of 2 of experimental data obtained on Bi2212 [@Li_2010; @Li_2013]. We show that the diamagnetic response as a function of doping tracks the superconducting dome whose scale is set by $T_c$ and not the pairing scale, which is the pseudogap temperature in our model. This leads to a scenario where substantial local pairing can survive till the pseudogap temperature in the underdoped cuprates, even though superconducting fluctuations as manifested in diamagnetic response only exist up to a much lower temperature.
Acknowledgements
================
K.S. would like to thank CSIR (Govt. of India) for support. S.B. acknowledges the support of DOE-BES DE-SC0005035 grant. S.M. thanks the DST (Govt. of India) for support. T.V.R. acknowledges the support of the DST Year of Science Professorship, and the hospitality of the NCBS, Bangalore. The authors would like to thank Nabyendu Das, Chandan Dasgupta, Vadim Oganesyan, Daniel Podolsky and Srinivas Raghu for stimulating discussions.
The free energy functional {#app.Parameters}
==========================
The functional $\mc{F}=\mc{F}_0+\mc{F}_1$ is defined as
\[Eq.functional2\] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{F}_0(\{\Delta_m\})=\sum_m \left(A\Delta_m^2 + \frac{B}{2}\Delta_m^4\right),\\
&&\mathcal{F}_1(\{\Delta_m,\phi_m\})=-C \sum_{\langle mn\rangle} \Delta_m \Delta_n \cos(\phi_m-\phi_n),~~~~~~\end{aligned}$$
where the pairing field $\psi_m=\Delta_m \exp(i\phi_m)$, with amplitude $\Delta_m$ and phase $\phi_m$, is defined on the sites $m$ of a square lattice. $\langle mn\rangle$ represents pairs of nearest neighbour sites. The coefficient of the quadratic term, $A$ is chosen to be proportional to $(T-T^*(x))$, where $T^*(x)$ is a local pairing scale which we identify with the pseudogap temperature scale [@Timusk1999]. The magnitude of local pair amplitude $\langle \Delta_m\rangle$ increases substantially [@Banerjee_1] as $T$ goes below $T^*(x)$ and $A$ changes sign. We take $T^*(x)$ to follow a simplified linear $x$ dependence, i.e. $T^*(x)=T_0(1-x/x_c)$, mimicking the doping dependence of experimentally measured pseudogap line [@Timusk1999]. As shown in Fig.\[fig.PhaseDiagram\], $T^*(x)$ linearly decreases with $x$, going from $T=T_0$ at $x=0$ to $T=0$ at $x=x_c$. The occurrence of superconductivity, characterized by a non-zero stiffness $\rho_s$ for long-wavelength phase fluctuations, depends on the parameter $C$. We take $C\propto x$ and as a result the superconducting transition temperature calculated in our theory turns out to be proportional to $x$ for small $x$, in conformity with well-known Uemura correlation [@Uemura1989]. This also serves to make fluctuations at low doping easily available enabling us to produce the supercondcuting dome in the phase diagram. However, this is not the only consideration that goes into determining the form of $C$ since a similar effect can also be obtained by making $B$ doping dependent. The form of $C$ can also be motivated from microscopic considerations. In a microscopic theory, the parameter $C$ would naturally originate from the hopping amplitude of Cooper pairs between sites. If the superconducting state were to arise from doping a Mott insulator, it would be reasonable to assume that this parameter would be proportional to the doping $x$ (at least for small values), as is the case in resonating valence bond theory [@Baskaran1988].
As natural in a phenomenological theory, the parameters of the above functional are chosen to be consistent with experiment. The doping and temperature dependence of the coefficients are parametrized as $A(x,T)= (f/T_0)^2[T-T^*(x)]e^{T/T_0}$, $B=bf^4/T_0^3$ and $C(x)=xcf^2/T_0$; $f$, $b$, $c$ are dimensionless and $T^*(x)=T_0(1-x/x_c)$ with the energy scale $T_0$ and doping concentration $x_c=0.3$ controlling the pseudogap temperature scale [@Banerjee_1]. The phenomenological parameters $f$, $b$, $c$ vary for different cuprates and $T_0$ is the bare pseudogap temperature extrapolated to zero doping. The exponential factor $e^{T/T_0}$ appearing in $A$ is not very crucial for the purpose of the present study in the relevant range of temperature (${\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }T^*(x)$) of fluctuation diamagnetism. This factor suppresses average local gap magnitude $\langle \Delta_m\rangle$ at high temperatures ($T{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }T^*(x)$) with respect to its temperature independent equipartition value $\sqrt{T/A(x,T)}$ which will result from the simplified form of the functional (Eq.) being used over the entire range of temperature. Such a suppression is natural in a degenerate Fermi system; the relevant local electron pair susceptibility is rather small above the pair binding temperature and below the degeneracy temperature.
We show below that the forms of the parameters $A$, $B$ and $C$ specified above allow us to reproduce the superconducting dome. However, it is also important to mention that having chosen $A$, $B$ and $C$ to reproduce the superconducting dome, the doping and temperature dependences of other physical properties like the superfluid density, the magnitude of the local gap and the specific heat in the presence and absence of a magnetic field, also agree very well with experiments [@Banerjee_1]. A related paper, authored by two of us, [@Banerjee_2] shows that the scattering of nodal quasiparticles by superconducting fluctuations described by this phenomenological functional, can describe several features of ARPES data on the cuprates including the appearance of Fermi arcs. Thus our model is able to explain a fairly large number of observations on the cuprates based on a few phenomenological inputs.
While, underdoped phenomenology plays an important part in determining the form of our model, e.g. to determine the doping dependence of the parameter $C$ as mentioned above, it also produces the standard GL theory for conventional superconductors on the overdoped side. The amplitude of pairing approaches zero at $T_c$, or in other words the actual or ‘renormalized’ pairing scale $\widetilde{T}^{*}(x)\approx T_c(x)$ [@Banerjee_1], on the overdoped side in our theory. This is in conformity with the common expectation that the BCS theory or mean-field GL theory is more appropriate for overdoped cuprates.
For Bi2212, which has a $T_c^\mathrm{opt}\simeq 91$ K at $x=x_\mr{opt}\simeq 0.15$, we choose $f\simeq 1.33$, $b=0.1$, $c\simeq0.3$ with $T_0\simeq400$ K. This choice of parameters leads to an optimal BKT transition temperature $T_\mathrm{KT}^{\mathrm{opt}}\approx 75 K$ for the 2D system that we study. The small but finite interlayer coupling between $\mathrm{CuO}_2$ planes is expected to lead to a somewhat higher $T_c$.
For the 2D system that we study, the superconducting transition is of the BKT type with quasi long-range order below the BKT transition temperature $T_\mr{KT}$ which we identify as the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ in our model. In the cuprates, the small but finite inter-layer coupling between $\mr{CuO}_2$ planes is expected to lead to a slightly higher $T_c$. The interlayer coupling can be easily incorporated in our model in the manner of Lawrence and Doniach[@Lawrence1971]. Since this coupling is, in practice, quite small (e.g. the measured anisotropy ratio in Bi2212 is about 100), it makes very little difference quantitatively to most of our estimates. Also, our main focus here is the region above $T_c$, and it has been shown that vortex fluctuations in 3D anisotropic XY model effectively become two-dimensional and superconducting planes to a large extent become decoupled above $T_c$ [@Minnhagen1991].
Eq. with the choice of parameters described above has been shown to lead to observed parabolic shape of $T_c(x)$ \[Fig.\[sfldensity\](inset)\] as a function of $x$ and temperature and doping dependence of various other quantities like superfluid density, the local gap magnitude $\langle\Delta_m\rangle$, the specific heat etc. in agreement with experimental results [@Banerjee_1]. We discuss a few generalities of our model below, as relevant for the present context; a detailed discussion can be found in ref. .
General aspects of the model
----------------------------
As can be seen from Eqns. , our model has a term that is quadratic and quartic in the amplitudes and, since $\Delta_m\Delta_n\cos(\phi_m-\phi_n)=-(|\psi_m-\psi_n|^2-\Delta_m^2-\Delta_n^2)$, the term $\mathcal{F}_1$ can be readily identified with the discretized version of usual spatial derivative term $|\nabla \psi|^2$. The model is thus of the form of a Ginzburg-Landau model, albeit one that is defined on a lattice at the outset. The lattice here should be thought of as a phenomenological one that emerges upon coarse graining and is not the underlying physical lattice of the system. Nor is the lattice parameter here related to any underlying granularity of the system. Hence, our model can be thought of as the discretized version of a continuum theory with the lattice spacing $a$ as a suitable ultraviolet cutoff to describe long wavelength physics. In the presence of magnetic field $H$, the lattice constant is also equivalent to a field scale $H_0=\Phi_0/(2\pi a^2)$, defined through the flux quantum $\Phi_0=hc/2e$. We have checked that the calculated magnetization is indeed independent of this cutoff for the relevant range of field $H < H_0$. In principle, the field scale $H_0$ can be obtained by fitting the field dependence of magnetization with that of experiment.
The free-energy functional in Eq. can also be viewed as the Hamiltonian of an XY model with fluctuations in the magnitude of ‘planar spin’ $\psi_m$, where the term $\mathcal{F}_0$ simply controls the temperature and doping dependence of the magnitude. The form of the free-energy functional might seem superficially similar to the widely used model of granular superconductors [@Ebner1981]. However, we would like to re-emphasize that we do not assume any underlying granularity of our system, as mentioned above. Such phenomenological lattice models, in the extreme $XY$ limit, have been employed in the past to study superconductivity in non-granular lattice systems, especially in the context of cuprates [@Kivelson_1999; @Paramekanti_2000; @Franz_2006; @Podolsky], as mentioned in the introduction.
Additionally, even though the form of our functional is mainly motivated by cuprate phenomenology, it is worthwhile to mention that a similar functional arises quite naturally in a strong correlation framework for a doped Mott insulator, see, e.g. refs.. In general, in such a functional, the single-site term $\mathcal{F}_0$ will have more complicated form[@Dzrazga], having many terms in a power series expansion of $\Delta_m$, in addition to the quadratic and quartic ones that our functional does. But, as we discuss below, the superconducting dome is reproduced quite reasonably by truncating the functional to quartic order. In addition, several other experimentally observed thermodynamic properties of the cuprates over the entire pseudogap regime are also reproduced by this simplified form of the functional [@Banerjee_1].
Superconducting Transition Temperature {#sec.superconductingTc}
---------------------------------------
The superconducting state is characterized by macroscopic phase coherence. For superconductivity in cuprates described by the functional \[Eq.\] this means a non-zero value for the superfluid stiffness or superfluid density $\rho_s(x,T)$, formally defined as $\rho_s=\frac{1}{N}(\frac{\partial^2\mc{<F>}}{\partial \theta^2})_{\theta\rightarrow 0}$, where $\theta$ is the phase twist applied along one of the two orthogonal directions and $N$ is the total number of sites. This leads to the formal expression for $\rho_s$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\rho_s=\frac{C}{2N}\left\langle\sum_{m,\mu}\Delta_m\Delta_{m+\mu}\cos(\phi_m-\phi_{m+\mu})\right\rangle \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{C^2}{2NT}\sum_\mu\left\langle\left(\sum_{m,\mu}\Delta_m\Delta_{m+\mu}\sin(\phi_m-\phi_{m+\mu})\right)^2\right\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu=x,y$. We calculate the superfluid stiffness as function of doping and temperature by MC simulation of our model \[Eq.\] (see Section \[sec.method\]) using the above formula and obtain the BKT transition temperature $T_\mr{KT}(x)$ accurately through the Nelson-Kosterlitz criterion [@Nelson_1977] $\rho_s(T_\mr{KT})/T_\mr{KT}=2/\pi$ in conjunction with finite-size scaling analysis [@Weber_1987]. The results are summarized in Fig.\[sfldensity\].
As also mentioned earlier, we want to re-emphasize one point regarding our identification of $\mr{T_{KT}} \equiv \mr{T_c}$. On the basis of Kosterlitz-Thouless RG analysis Benfatto et al. [@Benfatto1; @Benfatto2] have demonstrated that in layered superconductors, which generally have small interlayer Josephson coupling, the Kosterlitz-Thouless [*[behavior]{}*]{}(e.g. superfluid stiffness jump at $\mr{T_{KT}}$ which evolves to a rapid turnover at $\mr{T_c \gtrsim T_{KT}}$) persists when vortex core energy is very low.
The calculated $T_c(x)$ is approximately of the same parabolic shape \[see Fig.\[sfldensity\] (inset)\] as found experimentally. The reasons for the qualitative disagreement at both ends are not difficult to understand. For very small $x$, as well as for $x$ near $x_c$ , our free-energy functional needs to be extended by including quantum phase fluctuation effects. For such values of $x$, zero-point fluctuations are important because the phase stiffness is small. The quantum fluctuations are also expected to modify the simple Uemura scaling [@Uemura1989] to more appropriate quantum critical scaling in the extremely underdoped cuprates [@Broun2007; @Hetel2007]. Additionally, low-energy mobile electron degrees of freedom need to be considered explicitly for $x$ near $x_c$. We briefly discuss the role of quantum phase fluctuation effects and other possible competing orders in determining the detailed shape of $T_c(x)$ in Appendix \[app.TcQuantum\].
Effects of quantum phase fluctuation and competing orders on $T_c(x)$ {#app.TcQuantum}
=====================================================================
We have shown in Sec. \[sec.superconductingTc\] that calculated SC transition temperature $T_c$ in our model follows a dome-shaped curve as a function of $x$ (Fig. \[sfldensity\]). In the extreme underdoped and overdoped regimes, where the superfluid density becomes small in our model, one needs to take into account the effect of quantum phase fluctuations. These would renormalize $T_c$ to zero at finite doping in the underdoped side and their importance is well-supported by experiments [@Broun2007; @Hetel2007] and theoretical analysis [@Franz_2006]. We can incorporate quantum phase fluctuation effects in our formalism [@Banerjee_1] by supplementing the free-energy functional of Eq. with the following term $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_Q(\{\hat{q}_m\})&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{mn} \hat{q}_m V_{mn} \hat{q}_n \label{Eq.functionalQ}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\hat{q}_m$ is the Cooper pair number operator at site $m$, and $\phi_m$ in Eq. should be treated as a quantum mechanical operator $\hat{\phi}_m$, canonically conjugate to $\hat{q}_m$ so that $[\hat{q}_m,\hat{\phi}_n]=i\delta_{mn}$. We take the simplest possible form for $V_{mn}$ i.e. $V_{mn}=V_0\delta_{mn}$, where $V_0$ is the strength of on-site Cooper pair interaction. We obtain [@Banerjee_1] a single-site mean field estimate of $T_c(x)$, namely $T_c^Q(x)$, including the effect of $\mathcal{F}_Q$ as shown in Fig.\[fig.TcQuantum\]. The $T_c(x)$ dome indeed terminates at finite $x$ away from $x=0$, as seen in experiment. As an example, we show in Fig.\[fig.TcQuantum\] that quantitative agreement for $T_c $ for a specific cuprate, $\mathrm{La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4}$ is possible with a particular choice of parameters.
We do not include these quantum fluctuations explicitly for calculating fluctuation diamagnetism as they bring about qualitative changes only at the extreme end of the dome on the underdoped side. For other values of $x$, these fluctuations only renormalize the values of the parameters $A$, $B$ and $C$ of our functional. We assume that such renormalizations have already been taken into account while choosing these parameters in tune with experiments.
One can ask if there are other effects of quantum fluctuations that go beyond simply renormalizing parameters in our free energy. An example is the presence of a dip (Fig. \[fig.TcQuantum\]) in $T_c$ at $x=1/8$ due to concurrent stripe order [@Moodenbaugh]. The effect of such stripe order can in principle be taken into account in a multi-order-parameter functional and integrated out to produce our functional as has been explained earlier. The stripe order has been seen to be most dominant only close to $x=1/8$ and diminishing rapidly away from it [@Wu2011]. It is thus not obvious whether it would have any significant effects on the extreme underdoped side, such as, for instance leading to the ultimate demise of $T_c$ at $x~=0.05$, which is far away from x=1/8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Effect of quantum phase fluctuation on $T_c(x)$ curve. A reasonably good comparison can be obtained with experimental $T_c(x)$ curve for La214 with following choice of parameters $x_c=0.345$, $c=0.33$, $b=0.155$, $f=1.063$ and $V_0=0.15T_0$ with $\Delta_0(x=0)=82$ meV. The dip of the experimental $T_c$ around $x\sim0.12$ is due to the $1/8$ ‘stripe anomaly’ [@Moodenbaugh].[]{data-label="fig.TcQuantum"}](Tc_QFluctn.eps "fig:"){height="6cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[20]{} D. Podolsky, S. Raghu and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 117004 (2007). V. Oganesyan, D. A. Huse and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 094503 (2006). S. Mukerjee and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 014506 (2004). I. Ussishkin, S. L. Sondhi and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 287001 (2002). M. N. Serbyn, M. A. Skvortsov, A. A. Varlamov and V. Galitski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 067001 (2009). S. S. Chung, P. Kakshvili and C. J. Bolech, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 134525 (2012). G. Wachtel and D. Orgad, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 184505 (2014). X. Jiang, D. Li and B. Rosenstein, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 064507 (2014). Y. Wang, S. Ono, Y. Onose, G. Gu, Y. Ando, Y. Tokura, S. Uchida, and N. P. Ong, Science [**299**]{}, 86 (2003). A. Lascialfari, A. Rigamonti, L. Romano, P. Tedesco, A. Varlamov and D. Embriaco, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 144523 (2002). A. Lascialfari, A. Rigamonti, L. Romano, A. A. Varlamov and I. Zucca, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 100505(R) (2003). Y. Wang, L. Li, M. J. Naughton, G. D. Gu, S. Uchida and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 247002 (2005). Y. Wang, L. Li and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 024510 (2006). L. Li, Y. Wang, S. Komiya, S. Ono, Y. Ando, G. D. Gu and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 054510 (2010) L. Li, Y. Wang and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 056502 (2013). J. Chang [*et al.*]{}, Nat. Phys. [**8**]{}, 751(2012). O. Cyr-Choiniere [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**458**]{} 743 (2009). G. Yu [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1210.6942 \[cond-mat.supr-con\]. Kokanovic et al. Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{} 060505(R) (2013) T. Timusk and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**62**]{}, 61 (1999). R. Daou [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**463**]{}, 519 (2010). A. Hackl, M. Vojta and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 045102 (2010). P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa and X. G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 17 (2006). K. Michaeli and A. M. Finkel’stein, Europhys. Lett. [**86**]{}, 27007 (2009). A. Levchenko, M. R. Norman and A. A. Varlamov, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 020506(R) (2011). S. Raghu, D. Podolsky, A. Vishwanath and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 184520 (2008). L. Benfatto, C. Castellani and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 207002 (2007). L. Benfatto, C. Castellani and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 117008 (2007). L. Benfatto, C. Castellani and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 100506 (R) (2008). V. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson, Nature (London) [**374**]{}, 434 (1995). Y. J. Uemura [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2317 (1989). D. M. Broun [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 237003 (2007). I. Hetel, T. R. Lemberger and M. Randeria, Nat. Phys. [**3**]{}, 700 (2007). A. Paramekanti, M. Randeria and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 217002 (2001). S. Banerjee, T. V. Ramakrishnan, C. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 024510 (2011). A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain and Z.-X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 473 (2003). O. Fischer [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**79**]{}, 353 (2007). K. Sarkar, S. Banerjee, S. Mukerjee and T. V. Ramakrishnan (unpublished). S. A. Kivelson, E. Fradkin and V. J. Emery, Nature [**393**]{}, 550 (1998). S. A. Kivelson [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 1201 (2003). J. E. Hoffman [*et al.*]{}, Science [**295**]{}, 4650 (1995). B. Fauque, Y. Sidis, V. Hinkov, S. Pailhes, C. T. Lin, X. Chaud and P. Bourges, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 197001 (2006). E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson and J. M. Tranquada, arXiv:1407.4480 \[cond-mat.supr-con\]. A. J. Achkar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 167001 (2012). J. Chang [*et al.*]{}, Nat. Phys. [**8**]{}, 871 (2012). G. Ghiringhelli [*et al.*]{}, Science [**337**]{}, 821 (2012). T. Wu [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**477**]{}, 191 (2011). N. Doiron-Leyraud [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**447**]{}, 565 (2007). L. E. Hayward, D. G. Hawthorn, R. G. Melko and S. Sachdev, Science [**343**]{}, 1336 (2014). L. E. Hayward, A. J. Achkar, D. G. Hawthorn, R. G. Melko and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 094515 (2014). G. Wachtel and D. Orgad, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 014503 (2015). G. Baskaran and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 580 (1988). W. E. Lawrence and S. Doniach, Proc. 12$^\mathrm{th}$ Int. Conf. Low Temp. Phys., E. Kanada, ed. (Kyoto 1970, Keigaku Publ. Co. 1971), p-361. P. Minnhagen and P. Olsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1039 (1991). C. Ebner and D. Stroud, Phys. Rev. B [**23**]{}, 6164(R) (1981). E. W. Carlson, S. A. Kivelson, V. J. Emery and E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 612 (1999). A. Paramekanti, M. Randeria, T. V. Ramakrishnan and S. S. Mandal, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 6786 (2000). M. Franz and A. P. Iyengar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 047007 (2006). M. Dzrazga [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. A [**143**]{}, 267 (1990); Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter [**74**]{}, 67 (1989). S. Banerjee, T. V. Ramakrishnan, C. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{} 144525 (2011). D. R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**39**]{}, 1201 (1977). H. Weber and P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{} 10 (1988). K. S. Raman, V. Oganesyan, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 174528 (2009). V. G. Kogan, M. Ledvij, A. Y. Simonov, J. H. Cho and D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1870 (1993). Y. Ando and K. Segawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 167005 (2002). F. Rullier-Albenque, H. Alloul and G. Rikken, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 014522 (2011). A. Allais, D. Chowdhury, and S. Sachdev, Nature Communications [**5**]{}, 5771 (2014). A. R. Moodenbaugh [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 4596 (1988); J. M. Tranquada [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**375**]{}, 561 (1995).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present strong arguments that the deep structure of the quantum vacuum contains a web of microscopic wormholes or short-cuts. We develop the concept of wormhole spaces and show that this web of wormholes generate a peculiar array of long-range correlations in the patterns of vacuum fluctuations on the Planck scale. We conclude that this translocal structure represents the common cause for both the BH-entropy-area law, the more general holographic principle and the entanglement phenomena in quantum theory. In so far our approach exhibits a common structure which underlies both gravity and quantum theory on a microscopic scale. A central place in our analysis is occupied by a quantitative derivation of the distribution laws of microscopic wormholes in the quantum vacuum. This makes it possible to address a number of open questions and controversial topics in the field of quantum gravity.'
---
1.5cm
0.5 cm
Institut für Theoretische Physik\
Universität Göttingen\
Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1\
37077 Göttingen Germany\
(E-mail: [email protected])
Introduction
============
In the following we want to give a new explanation of the area law of black hole (BH) entropy and the more general and stronger [ holographic principle]{}. Furthermore, we provide (in our view) convincing arguments that an important structural ingredient of the deep structure of our quantum vacuum is a network of microscopic wormholes. In contrast to e.g. [string theory]{} and [loop quantum gravity]{} (LQG), which both employ the quantum laws more or less unaltered all the way down to the remote [Planck scale]{}, we regard this as an at least debatable assumption. We rather view the holographic hypothesis as a means to understand how both quantum theory and gravitation do emerge as derived and secondary theories from a more fundamental theory living on a more microscopic scale. A central role in this enterprise is played by an analysis of the microscopic structure of the [quantum vacuum]{} which leads to the key concept of [wormhole spaces]{}.
This important conceptual structure makes it possible to understand the holographic aspects of quantum gravity, on the one hand, and the (non-local) entanglement phenomena pervading ordinary quantum physics, on the other hand, in a relatively natural way. Furthermore we think that there exist links to the old ideas of e.g. Sakharov and Zeldovich, dubbed [induced gravity]{} (see for example [@Sa; @1],[@Sa; @2],[@Z1],[@J1]).
Some words are in order regarding the relation of our investigation to the analysis of BH entropy in, say, string theory. Three scenarios are in our view in principle possible. Either, both approaches adress the same phenomena in different languages, or they deal with them on different scales of resolution of space-time. Be that as it may, we think that our observation that the true ground state of our quantum vacuum seems to be what we call a wormhole space (see section \[worm\]) is an aspect which is not apparent in the original string theory approach and may be helpful to fix the proper ground state in string theory.
In [@Bekenstein2] Bekenstein remarked that the deeper meaning of black-hole entropy (BH-entropy) remains mysterious. He asks, is it similar to that of ordinary entropy, i.e. the log of a counting of internal BH-states, associated with a single BH-exterior? ([@Bekenstein1],[@Bekenstein3] or [@Hawking1]). Or, similarly, is it the log of the number of ways, in which the BH might be formed. Or is it the log of the number of horizon quantum states? ([@Hooft1],[@Susskind1]). Does it stand for information, lost in the transcendence of the hallowed principle of unitary evolution? ([@Hawking2],[@Giddings]). He then claims that the usefulness of any proposed interpretation of BH-entropy depends on how well it relates to the original “statistical” aspect of entropy as a measure of disorder, missing information, multiplicity of microstates compatible with a given macrostate, etc.
Quite a few workers in the field argue that the peculiar dependence of BH-entropy on the area of the event horizon points to the fact that the degrees of freedom (DoF), responsible for BH-entropy, are situated near the event horizon. This seems to be further corroborated by the corresponding behavior of the so-called entanglement entropy, i.e. its (apparent) linear dependence on the area of the dividing surface (cf., just to mention a few sources, [@Hooft2],[@Sorkin1],[@Sorkin2] or the lively debate in [@Jacobson1], concerning entanglement entropy in a more general setting, [@Sorkin3],[@Srednicki]). This linear dependence does however not generally hold without further qualifications. It does in particular [not]{} hold for excited states (see [@Requ2])!
That is, while some particular sort of entanglement certainly plays an important role in this context, the real question is in our view the scale of resolution of space-time where this entanglement becomes effective and the nature of the quantum vacuum on this level of resolution.\
Remark: We want to emphasize the in our view crucial (but frequently apparently not fully appreciated) point that the entropy content of a BH is maximal.\
We think, the usual version of entanglement, we observe on the scales of ordinary quantum theory, is only an [epiphenomenon]{}, representing rather the coarse-grained effect of a hidden structure which lives on a much more microscopic scale. I.e., we are sceptical whether on such a microscopic scale the quantum vacuum can still be treated in the way of an ordinary quantum field theory vacuum as suggested in some of the papers cited above. We think, the [maximum-entropy property]{} of the BH-interior suggests another interpretation. We will come back to this point in more detail in section \[4\] (cf. also the sceptical remarks in some of the review papers by Wald, e.g. [@Wald1] (see in particular sect.6, Open Issues), [@W2] (see in particular sect.4, Some unresolved Issues and Puzzles\],[@W3]).
As BH-entropy is widely regarded as an observational window into the more hidden and primordial quantum underground of space-time, it should be expected that it can be naturally explained within the frameworks of the leading candidates of such a theory, i.e., to mention the most prominent, string theory or LQG. For certain extreme situations string theory manages to give an explanation of the BH-entropy-area law. Whether the explanation is really natural is perhaps debatable (it relies in fact on a number of assumptions and correspondences as e.g. peculiar intersections of various classes of p-branes). In a sense, it is rather a correspondence between BH-behavior and the configurational entropy of certain string states. To mention some representative papers, [@S1],[@S2],[@S3],[@S4],[@S5],[@S6]. In LQG, on the other hand, it is assumed from the outset (at least as far as we can see) that the corresponding DoF are sitting at the BH-horizon. Therefore the observed area dependence of BH-entropy is perhaps not so surprising (cf. e.g. [@L1],[@L2]).
In the enumeration of the most promising candidates for a theory of quantum gravity one approach is usually left out which, we nevertheless think, has a certain potential. One may, for example, tentatively divide quantum gravity candidates into roughly three groups, the relativisation of quantum theory (with e.g. LQG and causal set theory as members), the quantisation of general relativity (string theory being a prominent candidate) or third, theories which underlie both general relativity [and]{} quantum theory but are in fact more fundamental and structurally different from both and contain these two pillars of modern physics as derived and perhaps merely effective sub-theories, living on coarser scales (cf. e.g. [@Isham]). In the following we want to develop such a model theory in more detail.
As far as we can see, such a philosophy is also shared by ‘t Hooft who emphasized this point in quite a few papers (see e.g. [@H1],[@H2],[@H3],[@H4]). We quote from [@H2]:
> […it may still be possible that the quantum mechanical nature of the phenomenological laws of nature at the atomic scale can be attributed to an underlying law that is deterministic at the Planck scale but with chaotic effects at all larger scales…Since, according to our philosophy, quantum states are identified with equivalence classes…]{}
Furthermore:
> […It is the author’s suspicion however, that these hidden variable theories failed because they were based far too much upon notions from everyday life and ‘ordinary physics’ and in particular because general relativistic effects have not been taken into account properly.]{}
While ’t Hooft usually chooses his model theories from the cellular automaton (CA) class, we are adopting a point of view which is on the one hand more general and flexible but, on the other hand, technically more difficult and complex. Instead of a relatively rigid underlying geometric substratum in the case of CA (typically some fixed regular lattice) on which the CA are evolving according to a given fixed (typically local) CA-law, we are employing quite irregular, dynamic geometric structures called by us [cellular networks]{}, the main point being that connections ([edges]{} or [links]{}) between the respective [nodes]{} or [cells]{} can be created or annihilated according to a dynamical law which, in addition, determines the evolution of the local node- and edge-states.
To put it briefly, the ‘matter distribution’ (i.e. the global pattern of node-states) acts on the geometry of the network (the global pattern of active edges) and vice versa. Thus, as in general relativity, the network is supposed to find both its internal geometry and its matter-energy distribution with the help of a generalized dynamical law which intertwines the two aspects (cf. e.g. [@R1] or [@R2] and further references given there). Technically, the geometric substructure can be modelled by large, usually quite irregular ([random]{}) [graphs]{}.
To make our point clear, this approach should not be confused with e.g. the spin network approach in LQG or various forms of (dynamical) triangulations. Our networks are usually extremely irregular and wildly fluctuating on a microscopic scale, resembling rather Wheeler’s [space-time foam]{}, and smooth geometric structures (as e.g. dimensional notions) are hoped to emerge via some sort of a [geometric renormalisation process]{} (in fact a very particular organized form of [coarse-graining]{} steps). Some of the interesting deeper mathematical aspects can for example be looked up in [@R3].
In our dynamical network approach to quantum space-time physics the nodes are assumed to represent cells of some microscopic size (presumably Planck size), the internal details of which cannot be further resolved in principle or are ignored and averaged over for convenience and will be represented instead by a simple ansatz for a local (node) state. It can perhaps be compared with the many existing spin-models which are designed to implement certain characteristic features of complex solids. This is more or less the same philosophy as in the CA-framework. The elementary connections between the nodes (the edges in graph theory) are assumed to represent [elementary interactions]{} or [information channels]{} among the cells and also carry simple [edge-states]{}. We made a detailed numerical analysis of the behavior of such networks in [@R4].\
Remark: We would like to emphasize however, that our approach does not really rely on this particular framework. It rather serves as a means to illustrate the various steps in our analysis within a concrete model theory.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we analyse the basic substratum, i.e. the microscopic patterns of vacuum fluctuations, in particular the [negative]{} energy fluctuations. In section \[worm\] we describe the three different roads which lead (in our view: inevitably) to the concept of [wormhole space]{}. The preparatory sections 2 and 3 are then amalgamated in section 4 into a detailed analysis of the microscopic distribution pattern of [short-cuts]{} or [wormholes]{} and their consequences for the number of [effective]{} DoF in a volume of space. We introduce a new type of dimension, the so-called [holographic dimension]{}. Furthermore, we explain the microscopic basis of the [holographic principle]{} in general and the [bulk-boundary correspondence]{} between the DoF in the interior of e.g. a BH and the DoF on the boundary. Some apparent counter examples concerning the area-scaling property (see e.g. [@Marolf]; Wheeler’s ’bag of gold’-spacetimes ) are very briefly addressed. In the last section we briefly comment on a number of immediate applications of our microscopic holographic approach and (open) problems which can be settled with the help of our framework.
The Structure of the Vacuum Fluctuations on a Microscopic Scale
===============================================================
A characteristic feature of the dynamical network models we investigated is their [undulatory]{} character. As a consequence of the [feedback]{} structure of the coupling between node (cell) states and [wiring diagram]{} of edges (i.e. the pattern of momentary elementary connections or interactions) the network never settles in a static, frozen final state. The network may of course end up in some [attracting]{} subset of phase space but typical are wild fluctuations on a small (microscopic) scale with possibly some macroscopic patterns emerging on a coarser scale forming some kind of [superstructure]{} (see e.g. [@R4]).
It is in our view not sufficiently appreciated that, in contrast to most of the other systems being studied in physics, the quantum vacuum is in a state of eternal unrest on a microscopic scale, with, for all we know, short-lived excitations constantly popping up and being reabsorbed by the seething sea.
It therefore seems reasonable to regard our above network model (investigated in e.g. [@R1] to [@R4]) as a (toy) model of the quantum vacuum with the energy-momentum fluctuations on short scales being associated with the fluctuations of the local node and edge states.
In the following we adopt the working hypothesis of a parallelism of network behavior and microscopic behavior of the quantum vacuum.
We now come to a detailed analysis of the microscopic pattern of vacuum fluctuations. In sect.4 of [@Requ1] we made a calculation which shows that, given the huge number of roughly Planck-size grains in a macroscopic piece of space and assuming that the individual grains are allowed to fluctuate almost independently, more precisely, some grain variable like e.g. the local energy, the total fluctuations in a macroscopic or mesoscopic piece of space of typical physical quantities are still so large (i.e. macroscopic) that they should be observable. Note that with the number of nodes of roughly Planck-size, $N_P$, in a macroscopic volume, $V$, being gigantic, its square root is still very large (for the details of the argument see [@Requ1]). More precisely, with $q_i$ some physical quantity belonging to a microscopic grain (e.g. energy, momentum, some charge etc. and taking for convenience $\langle q_i\rangle$=0) and $Q_V:=\sum_i q_i$ being the observable belonging to the volume $V$, the fluctuation of the latter behaves under the above assumption as $$\langle Q_VQ_V\rangle^{1/2}\sim (V/l_p^3)^{1/2}$$ with $N_P\sim V/l_p^3$ the number of grains in $V$. This is a consequence of the [central limit theorem]{}. As such large integrated fluctuations in a macroscopic region of the physical vacuum are not observed (they are in fact microscopic on macroscopic scales), we conclude:
The individual grains or supposed elementary DoF do not fluctuate approximately independently.
Remark: We note that this fact is also corroborated by other, independent observations.
We can refine the result further (cf. [@Requ1]) by assuming that the fluctuations in the individual grains are in fact not independent but correlated over a certain distance or, more precisely, are [short-range correlated]{}. In mathematical form this is expressed as [integrable correlations]{}. This allows that “positive” and “negative” deviations from the mean value can compensate each other more effectively. Letting e.g. $q(x)$ be the density of a certain physical observable and $Q_V:=\int_V q(x)\,d^n\!x$ the integral over $V$. In order that $$\langle Q_VQ_V\rangle^{1/2}\ll V^{1/2}$$ we proved in [@Requ1] that it is necessary that $$\int_V \!d^n\!y\,\langle q(x)q(y)\rangle\approx 0 \label{fluc}$$
We made a more detailed analysis in [@Requ1] under what physical conditions property (\[fluc\]) can be achieved, arriving at the result:
Nearly vanishing fluctuations in a macroscopic volume, $V$, together with short-range correlations imply that the fluctuations in the individual grains are anticorrelated in a fine-tuned and non-trivial way, i.e. positive and negative fluctuations strongly compensate each other which technically is expressed by property (\[fluc\]).
Remark: In [@R5] we extended such a vacuum fluctuation analysis and applied it to measurement instruments, being designed to detect (possibly) microscopic fluctuations of distances due to passing gravitational waves.
We hence infer that the fluctuation pattern of e.g. energy-momentum has to be strongly [anticorrelated]{}. But under the above assumption it is possible that the underlying compensation mechanism which balances e.g. the positive and negative energy fluctuations is of short-range type, viz., individual grain-energies may still fluctuate almost independently if their spatial distance is sufficiently large. We show in the following that the true significance of the so-called [holographic principle]{} is it, to enforce a very rigid and [long-ranged]{} anticorrelated fluctuation pattern in the quantum vacuum. As we are at the moment only interested in matters of principle, we assume the simplest case to prevail, called the [space-like]{} holographic principle (holding in contexts like e.g. quasi-static backgrounds or asymptotic Minkowski-space; see e.g. the beautiful review [@Bousso]).
There exists a class of scenarios in which the maximal amount of information or entropy which can be stored in a spherical volume is proportional to the area of the bounding surface. The same holds then for the number of available DoF in $V$. This is the spacelike holographic principle.
In a series of papers Brustein et al. developed a point of view that relates typical fluctuation results of quantum mechanical observables in quantum field theory with the area-law-like behavior of entanglement entropy and BH-entropy (cf. e.g. [@Bru]). We already made a brief remark to this approach in [@Requ1]. We note that we arrived at related results using different methods in another context (see e.g. [@CMP50] and [@JMP43]). As a more detailed comment would lead us too far astray, we plan to discuss this subject matter elsewhere.
What we are going to show in the following is that the mechanism leading to the strange area-behavior of the entropy of an enclosed volume, $V$, is considerably subtler as usually envisaged. On the one hand, we will show that the number of elementary DoF contained in $V$ is in principle proportional to the volume. On the other hand we infer from observations on the macroscopic or mesoscopic scale that the fluctuations of e.g. the energy are strongly anticorrelated. However, as long as this compensation mechanism is short-ranged, we would still have a number of nearly independently fluctuating clusters of elementary DoF which again happens to be proportional to the volume as the cluster size is roughly equal to the correlation length. So the conclusion seems to be inescapable that the patterns of vacuum fluctuations must actually be [long-range correlated]{} on a microscopic scale.
But we showed in [@Requ1] or [@R5] in quite some detail that even systems, displaying long-range correlations, will usually have an entropy which is proportional to the volume. A typical example is a (quantum) crystal ([@Requ1],[@R5]). It is certainly correct that below a phase transition point a system of particles in the crystal phase has a smaller entropy than in the liquid or gas phase, but still the entropy happens to be an extensive quantity. The reason is in our view that the system develops, as a result of the long-range correlations, new types of collective excitations (e.g. lattice phonons) which serve as new collective DoF. Approximately they may be treated as a gas of weakly interacting elementary modes with the usual extensive entropic behavior.
That is, the holographic principle entails that the elementary DoF have to be long-range anticorrelated (cf. also the remarks in [@H4] or sect.7 of [@Susskind2]). But we see that this is only a necessary but not a sufficient property for an entropy-area law to hold. We hence arrive at the preliminary conclusion:
From our preceding arguments and observations we conclude that the holographic principle implies that the fluctuation patterns in $V$ are long-range anticorrelated in a fine-tuned way on a microscopic scale and are essentially fixed by the state of the fluctuations on the bounding surface. The dynamical mechanism, which generates these long-range correlations must however, by necessity, have quite unusual properties (cf. subsection \[bulkboundary\]).
Before we derive the wormhole structure of the quantum vacuum on a primordial scale in the next sections, we continue with the general analysis of the pattern of vacuum fluctuations and derive some useful properties of it.
A particular role is usually played by the energy and its fluctuations. Furthermore, vacuum fluctuations are frequently discussed together with the so-called [zero-point energies]{}. While they are not exactly the same, they are closely related. Both occur also in connection with the [cosmological constant problem]{} (to mention only a few sources see e.g. [@Zinkernagel1],[@Zinkernagel2],[@Nernst],[@Enz],[@Boyer],[@Weinberg],[@Straumann]).
In the simplest examples like e.g. the quantized harmonic oscillator or the electromagnetic field we have $$H=P^2/2m+m\omega/2\cdot Q^2$$ and with $$\langle P\rangle_0=\langle Q\rangle_0 =0$$ in the groundstate, $\psi_0$, we have $$\hbar\cdot\omega/2=\langle H\rangle_0=1/2m\cdot
\langle (P-\langle P\rangle_0)^2\rangle_0+ m\omega/2\cdot\langle (Q-\langle Q\rangle_0)^2\rangle_0$$ with $$\langle (P-\langle P\rangle_0)^2\rangle_0\cdot \langle
(Q-\langle Q\rangle_0)^2\rangle_0\geq \hbar^2/4$$ which follows from $[P,Q]=-i\hbar$. In the same way we have in (matter-free) QED: $$H=const\cdot ({\mathbf}{E}^2+{\mathbf}{B}^2)$$ with $$\langle {\mathbf}{E}\rangle_0=\langle {\mathbf}{B}\rangle_0
=0$$ so that again $\langle H\rangle_0$ is a sum over pure vacuum fluctuations of the non-commuting quantities ${\mathbf}{E}$ and ${\mathbf}{B}$. One should however note that in the quantum field context products of fields at the same space-time point have to be Wick-ordered (in order to be well-defined). It is, on the other hand, frequently argued that with gravity entering the stage, these eliminated zero-point energy fluctuations have to be taken into account again. In our view, this problem is not really settled.
We now come to an important point. It is our impression that in some heuristic discussions (vacuum fluctuations as virtual particle-antiparticle pairs) the consequences of the fact that the vacuum state is an exact eigenstate of the Hamiltonian in a Hilbert space representation of some quantum field theory are not fully taken into account. I.e., we have $$H\,\Omega=0$$ (provided the ground state energy is for convenience normalized to zero; note however that this may be problematical in a theory containing gravity). Eigenstates, however, have the peculiar property that the standard deviation is necessarily zero, $$\Delta_{\Omega}\,H=\langle (H-\langle
H\rangle_{\Omega})^2\rangle_{\Omega}^{1/2}=\langle H^2\rangle_{\Omega}^{1/2}=0$$ According to the standard interpretation of quantum theory combined with spectral theory, $H^2\geq 0$, this implies that in each individual observation process the total energy of the vacuum which is, according to conventional wisdom, the (hypothetical) sum or superposition of local (small scale) fluctuations, happens to be exactly zero. In other words, the elementary fluctuations have to exactly compensate each other in an apparently fine-tuned way. Put differently
If there are positive local energy fluctuations, there have to be at the same time by necessity negative energy fluctuations of exactly the same order. That is, at each moment, the global pattern of energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum is an array of rigidly correlated positive and negative local excitations.
Remark: Note the similarity of this independent observation to what we have said above in connection with the holographic hypothesis.\
It should be mentioned that Hawking in [@Haw1] invoked exactly this picture of a particle pair excitation near the event horizon with the virtual particle, having negative energy, falling into the BH while the one with positive energy escapes to infinity.
It would be useful to get more quantitative information on the spectral properties of the local observables, in particular estimates on negative fluctuations. One could try to make an explicit spectral resolution of these quantities, e.g. of the energy, contained in a finite volume, $V$, but this turns out to be difficult in general, even if one has given an explicit model theory in some Hilbert space. As we prefer a more general, model independent approach (not necessarily based on Hilbert space mathematics), we proceed by using (similar to Bell in his papers) a general probabilistic approach which rather exploits the statistics of individual measurement results. Unfortunately, we found that the standard estimates, known to us in this context (e.g. the Markov-Chebyshev-inequality), always go in the wrong direction (see e.g. [@Bauer] or [@Feller]). Therefore we present in the following our own estimate.
The strategy is the following. We take an observable, $E_V$, localized in $V$ with, for convenience, discrete spectral values, $E_i$, and corresponding probabilities denoted by $p_i>0$. If we assume that the expectation of $E_V$ is zero (which can always be achieved by a simple shift) we have $$\sum\,p_i=1\quad , \quad \sum\,p_i\cdot
E_i=0$$ Furthermore, we assume its standard deviation in e.g. the vacuum, $\Omega$, to be finite (which is automatically the case for bounded operators, but we want to include also more general statistical variables) $$\sum\,p_i\cdot E_i^2=(\Delta_{\Omega}E)^2<\infty$$
In a first step we make the simplifying assumption (taking e.g. a bounded function of the energy)
$$|E_i|\leq\Lambda\quad\text{for all}\quad E_i$$
We are interested in the amount of negative (e.g. energy) fluctuations we will observe in measurements. A reasonable quantitative measure of it is $$\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|$$ with $E_i^-,p_i^-$ the negative spectral values and their corresponding probabilities. We then have (with $|E_i^-|/\Lambda\leq 1$) $$\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|/\Lambda\geq \sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|^2/\Lambda^2$$ For the lhs we have $$\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|/\Lambda=\sum\,p_i^+\cdot
|E_i^+|/\Lambda$$ as the expectation of $E$ was assumed to be zero.
This yields $$\begin{gathered}
\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|/\Lambda=1/2\cdot
\left(\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|/\Lambda+\sum\,p_i^+\cdot
|E_i^+|/\Lambda\right)\geq\\ 1/2\cdot
\left(\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|^2/\Lambda^2+\sum\,p_i^+\cdot
|E_i^+|^2/\Lambda^2\right) \end{gathered}$$ I.e. $$\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|\geq 1/2\cdot\sum\,p_i\cdot
E_i^2/\Lambda=1/2\Lambda\cdot (\Delta_{\Omega}E)^2$$ On the other hand (Cauchy-Schwartz) $$\left(\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|\right)^2=1/4\cdot
\left(\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|+\sum\,p_i^+\cdot
|E_i^+|\right)^2\leq 1/4\cdot\sum\,p_i\cdot |E_i|^2$$ We hence arrive at the result
If the observable, $E$, is bounded, so that its spectral values fulfill $|E_i|\leq\Lambda$, we have the estimate $$1/2\Lambda^{-1}\,(\Delta_{\Omega}E)^2\leq
\left(\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|\right)\leq 1/2\,
(\Delta_{\Omega}E)$$ with $p_i$ the probabilities that the negative spectral values $E_i$ occur in an observation. That is, we manage to bound a quantity, which is difficult to measure directly, by quantities, which are usually more easily accessible.
We can generalize this result to situations where the $E_i$ are not exactly bounded by some $\Lambda$ but are bounded in at least an essential way. We assume that there exists some $\Lambda$ so that $$\sum_{|E_i|>\Lambda}\,p_i\cdot |E_i|^2<\varepsilon_{\Lambda}$$ We then have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|/\Lambda=1/2\,\left(\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|/\Lambda+\sum\,p_j^+\cdot |E_j^+|/\Lambda\right)\geq\\
1/2\,\left(\sum_{|E_i^-|\leq\Lambda}\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|/\Lambda+\sum_{|E_j^+|\leq\Lambda}\,p_j^+\cdot |E_j^+|/\Lambda\right)\geq\\
1/2\,\left(\sum_{|E_i^-|\leq\Lambda}\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|^2/\Lambda^2+\sum_{|E_j^+|\leq\Lambda}\,p_j^+\cdot |E_j^+|^2/\Lambda^2\right)\geq\\
1/2\,\left(\sum\,p_i\cdot
|E_i|^2/\Lambda^2-\varepsilon_{\Lambda}/\Lambda^2\right)\end{gathered}$$
Under the above assumption of an essentially bounded $E$ we have $$\sum\,p_i^-\cdot |E_i^-|\geq 1/2\Lambda\,\left((\Delta_{\Omega}E)^2-\varepsilon_{\Lambda}\right)$$
Another, rigorous, but not quantitative, argument can be derived from axiomatic quantum field theory (see e.g. [@Wigh1]). It follows from the so-called [Reeh-Schlieder theorem]{} that there are no [local observables]{} or [fields]{} which can annihilate the vacuum (where by local we mean that the objects commute for space-like separation). I.e., we have for any local $A$ (with $A=A^*$) $$A\,\Omega\neq 0\quad\Rightarrow\quad
(A\Omega|A\Omega)=(\Omega|A^2\Omega)\neq 0$$ We take now as local observable the energy density integrated over a certain spatial region, $V$, $$H_V:=\int_V\,h_{00}({\mathbf}{x},0)\,d^3\!x$$ One usually normalizes $h_{00}(x)$ to $$(\Omega|h_{00}(x)\,\Omega)=0\quad\Rightarrow\quad (\Omega|\int_V\,h_{00}({\mathbf}{x},0)d^3\!x\,\Omega)=0$$
The classical expression of the energy density, being derived in Lagrangian field theory, is positive. The corresponding quantized expression, after a necessary [Wick-ordering]{} (see e.g. [@Bjo] or [@Itz]) is however no longer positive definite as an operator (density). This can be seen as follows. If the quantized energy density were still positive, one can take the square root (via the spectral theorem) of e.g. the positive operator $H_V$ and get: $$0= (\Omega|H_V\Omega)= (H_V^{1/2}\Omega|H_V^{1/2}\Omega)$$ hence $$H_V^{1/2}\Omega=0$$ As $H_V^{1/2}$ is also a local observable this is a contradiction due to the Reeh-Schlieder theorem.
$H_V$ is not a positive operator, hence its spectrum contains negative spectral values. It is then easy to construct Hilbert-space vectors, $\psi$, so that the measurement of $H_V$ in $\psi$ yields negative values for the local energy.
Remark: We recently learned that this argument is originally attributed to Epstein (unpublished;[@Reeh] or see [@Summers1]), while the derivation which can be found in [@Gla] is a completely different one.
The important message (in our view) of all this is that, perhaps in contrast to naive expectation, the quantum vacuum contains a lot of negative energy excitations which globally exactly balance the positive excitations. One may now speculate about the possibility of making use of this observation.
\[worm\]Wormhole Spaces
=======================
In this section we want to describe (very) briefly and sketchily the three different lines of reasoning which lead us to the concept of [wormhole spaces]{}. The first line originated from our investigation of the structure and dynamical behavior of the networks we described above. In e.g. [@R1] we analyzed in some quantitative detail the unfolding of the network structure and the various network epochs under the inscribed microscopic dynamical laws and developed the two-level concept of the network structure (or, rather, a multi-scale structure), which, under the right conditions, is relatively smooth on a sufficiently coarse-grained level (level 2) with, among other things, a distant measure (metric) of the more ordinary type and (hopefully) an integer-valued geometric dimension, while on a more microscopic scale (level 1) the network structure is expected to be very erratic with possibly a lot of links (elementary interactions or information channels) connecting regions which may be far apart with respect to the metric on level 2. The association of these links with microscopic wormholes thus suggests itself (cf. in particular observation 4.27 in [@R1]). Note furthermore that our network dynamics implies that these translocal connections are dynamically switched on or off. Compare this observation with the point of view expounded in e.g. [@DeWitt]
> […But if a wormhole can fluctuate out of existence when its entrances are far apart …then, by the principle of microscopic reversibility, the fluctuation [into]{} existence of a wormhole having widely separated entrances ought to occur equally readily. This means that every region of space must, through the quantum principle, be potentially “close” to every other region, something that is certainly not obvious from the operator field equations which, like their classical counterparts, are strictly local.…It is difficult to imagine any way in which widely separated regions of space can be “potentially close” to each other unless space-time itself is embedded in a convoluted way in a higher-dimensional manifold. Additionally, a dynamical agency in that higher-dimensional manifold must exist which can transmit a sense of that closeness.]{}
The quantitative network calculations in the mentioned papers have mainly been performed within the framework of [random graphs]{}. Important mathematical tools for the network analysis in the transition from microscopic, strongly fluctuating and geometrically irregular scales to coarse-grained and, by the same token, smoother scales have been the concepts of [cliques]{} of nodes, the [clique-graph]{} of a graph and an important network parameter which we dubbed [intrinsic scaling dimension]{} (we later learned, [@R3], that this concept plays also an important role in [geometric group theory]{} or [Cayley-graphs]{} where it is called the [growth degree]{}). To give a better feeling what is actually implied, we give the definitions of clique, clique-graph and internal scaling dimension (more about graph theory can e.g. be found in [@Bollo], [@R2], notions and properties of graph dimension were studied in e.g. [@ReqDim]).
A simplex in a graph is a subset of vertices (nodes) with each pair of nodes in this subset being connected by an edge. In graph theory it is also called a complete subgraph. The maximal members in this class are called cliques.
The clique graph, $C(G)$, of a graph, $G$, is built in the following way. Its set of nodes is given by the cliques of $G$, an edge is drawn between too of its nodes if the respective cliques have a non-empty overlap with respect to their set of nodes.
Graphs carry a natural neighborhood structure and notion of distance. The neighborhood $U_n(x)$ of a node $x$ is the set of nodes $y$ which can be reached, starting at $x$ in $\leq n$ consecutive steps, i.e. there exists a path of $\leq n$ consecutive edges connecting the nodes $x$ and $y$.
\[dist\]The canonical network or graph metric is given by $$d(x,y):=\min_{\gamma}\{l(\gamma)\,|\,\gamma\; \text{a path
connecting}\; x\; \text{and}\; y\}$$ Here $l(\gamma)$ is the number of consecutive edges of the path. The above definition fulfills all properties of a metric. Thus graphs and networks are examples of [metric spaces]{}.
\[Dim\] Let $x$ be an arbitrary node of $G$. Let $\#(U_n(x))$ denote the number of nodes in $U_n(x)$.We consider the sequence of real numbers $D_n(x):= \frac{\ln(\#(U_n(x))}{\ln(n)}$. We say $\underline{D}_S(x):= \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} D_n(x)$ is the [*lower*]{} and $\overline{D}_S(x):= \limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty}
D_n(x)$ the [*upper internal scaling dimension*]{} of G starting from $x$. If $\underline{D}_S(x)= \overline{D}_S(x)=: D_S(x)$ we say $G$ has internal scaling dimension $D_S(x)$ starting from $x$. Finally, if $D_S(x)= D_S$ $\forall x$, we simply say $G$ has [ *internal scaling dimension $D_S$*]{}.
We proved in [@ReqDim] (among other things) that this quantity does not depend on the choice of the base point for most classes of graphs.
It turns out that this geometric notion is a very effective characteristic of the large-scale structure of graphs and networks. This topic was further studied in greater generality in e.g. [@R3].
In [@R2] we developed what we called the [geometric renormalization group]{}, to extract important geometric coarse grained, that is, large scale information from the microscopically quite chaotically looking network and its dynamics. The idea is, at least in principle, similar to the [block spin transformation]{} in statistical mechanics. That is, certain characteristic properties of the system are distilled from the microscopically wildly fluctuating statistical system by means of a series of algorithmic renormalization steps (i.e. coarse-graining plus purification). The central aim is it to arrive in the end at a system which resembles, on the surface, a classical space-time, or, on the other hand, to describe the criteria a network has to fulfill in order that it actually has such a [classical fixed point]{}.
In the course of this analysis we observed (cf. section VIII of [@R2]) that the so-called [critical network geometries]{}, i.e. the microscopic network geometries which are expected to play a relevant role in the analysis, are necessarily in a very specific way [geometrically non-local]{}, put differently, they have to contain a very peculiar structure of non-local links, or [short-cuts]{}, that is, in other words, the kind of [wormhole structure]{}, we already described above.
Relations to [non-commutative geometry]{} were established and studied in [@Connes]. We mention in particular section 7.2 “Microscopic Wormholes and Wheeler’s Space-Time Foam” and section 8 “Quantum Entanglement and Quantum Non-Locality”. The possible relevance for quantum theory is in fact quite apparent (as has also been emphasized in the papers by ’t Hooft), as these microscopic wormholes may be the origin of the ubiquitous entanglement phenomena in quantum theory. The following figures describe pictorially the nested structure of the cliques of nodes in consecutive renormalization steps and overlapping cliques of nodes, defining the local [near-order]{} of [physical points]{} together with shortcuts which connect distant parts of the coarse-grained surface structure.
A second complex of (related) phenomena emerges in the field of [small world networks]{}. This is a particular class of networks of apparently quite a universal character (described and reviewed in some detail, for the first time, in [@Watts]) with applications in many fields of modern science. They consist essentially of an ordinary local network with its own local notion of distance superimposed by a typically very sparse network of so-called [short-cuts]{} living on the same set of nodes and playing a structural role similar to the microscopic wormholes described above. A typical example (with dimension of the underlying lattice $k=1$) is given in the following figure.
Some further (in fact very few) references, taken from quite diverse fields are e.g. [@Strogatz],[@Grano],[@Lochmann].
Its, in our view, crucial characteristic is the existence of two metrics over the same network or graph. The first, $d_1(x,y)$, is defined (cf. definition \[dist\]) by taking into account the full set of edges (i.e., including the short-cuts) and a second (local) metric, $d_2(x,y)$, taking into account only the edges of the underlying local network. It hence holds $$d_1(x,y)\leq d_2(x,y)$$
Remark: The metric $d_2(x,y)$ may then be associated (after some renormalisation or coarse-graining steps) with an ordinary macroscopic metric defined on a smooth space (without wormholes) like our classical space-time. $d_1(x,y)$, on the other hand, should be regarded as a microscopic distance concept which employs the existence of wormholes.
While, on the surface, the origin of this concept of small world networks seems to be quite independent of the wormholes in general relativity, it is the more surprising that on a conceptual meta level various subtle ties do emerge. To mention only one (in our view) important observation. In [@Schuster] it is for example shown, that a sparse network of shortcuts superimposed upon an underlying local network, has the propensity to stabilize the overall frequency pattern ([phase locking]{}) of so-called [phase-oscillators]{} which represent the nodes of the networks, the links representing the couplings. The oscillators are assumed to oscillate with (to a certain degree) independent frequencies. If we relate these local frequencies with some local notion of time (or clocks), we may infer that (microscopic) wormholes create or stabilize some global notion of time!
We now come to the third strand, viz. the real wormholes of general relativity or quantum gravity. We mainly concentrate on the wormholes in true, i.e. Lorentzian space-time. Euclidean wormholes also (may) play an important role and have been discussed extensively in the context of the (nearly) vanishing value of the [cosmological constant]{} (see e.g. [@HawW1],[@ColW],[@KlebaW], [@PresW],[@UnrW],[@HawW2]). Of particular relevance in the Lorentzian context are the so-called [traversable]{} wormholes. Their study started (as far as we know) with two seminal papers by Thorne and coworkers (see [@Mo]). The geometric construction of such solutions is in fact not so difficult if performed by the so-called [g-method]{}. That is, one constructs a geometric wormhole, e.g. of the static type, and, in a second step, computes the energy-momentum tensor being consistent with this solution.
Giving a rough outline, this can be done in following way. Two open balls are removed from two different pieces of e.g. approximately flat 3-space. Their boundaries are glued together with the junction being smoothed. As a consequence of the smoothing process a tube emerges interpolating between the two spheres (see e.g. [@Kras]). It is a remarkable fact that in this process the [weak energy condition]{} (WEC) has to be violated, the latter implying that $$T_{00}\geq 0\quad ,\quad T_{00}+T_{ii}\geq
0\quad\text{for}\quad i=1,2,3$$ that is, the matter-energy density is positive in any reference system. Put differently,
In order to get a traversable wormhole, one has to violate the WEC. The WEC is always satisfied by classical matter. Therefore quantum effects are needed. The kind of negative energy needed is also called exotic matter.
We showed in quite some detail in the preceding section that the quantum vacuum abounds with negative energy fluctuations. Therefore the speculation in section H of the first paper in [@Mo] does not seem to be too far-fetched. In a next step one can study networks of such traversable wormholes. In [@Ho1] it is speculated that such a network, existing in the early universe, may solve the [horizon problem]{}. The same situation was discussed from the point of view of our network approach in section 4.1 (The Embryonic Epoch) of [@R1]. All this comes already quite near the general picture we envoked in the beginning of this section. Furthermore one can envisage solutions combining black and white holes. This corresponds to some of our networks where the orientation (direction) of the links connecting two nodes can change under the dynamics. A review of Lorentzian wormholes can be found in the book by Visser ([@Vi]). Some other references are e.g. [@Red] and [@Few].
The above picture of a hypothetical network of wormholes sitting in the deep structure of the quantum vacuum is beautifully complemented by an approach (see e.g. [@Prep],[@Gara]) which investigates within a (semi)classical approximation the energy of a quantum vacuum state containing such an array of wormholes (or, rather, a gas of such wormholes) and compare it with a vacuum state which in zeroth order is flat Minkowski space. It comes out (apparently being a kind of Casimir effect) that the quantum vacuum containing the wormhole gas has in this semiclassical approximation a lower energy compared to the state, being a perturbation of Minkowski space. One should note however that this is a first order quantum effect! Anyhow, this observation seems to corroborate the space-time foam picture of e.g. Wheeler and we conclude this section with
From our analysis in this and the preceding section emerges a model of the ground state of some preliminary version of quantum gravity which contains as an essential ingredient a network of microscopic wormholes. These wormholes can be created and annihilated and are in our picture the carriers of information between distant parts of classical space-time.
We call such a physical structure a wormhole space and regard our cellular or small world networks, discussed above, as models, encoding and representing the typical characteristics of such systems. The typical characteristic is the existence of two types of distance, a microscopic one and an ordinary local one, being similar to ordinary macroscopic metrics on smooth spaces.
\[4\]Wormhole Spaces as the Common Cause of the Holographic Principle and the Entropy-Area Law
==============================================================================================
We learned in the preceding sections that two (presumably crucial) properties govern the behavior of the quantum vacuum on a microscopic scale. First, the vacuum fluctuations are strongly long-range anticorrelated on a microscopic scale, i.e. there exists a fine-tuned pattern of positive and negative (energy) fluctuations. Second, a quantum mechanical stability analysis seems to show that the quantum vacuum is pervaded by a network of microscopic wormholes. We argued above that these two features are not independent phenomena but rather are the two sides of the same medal. Furthermore, the presumed wormhole structure has been supported by observations coming from other fields of research like e.g. cellular or small-world networks.
In this (central) section we will now combine these observations and show that they underlie (among other things) the [holographic principle]{} and the [entropy-area law]{} of BH-thermodynamics. In the following we will use (for convenience) the language of our networks with the nodes of the network representing microscopic grains of space (or space-time) of roughly Planck-size. Leaving out other details we treat our quantum vacuum as a wormhole space, i.e. as a (small world) network consisting of an ordinary local network structure being superimposed by a (presumably) sparse random network with edges consisting of short-cuts, i.e. links, connecting regions of space or space-time, which may be quite a distance apart with respect to the metric, belonging to the underlying local network. These short-cuts represent the wormholes of ordinary space-time.
The crucial characteristic, from which everything is expected to follow, is the pattern and distribution of these short-cuts being immersed in the underlying local network. That is, we randomly select a node $x$ in the network $G$ ($G$ standing for graph) and study the distribution of short-cuts connecting $x$ with nodes $y$ on spheres of radius $R$ around $x$ (measured with respect to some macroscopic metric or the natural metric of the underlying [local]{} network).
We expect that the precise distribution law will depend on the concrete type of space-time we are dealing with. This holds in particular if the space-time is not static. That is, our microscopic approach to holography makes it possible to understand how holography may depend on the concretely given type of space-time (cf. e.g. the covariant entropy bound of Bousso, [@Bousso]).
Remark: We emphasize that the network or the quantum vacuum it is representing, is basically a statistical system with all local DoF fluctuating. That means, most of our statements in the following are about mean values or averages over finer statistical details.
The Distribution of Short-Cuts or Wormholes
-------------------------------------------
One can arrive at the law, describing the distribution of short-cuts or wormholes around some arbitrary but fixed generic node (viz. some fixed place in space-time) in roughly two ways. One can e.g. motivate the distribution law by appealing to certain fundamental principles like e.g. [scale-freeness]{} or absence of a particular and in some sense unnatural length scale on a fundamental level. Alternatively, one can show that a reasonable choice leads to far-reaching consequences and corroborates the findings and observations made on a more macroscopic level. To keep the discussion as briefly as possible we adopt in this section the second point of view. In the following we want to concentrate, for the sake of brevity, on a simple type of quantum vacuum, that is, the vacuum belonging to ordinary Minkowski space or a space-time which is asymptotically flat (e.g. a Schwarzschild space-time). We postpone the analysis of more general space-times as they occur in general relativity.
We make the following conjecture:
On the average the number of short-cuts from a central node $x$ to nodes $y$, sitting on the sphere, $S_R(x)$ about $x$ is independent of $R$. Denoting this number by $N_{S_R}(x)$, we hence have $$N_{S_R}(x)=N_0$$
Remark: As this number is a statistical average, it need not be an integer.\
The situation is depicted in the following picture.
\[bb\] We will show in subsection \[bulkboundary\] in a detailed quantitative analysis that this result approximately holds as well for nodes, not sitting exactly in the center of the spheres $S_R$ (see the following picture).
We denote the cluster of nodes in the ball $B_R$ being connected to an $x$ by short-cuts by $C_{B_R}(x)$.
We previously introduced the internal scaling dimension of a network (see definition \[Dim\]). It roughly describes how fast the network is growing with respect to some base node. As this [growth degree]{} is to a large degree independent of the base node (see e.g. [@ReqDim]) it is a global characteristic of a given network, in fact of a whole class of similar networks ([@R3]). It is well known that the generalization of the concept of dimension away from smooth geometric structures is not unique. The above type of dimension has the tendency to grow if additional short-cuts are inserted into a given network geometry. We now introduce another dimensional concept which catches other important network properties being more closely related to the phenomena we want to analyze in this paper. It uses in an essential way the two metrics, $d_1,d_2$, introduced above.
From the above we infer that the number of nodes in the cluster $C_{B_R}(x)$ is approximately equal to $N_0\cdot R$. Furthermore, if the network of short-cuts is very sparse, the clusters $C_{B_R}(x_i),C_{B_R}(x_j)$ with $x_i\neq x_j$ are essentially disjoint (the overlap is empty or very small). This is the phenomenon called [*spreading*]{} in the theory of random graphs.
Hence, the following concept is reasonable.
We define a [holographic dimension]{}, $D_H$, of a network in the following way. We take some ball $B_R$ with macroscopic radius $R$ around some fixed but arbitrary node $x$ with respect to the local metric $d_2$. We then form the $U_1^{(1)}(y)$-neighborhoods around the nodes $y\in B_R$ with respect to the microscopic metric $d_1$ . We construct a [minimal cover]{} of $B_R$ by such $U_1^{(1)}(y_i)$, i.e. a minimal selection of such $y_i$ s.t. $$\bigcup_i\,U_1^{(1)}(y_i)\supset B_R$$ The cardinality of such a minimal set we denote by $N_C(B_R)$. We take the limit $R$ large or $R\to\infty$ (in an infinite network) and define
We call $$D_H:=\lim_{R\to\infty}\,\ln\,N_C(B_R)/\ln\,R$$ the holographic dimension of the graph (network), provided the limit exists. In the more general situation we can, as in definition \[Dim\], define upper and lower dimensions etc.
As for the previously defined graph dimension, the limit is independent of the selected base point , $x$, if the network or graph is homogeneous on the average or in the large.
Due to the sparseness of the embedded subgraph of short-cuts, which yields the spreading property mentioned above, the number $N_C(B_R)$ scales for the wormhole spaces or small-world networks as $$N_C(B_R)\sim R^{n-1}$$ with $n$ the dimension of the local network or its coarse-grained continuum limit space.
Proof: The $U_1^{(1)}(y)$-neighborhoods consist of nodes lying in the neighborhoods with respect to the local metric, $d_2$, $U_1^{(2)}(y)$, plus the vertices connected by short-cuts with $y$. The cardinality of $U_1^{(2)}(y)$ is independent of $R$ and typically (at least in our models) a small number. For $R\to\infty$ $U_1^{(1)}(y)\cap B_R$ will therefore consist mainly of nodes connected to $y$ by short-cuts. Sparseness of the short-cut graph and spreading yield the result. [$ \hfill \Box $]{}
For the type of wormhole spaces or small-world networks, defined above, we then have $$D_H=\lim_{R\to\infty}\,\ln(V(B_R)/R)/\ln\,R=n-1$$ That is, in this case we have the important result $$D_H= dim\,S_R= n-1$$
We now come to the holographic principle and the BH-entropy area law. As already mentioned, we discuss in this paper only the example of 4-dim. asymptotically flat (Minkowski) space-time. In Planck units a macroscopic ball, $B_R$, contains approximately $$|V(B_R)|:= V(B_R)/l_p^3$$ DoF or grains of Planck size. The typical cluster size is $$|C_{B_R}(x_i)|\approx N_0\cdot R/l_p$$ Due to the mentioned spreading property the number of (effectively) independent cluster in the above minimal cover is approximately $$\begin{gathered}
N_C(B_R)\approx ((4/3)\pi\cdot R^3/N_0\cdot R)\cdot
l_p^{-2}=(3N_0)^{-1}\cdot 4\pi R^2/l_p^2=\\(3N_0)^{-1}\cdot
A(S_R)/l_p^2=:(3N_0)^{-1}\cdot |A(S_R)| \end{gathered}$$ with $A(S_R)$ denoting the area of $S_R$.
The number of effectively independent clusters, $C_{B_R}(x_i)$ in $B_R$ is $$N_C(B_R)\approx (3N_0)^{-1}\cdot|A(S_R)|=
(3N_0)^{-1}\cdot A(S_R)/l_p^2$$ with the typical cluster size $$|C_{B_R}(x_i)|\approx N_0\cdot R/l_p$$
To show now that the number of effective DoF in a generic volume (where by generic we mean a region in space with the diameter in all directions being roughly of the same order) is proportional to the surface area, $A(V)$, of its boundary, we employ a general observation, made e.g. in statistical mechanics. An important tool for the analysis of systems in statistical mechanics are correlation functions. Correlations decay usually for large separation of the respective DoF, but what is on the other hand certainly the case is, that nearest neighbors are strongly correlated (near order versus far order).
We expect that the DoF in each of the $U_1^{(1)}(x)$ are strongly correlated. We hence take it for granted, that they act effectively as a single collective DoF.
Remark: It may be possible, that this near order in the immediate neighborhood of the grains can be finally destroyed by the insertion of a huge amount of localized energy, but this does not seem possible with present means.
Due to the existence of wormholes or short-cuts, distributed in space-time, the number of effective DoF (affiliated with the respective clusters $C_{B_R}(x_i)$) in e.g. a ball $B_R$ equals $N_C(B_R)$, that is $$\#(\text{DoF in}\;B_R)\approx (3N_0)^{-1}\cdot
|A(S_R)|=(3N_0)^{-1}\cdot A(S_R)/l_p^2$$
This is the area-law behavior of entropy or number of DoF in a volume of space found in e.g. BH-entropy. We note however, that this law, in our formulation, is essentially a statement about the collective behavior of the elementary DoF in (the interior of) a volume of space. I.e., the respective DoF are [not]{} really sitting on the boundary of $V$. As to the details of the [bulk-boundary correspondence]{} see the following subsection.
If we adopt the entropy-area law of BH-thermodynamics, which is, expressed in Planck units, $$S=1/4\cdot |A|$$ we have the possibility to fix our parameter $N_0$, which gives the number of wormholes connecting a central grain of space with the grains on a surrounding sphere $S_R$ for any $R$. However, entropy is not exactly identical to number of DoF. To relate the two, we have to make a simple model assumption. One frequently makes the assumption of [Boolean DoF]{}, i.e. the DoF on an elementary scale are [two-valued]{}.
With this assumption we have the relation $$S=N\cdot \ln\,2\quad\text{i.e.}\quad N=|A|/4\cdot\ln\,2$$ with $S$ the entropy, $N$ the number of DoF.
With the help of this identification we get $$N_0=4/3\cdot\ln\,2$$ which can in qualitative arguments be approximated by one!
That is, in Planck units, there exists roughly one short-cut between a central vertex and a surrounding sphere of radius $R$. This shows that on an extremely microscopic scale, the network of short-cuts is indeed very sparse. However the picture changes considerably if we go over to more accessible length scales. If we use, for example an atomic length-scale of e.g. $l_a:=10^{-10}m$, we have approximately $$(10^{-10})^3/(10^{-35})^3=10^{75}$$ grains of Planck-size in a volume element of diameter $l_a$. If we then choose, instead of a sphere $S_R$, a spherical shell of radius $R$ and thickness $l_a$ we have approximately
The number of wormholes or short-cuts between a central volume element of size $l_a^3$ and a corresponding spherical shell of radius $R$ is approximately $$\#(\text{short-cuts})\approx 10^{75}\cdot 10^{25}=10^{100}$$ which is quite a large number.
If we choose for example $R=1m$, we see that roughly $10^{96}$ grains in the shell are the endpoints of about $10^{100}$ short-cuts coming from the central volume element of size $l_a^3$. If we replace $R$ by the approximate diameter of the universe, i.e. $R_0\approx 10^{10}$ ly, we get (with $1\,ly\approx 10^{17}m$): $$R_0\approx 10^{27}\,m$$ and for the number of Planck-size grains in a spherical shell of this radius: $$\#\,(\text{grains in shell of radius}\,R_0)\approx
10^{149}$$ with still $10^{100}$ short-cuts ending there. That is, only one in $10^{49}$ grains is the endpoint of a respective short-cut. But if we select a volume element of size $l_a^3$ in this shell, we have still
The number of wormholes (short-cuts) between two volume elements of size $l_a^3$ being a distance $R_0$ apart, is still the large number $$\#\,(\text{short-cuts})\approx 10^{100}\cdot
10^{-149}\cdot 10^{75}= 10^{-49}\cdot
10^{75}=10^{26}$$ that is, even over such a large distance there exist still a substantial number of wormholes connecting the two volume elements. But nevertheless, the network is sparse, viewed at Planck-scale resolution.
\[bulkboundary\]The Bulk-Boundary Correspondence
-------------------------------------------------
We now come to the last point of this section. From what we have learned above, it is intuitively clear, that the DoF sitting on the boundary $S_R$ of e.g. a ball $B_R$ should fix (or slave) the DoF in the interior. But we note that in order that this can hold, we have to verify our statement made in observation \[bb\]. Furthermore, it is of tantamount importance to understand in more quantitative detail the influence of different shapes of the region under discussion and the effect of different space-time geometries. The prerequisites for this enterprise will be derived in the following.
As an example we employ, as we already did above, the simple geometry of the spacelike holographic bound. For reasons of simplicity we place the center of the ball in the origin, i.e. ${\mathbf}{x_0}={\mathbf}{0}$. It is of great help if we can transform the problem into a problem of ordinary continuous analysis. To this end we introduce the probability that a node in the interior of $B_R$ and an arbitrary node on the boundary $S_R$ are connected by a short-cut. With ${\mathbf}{y}\in S_R$ and ${\mathbf}{x}\in B_R$ there spatial euclidean distance in three dimensions is $$|{\mathbf}{y}-{\mathbf}{x}|=\left(\sum_{i=1}^3\,(y_i-x_i)^2\right)^{1/2}$$
The edge probability is given by $$p(|{\mathbf}{y}-{\mathbf}{x}|)=N_0/|A(S_{|{\mathbf}{y}-{\mathbf}{x}|})|=(N_0\cdot
l_p^2/4\pi)\cdot |{\mathbf}{y}-{\mathbf}{x}|^{-2}$$
Here $|A(S_{|{\mathbf}{y}-{\mathbf}{x}|}|$ is the number of nodes (or Planck-scale grains) on the sphere around ${\mathbf}{x}$ with radius $|{\mathbf}{y}-{\mathbf}{x}|$.This follows directly from what we have learned in the previous sections.
What we are actually doing in the following is the calculation of the average number of short-cuts between an arbitrary node ${\mathbf}{x}$ in the interior of $B_R$ and the nodes on the boundary $S_R$. This will be done within the framework of [random graphs]{}. The above $p$ is the so-called [edge probability]{} (for the technical details see [@Bollo] or [@R1],[@R2]). The sample space is the space of graphs with [node set]{} comprising the node in ${\mathbf}{x}$ and all the nodes sitting on the boundary $S_R$ and [edge set]{} all possible different sets of short-cuts connecting $x$ with the nodes on $S_R$. The probability of each graph in the sample space is calculated with the help of the above elementary edge probability $p$ and its dual $q:=1-p$.
We choose ${\mathbf}{x}$ arbitrary but fixed in $B_R({\mathbf}{0})$ and let ${\mathbf}{y}$ vary over the sphere $S_R({\mathbf}{0})$. The integral over $S_R({\mathbf}{0})$ will then give the mean number of short-cuts between ${\mathbf}{x}$ and the grains on $S_R({\mathbf}{0})$. The guiding idea is that the DoF in the interior are fixed by the DoF on the boundary if this integral is essentially $\gtrsim 1$, as according to our philosophy, developed previously, in that case every node in the interior has on average at least one partner on the boundary as nearest neighbor with respect to the microscopic metric $d_1$.
To make the integration easier we choose, without loss of generality, $${\mathbf}{x}=\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ z \end{pmatrix}\quad
, \quad z:=k\cdot R$$ with $0\leq k\leq 1$. A straightforward calculation (using polar coordinates and appropriate variable transformations) yields for the average number of short-cuts, $N_{S_R}({\mathbf}{x})$, $$\begin{gathered}
N_{S_R}({\mathbf}{x})= (N_0\,l_p^2/4\pi)\cdot
l_p^{-2}\cdot\int_{S_R}\,|{\mathbf}{y}-{\mathbf}{x}|^{-2}\,d\!o=\\
\left(N_0/4\pi\cdot R^2\right)\cdot
2\pi\,R^{-2}\cdot\int_{-1}^{+1}\,d\!u\,((1+k^2)-2ku)^{-1}=\\N_0/2\cdot\int_{-1}^{+1}\,d\!u\,((1+k^2)-2ku)^{-1} \end{gathered}$$
Note that the integrand $((1+k^2)-2ku)^{-1}$ is always positive. Furthermore, our choice of a Coulomb-like law (in three dimensions) for the distribution of short-cuts in the previous subsection, i.e. $p\sim R^{-2}$, makes the above integral independent of $R$.
We can find a closed expression for the definite integral, i.e. $$I:=
\int_{-1}^{+1}\,d\!u\,((1+k^2)-2ku)^{-1}=-1/2k\cdot\ln\,((1-k)^2/(1+k)^2)> 0$$ Note that the position of the point ${\mathbf}{x}$ relative to the center and the boundary can be regulated by the value of the parameter $0\leq
k\leq 1$. We have tabulated the integral for $k$ from $0$ to $0.9$ in the following table.\
$k$ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
------- --- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
$I_k$ 2 2 2 2.04 2.11 2.19 2.29 2.45 2.71 3.23
\
We see that the number of short-cuts is almost constant through the whole interior of $B_R$ apart from a thin shell near the boundary. But this is not really surprising because there the main contribution comes from the near side of the boundary and is no longer of a true short-cut character. Taking into account the additional prefactor, $N_0/2$, in front of the integral which is $\approx 1/2$ we have
The number of short-cuts from an arbitrary node ${\mathbf}{x}$ in $B_R$ to the boundary $S_R$ is approximately $$p({\mathbf}{x})\gtrsim 1$$ for most of the nodes. Furthermore for our Coulomb-like distribution law it is independent of the radius of the sphere and is therefore consistent with the expected holographic behavior for this geometry.
It is instructive to evaluate the above formula for $k>1$, i.e., the influence via short-cuts of the sphere $S_R$ on a DoF in the exterior of $S_R$. For $k$ large, the integral is dominated by the first term in the integrand, viz. for $k$ large we have $$I\approx \int_{-1}^1d\!u\,(1+k^2)^{-1}\sim k^{-2}$$
For nodes, $x$, lying outside of $S_R$, the effect of the short-cut connections between $x$ and $S_R$ decays like a Coulomb-law. That is, the DoF in the exterior are no longer fixed by the DoF on $S_R$. What remains instead is a statistical influence in form of a correlation which decays with increasing distance. By the same token, there cannot be an entropy-area law for the exterior of the sphere relative to its internal boundary. Anyhow, this example does not really contradict the correctness of the spatial holographic principle as being presented in this paper. It would be interesting to relate our findings to the covariant holographic principle of e.g. Bousso, [@Bousso]
This simple observation has an important consequence for arguments being sometimes invoked against the general nature of the spatial holographic principle (cf. e.g. [@Bousso]). While we do not intend to discuss the holographic principle for more general space-times in this paper, we mention one counter-example which one finds frequently in the literature, i.e. a universe containing a closed spatial slice, $S$ with a small inner subregion, $S_2$ (see the following picture).
The area-law in the usual form applies for the subregion $S_2$ relative to its boundary. However, according to our (microscopic) version of spatial holography, the DoF on the inner boundary cannot slave the DoF in the large region $S_1$ if the inner boundary becomes too small. They only establish some kind of correlation in the exterior. The quantitative details are given by integrating our Coulomb-like influence law over the inner surface.
Another, related, class of interesting (but perhaps pathological) apparent counter examples (which we plan to address in greater detail elsewhere) is discussed in e.g. [@Marolf], i.e. spacetimes which are called by Marolf ’bag-of-gold spacetimes’. An essential ingredient is some FRW-spacetime hidden in the interior of a region which resembles an ordinary BH. The innner FRW-universe has of course an entropy which is proportional to its volume while from the outside the whole configuration looks like a BH. This seeming contradiction can be easily understood with the help of our microsopic holographic law as the FRW-spacetime is actually only weakly coupled with the exterior of the BH via wormholes. The technical arguments are the same as above.
Commentary
==========
In the preceding sections we developed only the groundwork of our approach. To keep the paper within reasonable size, we had to postpone a more detailed discussion of the many consequences and immediate applications. In this final section we at least undertake to briefly comment on a number of important points. It is however obvious that a more detailed discussion of each point would require a paper of its own.\
i) The possible connections to the ubiquituous phenomenon of entanglement in ordinary quantum theory are obvious. Interesting in this respect is e.g. the well-known tension in quantum theory between the locality and causality principle of special relativity and the instantaneous state reduction, accompanying the measurement process (cf. the respective sections in e.g. [@Aharonov]). We think, similar to e.g. ’t Hooft, that (the microscopic form of) holography (we developed in this paper) is the common basis which may unite quantum theory and gravitation.\
ii) The consequences of the BH-entropy being maximal, which is quite uncharacteristic for the ground state entanglement entropy in say ordinary quantum theory, should be further analysed.\
iii) The ADS-CFT-correspondence is regarded in string theory as the paradigm for bulk-boundary correspondence (we mention only the review [@Maldacena1] and the popular account [@Maldacena2]). In it two, at first glance, fundamentally different theories are related to each other, the one living in the bulk, the other living on the [boundary at infinity]{}. We must however say that the concrete physical epistemology of this latter notion is not entirely clear to us. The use of boundaries at infinity is wide spread in holography and is mathematically well-defined, in particular for certain well-adapted coordinate systems being in use in [hyperbolic geometry]{}. But in general it is rather an asymptotic property and not a concrete place. Note that in our approach full information about the interior of a (spatial) region is distributed essentially everywhere in the exterior of the region via wormholes, but usually not in the form of another field theory!\
iv) A virulent problem (the [unitarity problem]{}) in BH-thermodynamics is the question whether a pure state goes over into a mixed state or not, that is, if the laws of ordinary quantum theory are possibly violated in BH-thermodynamics (instead of the many published papers we mention only the reviews by Wald, cited above). This is a quite intricate epistomological problem somewhat similar to the quantum measurement problem. We think, part of the problem is that frequently pure states and mixtures are regarded as complete opposites. But this is not really correct. It is here not the place to go into more details. But in some respect it lies rather in the eye of the beholder. That is, it is the problem of dealing with the complete microscopic information of a state, or rather with some coarse-grained form. Note that in our approach microscopic information is widely scattered via short-cuts or wormholes over essentially the whole space. I.e., it is not fully accessible to a local observer. We recommend the study of some older classics on the [ergodic theorem]{} in quantum statistical mechanics ([@Neumann],[@Pauli],[@Kampen]).\
v) Our analysis should be extended to more general space-times where possibly different distribution laws may show up.
[99]{}
A.D.Sakharov: “Vacuum Theory in Curved Space-Time and the Theory of Gravitation”, Sov.Phys.Dok. 12(1968)1040 A.D.Sakharov: “Spectral Density of Eigenvalues of the Wave Equation and Vacuum Polarization”, Theor.Math.Phys. 23(176)435 Y.B.Zeldovich: “The Cosmological Constant and the Theory of Elementary Particles”, Sov.Phys.Usp. 11(1968)381 T.Jacobson: “Black-Hole Entropy and Induced Gravity”, gr-qc/9404039 J.D.Bekenstein: “Do we understand Black-Hole Entropy?”, seventh Marcel-Grossmann Meeting, Stanford 1994, gr-qc/9409015 J.D.Bekenstein: “Black-Holes and Entropy”, Phys.Rev. D7(1973)2333 J.D.Bekenstein: “Statistical Black-Hole Thermodynamics” Phys.Rev. D12(1975)3077 S.W.Hawking: “Black Holes and Thermodynamics”, Phys.Rev. D13(1976)191 G.’t Hooft: “The Black-Hole Interpretation of String Theory”, Nucl.Phys. B335(1990)138 L.Susskind,L.Thorlacius,R.Uglum: “The stretched Horizon and Black-Hole Complementarity”, Phys.Rev. D48(1993)3743, hep-th/9306069 S.W.Hawking: “Break Down of Predictability in gravitational Collapse”, Phys.Rev. D14(1976)2460 S.Giddings: “Comments on Information Loss and Remnants”, Phys.Rev. D49(1994)4078 G.’t Hooft: “On the Quantum Structure of a Black-Hole”. Nucl.Phys. B256(1985)727 R.Sorkin: “Ten Theses on Black-Hole Entropy”, in Proc.Eur.Sci.Found.Conf. on Philosphy and Found.Issues in Stat.Phys., Utrecht, Nov.2003, publ. Spec.Iss.of Stud.Hist.Phil.Mod.Phys. 36(2005)291, hep-th/0504037 R.Sorkin: “The Statistical Mechanics of Black-Hole Thermodynamics”, Chandra Symp. Chicago Dec.1996, p.177, ed. R.M..Wald, Univ.Chic.Pr. 1998) T.Jacobson,D.Marolf,C.Rovelli: “Black Hole Entropy: inside or out?”, Int.Journ.Theor.Phys. 44(2005)1807, hep-th/0501103 L.Bombelli,K.Rabinder,K.Kaul,J.Lee,R.Sorkin: “Quantum Source of Entropy for Black-Holes”, Phys.Rev. D34(1986)373 M.Srednicki: “Entropy and Area”, Phys.Rev.Lett. 71(1993)666 M.Requardt: “Entanglement-Entropy for Groundstates, Low-Lying and Highly Excited Eigenstates of General (Lattice-)Hamiltonians”, hep-th/0605142 R.M.Wald: “The Thermodynamics of Black Holes”, Liv.Rev.Relativ. 4(2001), 6 \[online article\] R.M.Wald: “Gravitation, Thermodynamics, and Quantum Theory”, CQG 16(1999)A177, arXiv:gr-qc/9901033 R.M.Wald: “Black Holes and Thermodynamics”, Symposium on Black Holes and Relativistic Stars, Chicago, Dec. 1996, arXiv:gr-qc/9702022 A.Strominger,C.Vafa: “Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy”, PL B 379(1996)99, arXiv:hep-th/9601029 J.M.Maldacena: “Black Holes in Strin Theory”, Ph.D. thesis, hep-th/9607235 G.T.Horowitz: “The Origin of Black Hole Entropy in String Theory”, Talk given at Pacific Conference of Gravitation and Cosmology, Seoul, South Korea, 1996, arXiv:gr-qc/9604051 G.T.Horowitz,J.Polchinski: “A Correspondence Principle for Black Holes and Strings”, PR D 55(1997)6189, arXiv:hep-th/9612146 A.W.Peet: “TASI Lectures on Black Holes in String Theory”, TASI 1999, arXiv:hep-th 0008 S.D.Mathur: “The Fuzzball Proposal for Black Holes”, Fortschr.Phys. 53(2005)793, arXiv:hep-th/0502050 A.Ashtekar,J.Baez,A.Goricki,K.Krasnov: “Quantum Geometry and Black Hole Entropy”, PRL 80(1998)904 C.Rovelli: “Loop Quantum Gravity and Black Hole Physics”, Helv.Phys.Act. 69(1996)582, arXiv:gr-qc/9608032 C.J.Isham: “Structural Issues in Quantum gravity”, Lecture given at the GR14-conference, Florence 1995, arXiv:gr-qc/9510063 G.’t Hooft: “How Does God Play Dice?, (Pre) Determinism at the Planck Scale”, An Essay in Honor of John S. Bell, arXiv:hep-th/0104219 G.’t Hooft: “Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System”, CQG 16(1999)3263, arXiv:gr-qc/9903084 G.’t Hooft: “Quantum Information and Information Loss in general relativity”, Lectture held at the 5th Symposion on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo, Japan, August 1995, arXiv:gr-qc/9509050 G.’t Hooft: “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity”, Essay dedicated to Abdus Salam, arXiv:gr-qc/9310026 M.Requardt: “(Quantum) Space-Time as a Statistical Geometry of Lumps in Random Networks”, CQG 17(2000)2029, arXiv:gr-qc/9912059 M.Requardt: “A Geometric Renormalisation Group in Discrete Quantum Space-Time”, Journ.Math.Phys. 43(2002)351, gr-qc/0110077 M.Requardt: “The Continuum Limit of Discrete Geometries”, Int.J.Geom.Meth.Mod.Phys. 3(2006)285, math-ph/0507017 T.Nowotny,M.Requardt: “Emergent Properties in Structurally Dynamic Cellular Automata”, J.Cell.Aut. 2(2007)273, cond-mat/0611427 M.Requardt: “Planck Fluctuations, Measurement Uncertainties and the Holographic Principle”, Mod.Phys.Lett.A 22(2007)791, gr-qc/0505019 M.Requardt: “About the Minimal Resolution of Space-Time Grains in Experimental Quantum Gravity”, arXiv:0807.3619 R.Bousso: “The holographic principle”, Rev.Mod.Phys. 74(2002)825, hep-th/0203101 R.Brustein,A.Yarom: “Thermodynamics and area in Minkowski space”, P.R. D 69(2004)064013, arXiv:hep-th/0311029, R.Brustein,A.Yarom,D.H.Oaknin: “Implications of area scaling of quantum fluctuations”, P.R. D 70(2004)044043, arXiv:hep-th/0310091, R.Brustein,A.Yarom: “Area-scaling of quantum fluctuations”, Nucl.Phys. b 709(2005)391, arXiv:hep-th/0401081, R.Brustein,A.Yarom: “Dimensional reduction from entanglement in Minkowski space”, JHEP 0501:046 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0302186 M.Requardt: “Symmetry Conservation and Integrals over Local Charge Densities in Quantum Field Theory”, Comm.Math.Phys. 50(1976)259 M.Requardt: “Fluctuation Operators and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking”, J.Math.Phys. 43(2002)351, arXiv:math-ph/0003012 L.Susskind: “The world as a Hologram”, Journ.Math.Phys. 36(1995)6377, hep-th/9409089 S.E.Rugh,H.Zinkernagel,T.Y.Cao: “The Casimir Effect and the Interpretation of the Vacuum”, Stud.Hist.Phil.Mod.Phys. 30(1999)111 S.E.Rugh,H.Zinkernagel: “The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem”, Stud.Hist.Phil.Mod.Phys. 33(2002)663 W.Nernst: “Ueber einen Versuch, von quantenmechanischen Betrachtungen zur Annahme stetiger Energieaenderungen zurueckzukehren”, Verh.deutsch.Phys.Ges. 18(1916)83 C.P.Enz,A.Thellung: “Nullpunktsenergie und Anordnung nichtvertauschbarer Faktoren im Hamiltonoperator”, Helv.Phys.Act. 33(1960)839 T.H.Boyer: “Quantum Zero-Point Energy and Long-Range Forces”, Ann.Phys. 56(1970)474 S.Weinberg: “The cosmological constant problem”, Rev.Mod.Phys. 61(1989)1 N.Straumann: “On the mystery of the cosmic vacuum energy density”, Eur.Journ.Phys. 20(1999)419, astro-ph/0009386 S.W.Hawking: “Particle Creation by Black Holes”, Comm.Math.Phys. 43(1975)199 H.Bauer: “Mass- und Integrationstheorie”, de Gruyter, Berlin 1990 W.Feller: “Probability Theory”, Wiley, N.Y. 1957 R.F.Streater,A.S.Wightman: “PCT, Spin & Statistics and All That”, Benjamin, N.Y. 1964 J.D.Bjorken,S.D.Drell: “Relativistic Quantum Fields”, McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 1965 C.Itzykson,J.-B.Zuber: “Quantum Field Theory”, McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 1985 H.Reeh: private communication S.J.Summers: “Yet More Ado About Nothing, The Remarkable Relativistic Vacuum State”, arXiv:0802.1854 H.Epstein,V.Glaser,A.Jaffe: “Nonpositivity of the Energy Density in Quantized Field Theories”, Nuov.Cim. XXXVI (1965)1016 A.Anderson,B.DeWitt: “Does the Topology of Space Fluctuate?”, Found.Phys. 16(1986)91 B.Bollobas: “Modern Graph Theory”, Springer, N.Y. 1998, “Random Graphs”, Cambr.Univ.Pr., Cambridge 2001 T.Nowotny,M.Requardt: “Dimension Theory on Graphs and Networks”, J.Phys.A:Math.Gen. 31(1998)2447, arXiv:hep-th/9707082 M.Requardt: “Wormhole Spaces, Connes’ [Points Speaking To Each Other]{}, and the Translocal Structure of Quantum Theory”, arXiv:hep-th/0205168 D.J.Watts: “Small Worlds, The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness”, Princt.Univ.Pr., Princeton 1999 S.H.Strogatz: “Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order”, Penguin, N.Y. 2003 M.S.Granovetter: “The Structure of Weak Ties”, Sociol.Th. 1(1983)203 A.Lochmann,M.Requardt: “An Analysis of the Transition Zone Between the Various Scaling Regimes in the Small World Model”, J.Stat.Phys. 122(2006)255, arXiv:cond-mat/0409710 E.Niebuhr,H.G.Schuster,D.M.Kammen,C.Koch: “Oscillator-Phase Coupling for Different Two-Dimensional Network Connectivities”, PR A44(1991)6895 S.W.Hawking: “Wormholes in Spacetime”, PR D 37(1988)904 S.Coleman: “Why there is Nothing Rahter than Something”, Nucl.Phys. B 310(1988)643 I.Klebanov,L.Susskind,T.Banks: “Wormholes and the Cosmological Constant”, Nucl.Phys. B 317(1989)665 J.Preskill: “Wormholes in Spacetime and the Constants of Nature”, Nucl.Phys. B 323(1989)141 W.G.Unruh: “Quantum Coherence, Wormholes and the Cosmological Constant”, PR D 40(1989)1053 S.W.Hawking: “Do Wormholes Fix the Constants of Nature”, Nucl.Phys. B 335(1990)155 S.M.Morris,K.S.Thorne: “Wormholes in spacetime”, Am.J.Phys. 56(1988)395, S.M.Morris,K.S.Thorne,U.Yurtsever: “Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition”, PRL 61(1988)1446 S.V.Krasnikov: “Toward a Traversable Wormhole”, arXiv:gr-qc/0003092 D.Hochberg,T.W.Kephart: “Wormhole Cosmology and the Horizon problem”, PRL 70(1993)2665 M.Visser: “Lorentzian Wormholes”, Springer, Berlin 1996 I.H.Redmount,Wai-Mo Suen: “Is quantum spacetime foam unstable?”, PR D 47(1993)R2163, “Quantum dynamics of Lorentzian spacetime foam”, PR D 49(1994)5199 C.J.Fewster,Th.A.Roman: “On Wormholes with Arbitrarily Small Quantities of Exotic Matter”, arXiv:gr-qc/0507013 G.Preparata,S.Rovelli,S.-S.Xue: “Gas of wormholes: a possible ground state of quantum gravity”, Gen.Rel.Grav. 32(2000)1859, arXiv:gr-qc/9806044 R.Garattini: “Large N-wormhole approach to space-time foam”, Phys.Lett. B 446(1999)135, arXiv:hep-th/9811187, “Space-time foam and vacuum energy”, Talk given at the Spanish Relativity Meeting, Mao, Minorca, Spain Sept.2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0212013 Y.Aharonov,D.Rohrlich: “Quantum Paradoxes”, Wiley, N.Y. 2005 O.Aharony,S.S.Gubser,J.Maldacena,H.Oguri,Y.Oz: “ Large N Field Theories , String Theory and Gravity”, Phys.Rep. 323(2000)183 J.Maldacena: “The Illusion of Gravity”, Sci.Am. Nov. 2005, 56 J.v.Neumann. “Beweis des Ergodensatzes und des H-Theorems in der neuen Mechanik”, Zeitschr.Phys. 57(1929)30 W.Pauli,M.Fierz: “Ueber das H-Theorem in der Quanten Mechanik”, Zeitschr.Phys. 106(1937)572 N.G.vanKampen: “Grundlagen der Statistischen Mechanik der Irreversiblen Prozesse”, Fortschr.Phys. 4(1956)405 D.Marolf: “Black Holes, ADS, and CFTs”, Gen.Rel.Grav. 41:903,2009, arXiv:0810.4886; S.D.H.Hsu,D.Reeb: “Unitarity and the Hilbert space of quantum gravity”, Class.Quant.Grav. 25:235007,2008, arXiv:0803.4212
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Steven D. Bass'
title: 'GLUONIC EFFECTS IN $\eta$- and $\eta''$-NUCLEON AND NUCLEUS INTERACTIONS '
---
[Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Innsbruck\
Technikerstrasse 25, A6020 Innsbruck, Austria ]{}
The axial U(1) problem
======================
Gluonic degrees of freedom play an important role in the physics of the flavour-singlet $J^P = 1^+$ channel [@uppsala] through the QCD axial anomaly [@zuoz]. The most famous example is the axial U(1) problem: the masses of the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons are much greater than the values they would have if these mesons were pure Goldstone bosons associated with spontaneously broken chiral symmetry [@weinberg]. This extra mass is induced by non-perturbative gluon dynamics [@thooft; @hfpm; @gvua1; @witten; @vecca; @ks].
Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking is associated with a non-vanishing chiral condensate $$\langle \ {\rm vac} \ | \ {\bar q} q \ | \ {\rm vac} \ \rangle < 0
.
\label{eq5}$$ The non-vanishing chiral condensate also spontaneously breaks the axial U(1) symmetry so, naively, we expect a nonet of would-be pseudoscalar Goldstone bosons: the octet associated with chiral $SU(3)_L \otimes SU(3)_R$ plus a singlet boson associated with axial U(1) — each with mass squared $m^2_{\rm Goldstone} \sim m_q$ where $m_q$ denotes the light and strange quark masses. The pions and kaons are described well by this theory. The masses of the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons are about 300-400 MeV too big to fit in this picture without additional physics. One needs extra mass in the singlet channel associated with non-perturbative gluon configurations and the QCD axial anomaly [@zuoz]. The strange quark mass induces considerable $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing. For free mesons the $\eta - \eta'$ mass matrix (at leading order in the chiral expansion) is $$M^2 =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{4 \over 3} m_{\rm K}^2 - {1 \over 3} m_{\pi}^2 &
- {2 \over 3} \sqrt{2} (m_{\rm K}^2 - m_{\pi}^2) \\
\\
- {2 \over 3} \sqrt{2} (m_{\rm K}^2 - m_{\pi}^2) &
[ {2 \over 3} m_{\rm K}^2 + {1 \over 3} m_{\pi}^2 + {\tilde m}^2_{\eta_0} ]
\end{array}\right)
.
\label{eq10}$$ Here ${\tilde m}^2_{\eta_0}$ denotes the gluonic mass contribution in the singlet channel. It has a rigorous interpretation through the Witten-Veneziano mass formula [@witten; @vecca] and is associated with non-perturbative gluon topology, related perhaps to confinement [@ks] or instantons [@thooft]. When we diagonalize this matrix $$\begin{aligned}
| \eta \rangle &=&
\cos \theta \ | \eta_8 \rangle - \sin \theta \ | \eta_0 \rangle
\\ \nonumber
| \eta' \rangle &=&
\sin \theta \ | \eta_8 \rangle + \cos \theta \ | \eta_0 \rangle
\label{eq11}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\eta_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\; (u\ubar + d\dbar + s\sbar),\quad
\eta_8 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\; (u\ubar + d\dbar - 2 s\sbar)
\label{mixing2}$$ we obtain values for the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ masses $$m^2_{\eta', \eta}
= (m_{\rm K}^2 + {\tilde m}_{\eta_0}^2 /2)
\pm {1 \over 2}
\sqrt{(2 m_{\rm K}^2 - 2 m_{\pi}^2 - {1 \over 3} {\tilde m}_{\eta_0}^2)^2
+ {8 \over 9} {\tilde m}_{\eta_0}^4}
.
\label{eq12}$$ The physical mass of the $\eta$ is close to the octet mass $
m_{\eta_8} = \sqrt{ {4 \over 3} m_{\rm K}^2 - {1 \over 3} m_{\pi}^2 }
$, within a few percent. However, to build a theory of the $\eta$ treating it as a pure octet state risks losing essential physics associated with the singlet component and axial U(1) dynamics. In the absence of the gluonic term (${\tilde m}_{\eta_0}^2$ set equal to zero), one finds $m_{\eta'} \sim \sqrt{2 m_{\rm K}^2 - m_{\pi}^2}$ and $m_{\eta} \sim m_{\pi}$. That is, without extra input from glue, in the OZI limit, the $\eta$ would be approximately an isosinglet light-quark state (${1 \over \sqrt{2}} | {\bar u} u + {\bar d} d \rangle$) degenerate with the pion and the $\eta'$ would be a strange-quark state $| {\bar s} s \rangle$ — mirroring the isoscalar vector $\omega$ and $\phi$ mesons. The gluonic mass term is vital to understanding the physical $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons. [^1]
Glue and $\eta$ and $\eta'$ nucleon interactions
================================================
Given that glue plays an important role in the masses of the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons, it is worthwhile and interesting to look for possible manifestations of gluonic effects in dynamical processes involving these mesons. In the rest of this paper we consider $\eta$ and $\eta'$ production in proton-nucleon collisions close to threshold, and possible $\eta$–nucleus bound-states. These systems are being studied in experiments at COSY and GSI. We note that the $\eta'$–nucleon coupling constant is related, in part, to the flavour-singlet axial-charge extracted from polarized deep inelastic scattering experiments [@shorev] – for a recent review see [@spin].
$\eta$ and $\eta'$ production in proton-nucleon collisions close to threshold
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the singlet components of the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ couple to glue, it is natural to consider the process where glue is excited in the “short distance” ($\sim 0.2$fm) interaction region of a proton-nucleon collision and then evolves to become an $\eta'$ in the final state [@bass99]. This gluonic induced production mechanism is extra to the contributions associated with meson exchange models [@holinde; @wilkin; @faldt]. Given the large gluonic effect in the mass, there is no reason, a priori, to expect it to be small. The contribution to the matrix elements for $\eta'$ and $\eta$ production is weighted by the singlet-component projection-factors $\cos \theta$ for the $\eta'$ and $\sin \theta$ for the $\eta$ where $\theta$ is the $\eta - \eta'$ mixing angle. The angle $\theta \sim -20$ degrees means that gluonic induced production should be considerably enhanced in $\eta'$ production compared to $\eta$ production.
What is the phenomenology of this gluonic interaction ?
Since glue is flavour-blind the gluonic production process has the same size in both the $pp \rightarrow pp \eta'$ and $pn \rightarrow pn \eta'$ reactions. CELSIUS [@celsius] have measured the ratio $R_{\eta}
= \sigma (pn \rightarrow pn \eta ) / \sigma (pp \rightarrow pp \eta )$ for quasifree $\eta$ production from a deuteron target up to 100 MeV above threshold. They observed that $R_{\eta}$ is approximately energy-independent $\simeq 6.5$ over the whole energy range. The value of this ratio signifies a strong isovector exchange contribution to the $\eta$ production mechanism [@celsius]. This experiment is being repeated for $\eta'$ production. The cross-section for $pp \rightarrow pp \eta'$ close to threshold has been measured by the COSY-11 Collaboration [@cosy] who are now measuring the $pn \rightarrow pn \eta'$ process [@cosyprop]. In the extreme scenario that the glue-induced production saturated the $\eta'$ production cross-section, the ratio $R_{\eta'} =
\sigma (pn \rightarrow pn \eta' ) / \sigma (pp \rightarrow pp \eta' )$ would go to one after we correct for the final state interaction [@faldt; @protonfsi] between the two outgoing nucleons. In practice, we should expect contributions from both gluonic and meson-exchange type mechanisms. It will be interesting to observe the ratio $R_{\eta'}$ and how it compares with $R_{\eta}$.
Gluonic induced production appears as a contact term in the axial U(1) extended chiral Lagrangian for low-energy QCD [@bass99].
$\eta$–nucleus bound-states
---------------------------
New experiments at the GSI will employ the recoilless $(d, \ ^3He)$ reaction to study the possible formation of $\eta$ meson bound states inside the nucleus [@hayano; @gillitzer], following on from the successful studies of pionic atoms in these reactions [@pionexpt]. The idea is to measure the excitation-energy spectrum and then, if a clear bound state is observed, to extract the in-medium effective mass, $m_{\eta}^*$, of the $\eta$ in nuclei through performing a fit to this spectrum with the $\eta$-nucleus optical potential.
Meson masses in nuclei are determined from the scalar induced contribution to the meson propagator evaluated at zero three-momentum, ${\vec k} =0$, in the nuclear medium. Let $k=(E,{\vec k})$ and $m$ denote the four-momentum and mass of the meson in free space. Then, one solves the equation $$k^2 - m^2 = {\tt Re} \ \Pi (E, {\vec k}, \rho)$$ for ${\vec k}=0$ where $\Pi$ is the in-medium $s$-wave meson self-energy and $\rho$ is the nuclear density. Contributions to the in medium mass come from coupling to the scalar $\sigma$ field in the nucleus in mean-field approximation, nucleon-hole and resonance-hole excitations in the medium. The $s$-wave self-energy can be written as [@ericson] $$\Pi (E, {\vec k}, \rho) \bigg|_{\{{\vec k}=0\}}
=
- 4 \pi \rho \biggl( { b \over 1 + b \langle {1 \over r} \rangle } \biggr) .$$ Here $
b = a ( 1 + {m \over M} )
$ where $a$ is the meson-nucleon scattering length, $M$ is the nucleon mass and the mean inter-nucleon seperation is $\langle {1 \over r} \rangle$. Attraction corresponds to positive values of $a$. The denominator in Eq.(7) is the Ericson-Ericson double scattering correction.
The in-medium mass $m_{\eta}^*$ is sensitive to the flavour-singlet component in the $\eta$, and hence to the non-perturbative glue associated with axial U(1) dynamics. An important source of the in-medium mass modification comes from light-quarks coupling to the scalar $\sigma$ mean-field in the nucleus. Increasing the flavour-singlet component in the $\eta$ at the expense of the octet component gives more attraction, more binding and a larger value of the $\eta$-nucleon scattering length, $a_{\eta N}$. Since the mass shift is approximately proportional to the $\eta$–nucleon scattering length, it follows that that the physical value of $a_{\eta N}$ should be larger than if the $\eta$ were a pure octet state.
This physics has been investigated by Bass and Thomas [@bt05]. QCD arguments suggest that the gluonic mass term is suppressed at finite density due to coupling to the $\sigma$ mean-field in the nucleus. [^2] Phenomenology is used to estimate the size of the effect in the $\eta$ using the Quark Meson Coupling model (QMC) of hadron properties in the nuclear medium [@etaqmc]. Here one uses the large $\eta$ mass (which in QCD is induced by mixing and the gluonic mass term) to motivate taking an MIT Bag description for the $\eta$ wavefunction, and then coupling the light (up and down) quark and antiquark fields in the $\eta$ to the scalar $\sigma$ field in the nucleus working in mean-field approximation [@etaqmc]. The strange-quark component of the wavefunction does not couple to the $\sigma$ field. $\eta-\eta'$ mixing is readily built into the model.
The mass for the $\eta$ in nuclear matter is self-consistently calculated by solving for the MIT Bag in the nuclear medium [@etaqmc]: $$m_\eta^*(\vr) = \frac{2 [a_P^2\Omega_q^*(\vr)
+ b_P^2\Omega_s(\vr)] - z_\eta}{R_\eta^*}
+ {4\over 3}\pi R_\eta^{* 3} B,
\label{meta}\\$$ $$\left.\frac{\partial m_j^*(\vr)}
{\partial R_j}\right|_{R_j = R_j^*} = 0, \quad\quad (j = \eta, \ \eta').
\label{equil}\\$$ Here $\Omega_q^*$ and $\Omega_s$ are light-quark and strange-quark Bag energy eigenvalues, $R_{\eta}^*$ is the Bag radius in the medium and $B$ is the Bag constant. The $\eta-\eta'$ mixing angle $\theta$ is included in the terms $
a_P = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \cos\theta
- \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \sin\theta
$ and $
b_P = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \cos\theta
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \sin\theta
$ and can be varied in the model. One first solves the Bag for the free $\eta$ with a given mixing angle, and then turns on QMC to obtain the mass-shift. In Eq. (\[meta\]), $z_\eta$ parameterizes the sum of the center-of-mass and gluon fluctuation effects, and is assumed to be independent of density [@finite0].
The coupling constants in the model for the coupling of light-quarks to the $\sigma$ mean-field in the nucleus are adjusted to fit the saturation energy and density of symmetric nuclear matter and the bulk symmetry energy. The Bag parameters used in these calculations are $\Omega_q = 2.05$ (for the light quarks) and $\Omega_s = 2.5$ (for the strange quark) with $B = ( 170 {\rm MeV} )^4$. For nuclear matter density we find $\Omega^*_q = 1.81$ for the 1$s$ state. This value depends on the coupling of light-quarks to the $\sigma$ mean-field and is independent of the mixing angle $\theta$.
Increasing the mixing angle increases the amount of singlet relative to octet components in the $\eta$. This produces greater attraction through increasing the amount of light-quark compared to strange-quark components in the $\eta$ and a reduced effective mass. Through Eq.(7) increasing the mixing angle also increases the $\eta$-nucleon scattering length $a_{\eta N}$. We quantify this in Table 1 which presents results for the pure octet ($\eta=\eta_8$, $\theta=0$) and the values $\theta = - 10^\circ$ and $- 20^\circ$ (the physical mixing angle).
$m$ (MeV) $m^*$ (MeV) ${\tt Re} a$ (fm)
------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------------- --
$\eta_8$ 547.75 500.0 0.43
$\eta$ (-10$^o$) 547.75 474.7 0.64
$\eta$ (-20$^o$) 547.75 449.3 0.85
$\eta_0$ 958 878.6 0.99
$\eta'$ (-10$^o$) 958 899.2 0.74
$\eta'$ (-20$^o$) 958 921.3 0.47
: Physical masses fitted in free space, the bag masses in medium at normal nuclear-matter density, $\rho_0 = 0.15$ fm$^{-3}$, and the corresponding meson-nucleon scattering lengths. []{data-label="bagparam"}
The values of ${\tt Re} a_{\eta}$ quoted in Table 1 are obtained from substituting the in-medium and free masses into Eq. (7) with the Ericson-Ericson denominator turned-off, and using the free mass in the expression for $b$. The effect of exchanging $m$ for $m^*$ in $b$ is a 5% increase in the quoted scattering length. The QMC model makes no claim about the imaginary part of the scattering length. The key observation is that $\eta - \eta'$ mixing leads to a factor of two increase in the mass-shift of the $\eta$ meson and in the scattering length obtained in the model. [^3]
The density dependence of the mass-shifts in the QMC model is discussed in Ref.[@etaqmc]. Neglecting the Ericson-Ericson term, the mass-shift is approximately linear. For densities $\rho$ between 0.5 and 1 times $\rho_0$ (nuclear matter density) we find $$m^*_{\eta} / m_{\eta} \simeq 1 - 0.17 \rho / \rho_0$$ for the physical mixing angle $-20^\circ$. The scattering lengths extracted from this analysis are density independent to within a few percent over the same range of densities.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
Glue plays an important role in the masses of the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons. New experiments are measuring the interactions of these mesons with nucleons and nuclei. The glue which generates a large part of the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ masses can contribute to the cross-section for $\eta'$ production in proton-nucleon collisions and to the possible binding energies of $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons in nuclei. It will be interesting to see the forthcoming data from COSY and GSI on these processes.
The work of SDB is supported by the Austrian Research Fund, FWF, through contract P17778.
[99]{}
S. D. Bass, Physica Scripta [**T99**]{} (2002) 96. G.M. Shore, Zuoz lecture, [hep-ph/9812354]{}. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**D11**]{} (1975) 3583. H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Nuovo Cimento [**30A**]{} (1975) 393. G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. [**B159**]{} (1979) 213; Phys. Lett. [**B95**]{} (1980) 90. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B156**]{} (1979) 269; Annals Phys. [**128**]{} (1980) 363. P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. [**B171**]{} (1980) 253. J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. [**D11**]{} (1975) 3594; E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B149**]{} (1979) 285; I. Horvath, N. Isgur, J. McCune and H.B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2001) 014502. G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{} (1976) 8; Phys. Rev. [**D14**]{} (1976) 3432. F.J. Gilman and R. Kauffman, Phys. Rev. [**D36**]{} (1987) 2761; (E) [**D37**]{} (1988) 3348. P. Ball, J.M. Frere and M. Tytgat, Phys. Lett. [**B365**]{} (1996) 367. H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**64**]{} (1998) 223; R. Kaiser and H. Leutwyler, [hep-ph/9806336]{}. T. Feldmann, P. Kroll and B. Stech, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} (1998) 114006; Phys. Lett. [**B449**]{} (1999) 339; T. Feldmann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A15**]{} (2000) 159. G.M. Shore and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. [**B244**]{} (1990) 75; T. Hatsuda, Nucl. Phys. [**B329**]{} (1990) 376. S.D. Bass, [hep-ph/0411005]{}, to appear in Rev. Mod. Phys. S. D. Bass, Phys. Lett. [**B463**]{} (1999) 286; [hep-ph/0006348]{}. R. Machleidt, K. Holinde and Ch. Elster, Phys. Rept. [**149**]{} (1987) 1. J-F. Germond and C. Wilkin, Nucl. Phys. [**A518**]{} (1990) 308. G. Fäldt and C. Wilkin, Z Physik [**A357**]{} (1997) 241; nucl-th/0104081. The CELSIUS Collaboration (H. Calen et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} (1998) 2069; Phys. Rev. [**C58**]{} (1998) 2667. The COSY-11 Collaboration (P. Moskal et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} (1998) 3202; Phys. Lett. [**B474**]{} (2000) 416; Phys. Lett. [**B482**]{} (2000) 356;\
P. Moskal, Ph.D. thesis, Jagellonian University, Cracow (1998). J. Przerwa et al., [hep-ex/0507076]{}; P. Moskal, [nucl-ex/0110001]{}. G. Fäldt and C. Wilkin, Physica Scripta [**56**]{} (1997) 566. R.S. Hayano, S. Hirenzaki and A. Gillitzer, Eur. Phys. J [**A6**]{} (1999) 99. A. Gillitzer, these proceedings. K. Suzuki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 072302. T.E.O. Ericson and W. Weise, [*Pions and Nuclei*]{} (Oxford UP, 1988). S.D. Bass and A.W. Thomas, [hep-ph/0507024]{}. S.D. Bass, S. Wetzel and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. [**A686**]{} (2001) 429. K. Tsushima, D.H. Lu, A.W. Thomas and K. Saito, Phys. Lett. [**B443**]{} (1998) 26. P.A.M. Guichon, K. Saito, E. Rodionov and A.W. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. [**A601**]{} (1996) 349.
[^1]: Taking the value ${\tilde m}_{\eta_0}^2 = 0.73$GeV$^2$ [@vecca] in the leading-order mass formula, Eq.(\[eq12\]), gives agreement with the physical masses at the 10% level. The corresponding $\eta - \eta'$ mixing angle $\theta \simeq - 18^\circ$ is within the range $-17^\circ$ to $-20^\circ$ obtained from a study of various decay processes in [@gilman; @frere]. Closer agreement with the physical masses can be obtained by introducing the singlet decay constant $F_0 \neq F_{\pi}$ and including higher-order mass terms in the chiral expansion [@leutwyler; @feldmann].
[^2]: In the chiral limit the singlet analogy to the Weinberg-Tomozawa term does not vanish because of the anomalous glue terms. Starting from the simple Born term one finds anomalous gluonic contributions to the singlet-meson nucleon scattering length proportional to ${\tilde m}^2_{\eta_0}$ and ${\tilde m}_{\eta_0}^4$ [@bassww].
[^3]: Because the QMC model has been explored mainly at the mean-field level, it is not clear that one should include the Ericson-Ericson term in extracting the corresponding $\eta$ nucleon scattering length. Substituting the scattering lengths given in Table 1 into Eq. (7) (and neglecting the imaginary part) yields resummed values $a_{eff} = a / ( 1 + b \langle 1/r \rangle )$ equal to 0.44 fm for the $\eta$ with the physical mixing angle $\theta = -20$ degrees, with corresponding reduction in the binding energy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Integrable systems are usually given in terms of functions of continuous variables (on ${\mathbb R}$), in terms of functions of discrete variables (on ${\mathbb Z}$), and recently in terms of functions of $q$-variables (on ${\mathbb K}_{q}$). We formulate the Gel’fand-Dikii (GD) formalism on time scales by using the delta differentiation operator and find more general integrable nonlinear evolutionary equations. In particular they yield integrable equations over integers (difference equations) and over $q$-numbers ($q$-difference equations). We formulate the GD formalism also in terms of shift operators for all regular-discrete time scales. We give a method allowing to construct the recursion operators for integrable systems on time scales. Finally, we give a trace formula on time scales and then construct infinitely many conserved quantities (Casimirs) of the integrable systems on time scales.'
author:
- |
Metin G[" u]{}rses$^{(1)}$, Gusein Sh. Guseinov$^{(2)}$\
and Burcu Silindir$^{(1)}$\
[(1) Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences]{}\
[Bilkent University, 06800 Ankara, Turkey]{}\
[(2) Department of Mathematics, Atilim University]{}\
[06836 Incek, Ankara, Turkey]{}\
title: Integrable Equations on Time Scales
---
1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
===============
Integrable systems are well studied and well understood in $1+1$ dimensions [@fok]-[@blaz1]. Here one of the dimensions denotes the time (evolution) variable and the other one denotes the space variable which is usually taken as continuous. There are also important examples where this variable takes values in ${\mathbb Z}$, i.e., integer values. In both cases the Gel’fand- Dikii (GD) approach is quite effective. One can generate hierarchies of integrable evolution equations, both on ${\mathbb
R}$ and on ${\mathbb Z}$ (see [@blaz1] for GD applications and related references). In addition one can construct the conserved quantities, Hamilton operators, and recursion operators. Investigation of integrable systems on $q$-discrete intervals started in [@fren]- [@ad]. They considered GD formalism on ${\mathbb K}_{q}$ and found $q$-integrable hierarchies including the $q$-KdV equation.
In this work we extend the Gel’fand- Dikii approach to time scales where ${\mathbb R}$, ${\mathbb Z}$, and ${\mathbb K}_{q}$ are special cases. In the next section we give a brief review of time scales calculus. See the references [@ah]-[@gus] for a more detailed review of the subject . In GD formalism, in obtaining integrable systems the essential tools are the differential and shift operators and their inverses. For extending the GD formulation to time scales we give necessary means to construct in the sequel the algebra of pseudo $\Delta-$ differential operators and the algebra of shift operators. In Section 3 we assume $\Delta$-differential Lax operators and derive the $\Delta$-Burgers hierarchy with its recursion operator. We present special cases of the Burgers equation for ${\mathbb
T}=h{\mathbb Z}$ and ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb K}_{q}$. In Section 4, we consider the [*regular*]{} time scales where the inverse of jump operators can be defined. Here we assume a pseudo $\Delta$-differential algebra and give the corresponding GD formulation. As an example we present a $\Delta$-KdV hierarchy. We first find $n=1$ member of the hierarchy and write out it explicitly for ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb R}, {\mathbb Z}, {\mathbb
K}_{q}$ and for ${\mathbb T}=(-\infty, 0) \cup {\mathbb K}_{q}$. Then we give the $n=3$ member and call it as the $\Delta$-KdV system. We call it $\Delta$-KdV equation, because the corresponding Lax operator is a second order $\Delta$-differential operator. It involves two fields $u$ and $v$, but the second field $v$ can be expressed in terms of the first filed $u$. When ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb R}$, this system reduces to the standard KdV equation. In Section 5, we consider the [*regular-discrete*]{} time scales and introduce the algebra of shift operators on them and give the corresponding GD formulation for all such time scales. Here several examples are presented. We first generalize the examples of discrete systems on ${\mathbb Z}$ given in [@blaz1] (one field, two fields, and four fields examples in [@blaz1]) to arbitrary discrete time scales. In all these examples when ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb Z}$ we get the discrete evolutions given in [@blaz1]. We construct the recursion operators of these systems on time scales. We generalize the Frenkel’s KdV system [@fren] introduced on ${\mathbb K}_{q}$ to arbitrary discrete time scales and we construct its recursion operator. In this section, we finally give an example of the KP hierarchy on discrete time scales. In Section 6, we extend the standard way of constructing the conserved quantities of integrable systems to time scales by introducing a [*trace form*]{} on the algebra of $\Delta$-pseudo differential operators. The trace form introduced in this section reduces, in particular cases, to the standard trace forms on ${\mathbb R}$ and ${\mathbb
Z}$. In Appendix we give the recursion operators of two [*four fields systems*]{} introduced in Section 5. We end up with a conclusion.
2. Time Scale Calculus {#time-scale-calculus .unnumbered}
======================
The time scale calculus is developed mainly to unify differential, difference, and $q-$ calculus. A time scale $({\mathbb T})$ is an arbitrary nonempty closed subset of the real numbers. The calculus of time scales was initiated by Aulbach and Hilger [@ah],[@hil] in order to create a theory that can unify and extend discrete and continuous analysis. The real numbers $({\mathbb R})$, the integers $({\mathbb Z})$, the natural numbers $({\mathbb N})$, the non-negative integers $({\mathbb N}_{0})$, the $h$-numbers $(h{\mathbb Z}=\{hk: k \in {\mathbb Z}\}$, where $h>0$ is a fixed real number), and the $q-$ numbers $({\mathbb
K}_{q}=\,q^{\mathbb Z}\cup \{0\} \equiv \{ q^{k}: k \in {\mathbb
Z}\} \cup \{0\}$,where $q>1$ is a fixed real number) are examples of time scales, as are $[0,1] \cup [2,3]$, $[0,1] \cup
{\mathbb N}$, and the Cantor set, where $[0,1]$ and $[2,3]$ are real number intervals. In [@ah], [@hil] Aulbach and Hilger introduced also dynamic equations on time scales in order to unify and extend the theory of ordinary differential equations, difference equations, and quantum equations [@kac] ($h$-difference and $q$ -difference equations based on $h$-calculus and $q$-calculus,respectively). For a general introduction to the calculus on time scales we refer the reader to the textbooks by Bohner and Peterson [@boh1],[@boh2]. Here we give only those notions and facts connected to time scales which we need for our purpose in this paper.
Any time scale ${\mathbb T}$ is a complete metric space with the metric (distance) $d(x,y)=|x-y|$ for $x,y \in {\mathbb T}$. Consequently, according to the well-known theory of general metric spaces, we have for ${\mathbb T}$ the fundamental concepts such as open balls (intervals), neighborhood of points, open sets, closed sets, compact sets, and so on. In particular, for a given number $r> 0$, the $r$-neighborhood $U_{r}(x)$ of a given point $x \in
{\mathbb T}$ is the set of all points $y \in {\mathbb T}$ such that $d(x,y) < r$. By a neighborhood of a point $x \in {\mathbb
T}$ is meant an arbitrary set in ${\mathbb T}$ containing an $r$-neighborhood of the point $x$. Also we have for functions $f:
{\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ the concepts of the limit, continuity, and properties of continuous functions on general complete metric spaces (note that, in particular, any function $f:
{\mathbb Z} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is continuous at each point of ${\mathbb Z}$). The main task is to introduce and investigate the concept of derivative for functions $f: {\mathbb T}
\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$. This proves to be possible due to the special structure of the metric space ${\mathbb T}$. In the definition of derivative, the so-called forward and backward jump operators play special and important roles.
[**Definition 1**]{}. [*For $x \in {\mathbb T}$ we define the forward jump operator $\sigma: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow
{\mathbb T}$ by $$\sigma(x)=inf\, \{ y \in {\mathbb T}: y> x\},$$ while the backward jump operator $\rho: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow
{\mathbb T}$ is defined by $$\rho(x)=sup\, \{ y \in {\mathbb T}: y < x\}.$$*]{}
In this definition we put in addition $\sigma(\max
{\mathbb T})=\max {\mathbb T}$ if there exists a finite ${\max{\mathbb T}}$, and $\rho(\min{\mathbb T})=\min{\mathbb T}$ if there exists a finite ${\min {\mathbb T}}$. Obviously both $\sigma(x)$ and $\rho(x)$ are in ${\mathbb T}$ when $x \in
{\mathbb T}$. This is because of our assumption that ${\mathbb T}$ is a closed subset of ${\mathbb R}$.
Let $x \in {\mathbb T}$. If $\sigma(x)>x$, we say that $x$ is [*right-scattered*]{}, while if $\rho(x)<x$ we say that $x$ is [*left-scattered*]{}. Also, if $x < \max {\mathbb T}$ and $\sigma(x)=x$, then $x$ is called [*right-dense*]{}, and if $x>
\min{\mathbb T}$ and $\rho(x)=x$, then $x$ is called [*left-dense*]{}. Points that are right-scattered and left-scattered at the same time are called [*isolated*]{}. Finally, the [*graininess functions*]{} $\mu,\, \nu : {\mathbb T} \rightarrow
[0,\infty)$ are defined by $$\mu(x)=\sigma (x)-x, ~~~\mbox{and}~~ \nu(x)=x-\rho(x) ~~~~
\mbox{for all}~ x \in {\mathbb T}.$$
[**Example 1**]{}. If ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb R}$, then $\sigma(x)=\rho(x)=x$ and $\mu(x)=\nu(x)=0$. If ${\mathbb
T}=h{\mathbb Z}$, then $\sigma(x)=x+h$, $\rho(x)=x-h$, and $\mu(x)=\nu(x)=h$. On the other hand, if ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb
K}_{q}$ then we have $$\sigma(x)=q\,x,~~~ \rho(x)=q^{-1}\,x , ~~~ \mu(x)=(q-1)x,~~
\mbox{and}~~~ \nu(x)= (1-q^{-1})\, x.$$
Let ${\mathbb T}^{\kappa}$ denotes Hilger’s above truncated set consisting of ${\mathbb T}$ except for a possible left-scattered maximal point. Similarly, ${\mathbb T}_{\kappa}$ denotes the below truncated set obtained from ${\mathbb T}$ by deleting a possible right-scattered minimal point.
[**Definition 2**]{}. [*Let $f: {\mathbb T}
\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ be a function and $x \in {\mathbb
T}^{\kappa}$. Then the delta derivative of $f$ at the point $x$ is defined to be the number $f^{\Delta}(x)$ (provided it exists) with the property that for each $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in ${\mathbb T}$ such that $$\label{def2}
|f(\sigma(x))-f(y)-f^{\Delta}(x)[\sigma(x)-y]| \le \varepsilon
|\sigma(x)-y|,$$ for all $ y \in U$.*]{}
[**Remark 1**]{}. If $x \in {\mathbb T} \setminus
{\mathbb T}^{\kappa}$, then $f^{\Delta}(x)$ is not uniquely defined, since for such a point $x$, small neighborhoods $U$ of $x$ consist only of $x$ and besides we have $\sigma(x)=x$. Therefore (\[def2\]) holds for an arbitrary number $f^{\Delta}(x)$. This is a reason why we omit a maximal left-scattered point.
We have the following: (i) If $f$ is delta differentiable at $x$, then $f$ is continuous at $x$. (ii) If $f$ is continuous at $x$ and $x$ is right-scattered, then $f$ is delta differentiable at $x$ with $$f^{\Delta}(x)={f(\sigma(x))-f(x) \over \mu(x)}.$$ (iii)If $x$ is right-dense, then $f$ is delta differentiable at $x$ iff the limit $$\lim_{y \rightarrow x}\, {f(x)-f(y)) \over x-y}$$ exists as a finite number. In this case $f^{\Delta}(x)$ is equal to this limit. (iv) If $f$ is delta differentiable at $x$, then $$\label{for1}
f(\sigma(x))=f(x)+\mu(x)\, f^{\Delta}(x).$$
[**Definition 3**]{}.[*If $x \in {\mathbb
T}_{\kappa}$, then we define the nabla derivative of $f: {\mathbb
T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ at $x$ to be the number $f^{\nabla}(x)$ (provided it exists) with the property that for each $\varepsilon>0$ there is a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in ${\mathbb T}$ such that $$|f(\rho(x))-f(y)-f^{\nabla}(x)[\rho(x)-y]| \le \varepsilon
|\rho(x)-y|,$$ for all $y \in U$.*]{}
We have the following: (i) If $f$ is nabla differentiable at $x$, then $f$ is continuous at $x$. (ii) If $f$ is continuous at $x$ and $x$ is left-scattered, then $f$ is nabla differentiable at $x$ with
$$f^{\nabla}(x)={f(x)-f(\rho(x)) \over \nu(x)}.$$
\(iii) If $x$ is left-dense, then $f$ is nabla differentiable at $x$ if and only if the limit
$$\lim_{y \rightarrow x}\, {f(x)-f(y) \over x-y}$$
exists as a finite number. In this case $f^{\nabla}(x)$ is equal to this limit. (iv) If $f$ is nabla differentiable at $x$, then
$$f(\rho(x))=f(x)-\nu(x)\, f^{\nabla}(x).$$
[**Example 2**]{}.If ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb R}$, then $f^{\Delta}(x)=f^{\nabla}(x)=f^{\prime}(x)$, the ordinary derivative of $f$ at $x$. If ${\mathbb T}=h{\mathbb Z}$, then $$f^{\Delta}(x)={f(x+h)-f(x) \over h}~~~~
\mbox{and}~~~~f^{\nabla}(x)={f(x)-f(x-h) \over h}.$$ If ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb K}_{q}$, then $$f^{\Delta}(x)={f(qx)-f(x) \over (q-1)x}
~~~\mbox{and}~~~f^{\nabla}(x)={f(x)-f(q^{-1}\,x) \over
(1-q^{-1})x},$$ for all $x \ne 0$, and $$f^{\Delta}(0)=f^{\nabla}(0)=\lim_{y \rightarrow 0}{f(y)-f(0) \over
y}$$ provided that this limit exists.
Among the important properties of of the delta differentiation on ${\mathbb T}$ we have the Leibnitz rule: If $f,
g: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ are delta differentiable functions at $x \in {\mathbb T}^{\kappa}$, then so is their product $f g$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(f\,g)^{\Delta}(x)&=&f^{\Delta}(x)\, g(x)+f(\sigma(x)\,
g^{\Delta}(x),\label{for2}\\
&=&f(x)\, g^{\Delta}(x)+f^{\Delta}(x)\, g(\sigma(x)). \label{for3}\end{aligned}$$ Also, if $f, g: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ are nabla differentiable functions at $x \in {\mathbb T}_{\kappa}$, then so is their product $f g$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(f\,g)^{\nabla}(x)&=&f^{\nabla}(x)\, g(x)+f(\rho(x)\,
g^{\nabla}(x),\label{for4}\\
&=&f(x)\, g^{\nabla}(x)+f^{\nabla}(x)\, g(\rho(x)). \label{for5}\end{aligned}$$ In the next proposition we give a relationship between the delta and nabla derivatives (see [@at]).
[**Proposition 4**]{}. [*(i) Assume that $f: {\mathbb
T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is delta differentiable on ${\mathbb
T}^{\kappa}$. Then $f$ is nabla differentiable at $x$ and $$\label{den1}
f^{\nabla}(x)=f^{\Delta}(\rho(x)),$$ for $x \in {\mathbb T}_{\kappa}$ such that $\sigma(\rho(x))=x$. If, in addition, $f^{\Delta}$ is continuous on ${\mathbb
T}^{\kappa}$, then $f$ is nabla differentiable at $x$ and (\[den1\]) holds for any $x \in {\mathbb T}_{\kappa}$.\
(ii) Assume that $f: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is nabla differentiable on ${\mathbb T}_{\kappa}$. Then $f$ is delta differentiable at $x$ and $$\label{den2}
f^{\Delta}(x)=f^{\nabla}(\sigma(x)),$$ for $x \in {\mathbb T}^{\kappa}$ such that $\rho(\sigma(x))=x$. If, in addition, $f^{\nabla}$ is continuous on ${\mathbb
T}_{\kappa}$, then $f$ is delta differentiable at $x$ and (\[den2\]) holds for any $x \in {\mathbb T}^{\kappa}$.*]{}
Now we introduce the concept of integral for functions $f: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$.
[**Definition 5**]{}.[*A function $F: {\mathbb T}
\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is called a ${\Delta}$-antiderivative of $f: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ provided $F^{\Delta}(x)=f(x)$ holds for all $x$ in ${\mathbb T}^{\kappa}$. Then we define the $\Delta$-integral from $a$ to $b$ of $f$ by $$\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x)\, \Delta\,x=F(b)-F(a)~~~\mbox{for all}~~ a,b
\in {\mathbb T}.$$*]{}
[**Definition 6**]{}.[*A function $\Phi: {\mathbb T}
\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is called a ${\nabla}$-antiderivative of $f: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ provided $\Phi^{\nabla}(x)=f(x)$ holds for all $x$ in ${\mathbb
T}_{\kappa}$. Then we define the $\nabla$-integral from $a$ to $b$ of $f$ by $$\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x)\, \nabla\,x=\Phi(b)-\Phi(a)~~~\mbox{for all}~~
a,b \in {\mathbb T}.$$*]{}
If $a,b \in {\mathbb T}$ with $a \le b$ we define the closed interval $[a,b]$ in ${\mathbb T}$ by $$[a,b]=\{x \in {\mathbb T}: a \le x \le b \}.$$ Open and half-open intervals etc. are defined accordingly. Below all our intervals will be time scale intervals
[**Example 3**]{}. Let $a,b \in {\mathbb T}$ with $a<
b$. Then we have the following:\
(i) If $f: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ then $$\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \Delta\,x=\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x)\, \nabla
x=\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) dx,$$ where the integral on the right-hand side is the ordinary integral.\
(ii) If $[a,b]$ consists of only isolated points, then $$\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \Delta\,x=\sum_{x \in [a,b)}\, \mu(x)\,
f(x)~~~ \mbox{and}~~~\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \nabla\,x=\sum_{x \in
(a,b]}\, \nu(x)\,f(x).$$ In particular, if ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb Z}$, then $$\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \Delta\,x=\sum_{k=a}^{b-1} f(k)
~~~\mbox{and}\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \nabla\,x=\sum_{k=a+1}^{b} f(k).$$ If ${\mathbb T}=h{\mathbb Z}$, then $$\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \Delta\,x=h\sum_{x \in [a,b)} f(x)
~~~\mbox{and}\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \nabla\,x=h\, \sum_{x \in
(a,b]}^{b} f(x)$$ and if ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb K}_{q}$, then $$\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \Delta\,x=(1-q)\, \sum_{x \in [a,b)}\, xf(x)
~~~\mbox{and}~~~\int_{a}^{b}\, f(x) \nabla\,x=(1-q^{-1})\, \sum_{x
\in (a,b]}\,xf(x).$$
The following relationship between the delta and nabla integrals follows from Definitions 5 and 6 by using Proposition 4.
[**Proposition 7**]{}. [*If the function $f: {\mathbb
T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is continuous, then for all $a,b \in
{\mathbb T}$ with $ a<b$ we have $$\label{den21}
\int_{a}^{b} f(x) \Delta\,x=\int_{a}^{b} f(\rho(x)) \nabla\,x
~~~\mbox{and}~~~ \int_{a}^{b} f(x) \nabla\,x=\int_{a}^{b}
f(\sigma(x)) \Delta\,x.$$* ]{}
Indeed, if $F: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is a $\Delta$-antiderivative for $f$, then $F^{\Delta}(x)=f(x)$ for all $x \in {\mathbb T}^{\kappa}$, and by Proposition 4 we have $f(\rho(x))=F^{\Delta}(\rho(x))=F^{\nabla}(x)$ for all $x \in
{\mathbb T}_{\kappa}$, so that $F$ is a $\nabla$-antiderivative for $f(\rho(x))$. Therefore $$\label{den22}
\int_{a}^{b} f(\rho(x)) \nabla x=F(b)-F(a)=\int_{a}^{b} f(x)
\Delta x.$$ From (\[for2\])-(\[den2\]) and (\[den21\]) we have the following integration by parts formulas: If the functions $f,g :
{\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ are delta and nabla differentiable with continuous derivatives, then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{a}^{b} f^{\Delta}(x)\, g(x) \Delta x&=&f(x)\,
g(x)|_{a}^{b}-\int_{a}^{b} f(\sigma(x)) \, g^{\Delta}(x) \Delta x,
\\
\int_{a}^{b} f^{\nabla}(x)\, g(x) \nabla x&=&f(x)\,
g(x)|_{a}^{b}-\int_{a}^{b} f(\rho(x)) \, g^{\nabla}(x) \nabla x,
\\
\int_{a}^{b} f^{\Delta}(x)\, g(x) \Delta x&=&f(x)\,
g(x)|_{a}^{b}-\int_{a}^{b} f(x) \, g^{\nabla}(x) \nabla x,
\\
\int_{a}^{b} f^{\nabla}(x)\, g(x) \nabla x&=&f(x)\,
g(x)|_{a}^{b}-\int_{a}^{b} f(x) \, g^{\Delta}(x) \Delta x.\end{aligned}$$
For more general treatment of the delta integral on time scales (Riemann and Lebesgue delta integrals on time scales) see [@gus] and Chapter 5 of [@boh2].
3. Burgers Equation on Time Scales {#burgers-equation-on-time-scales .unnumbered}
==================================
The Gel’fand-Dikii approach is very effective in studying the symmetries, bi-Hamiltonian formulation, and in constructing the recursion operators of integrable nonlinear partial differential equations. In this approach one takes the Lax operator $L$ in an algebra like a differential or pseudo differential algebra, a matrix algebra, a polynomial algebra, or the Moyal algebra. In this section we take $L$ in the algebra of delta differential operators.
Let ${\mathbb T}$ be a time scale. We say that a function $f:
{\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is $\Delta$-smooth if it is infinitely $\Delta$-differentiable (and hence infinitely $\nabla$-differentiable). By $\Delta$ we denote the [*delta differentiation operator*]{} which assigns to each $\Delta$-differentiable function $f: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow
{\mathbb R}$ its delta derivative $\Delta(f)$ defined by $$[\Delta(f)](x)=f^{\Delta}(x) ~~~~ \mbox{for}~~~ x \in {\mathbb
T}^{\kappa}.$$ The [*shift operator*]{} $E$ is defined by the formula $$(Ef)(x)=f(\sigma(x))$$ for $x \in {\mathbb T}$, where $\sigma: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow
{\mathbb T}$ is the forward jump operator. It is convenient, in the operator relations to denote the delta differentiation operator by $\delta$ rather than by $\Delta$. For example, $\delta
f$ will denote the composition (product) of the delta differentiation operator $\delta$ and the operator of multiplication by the function $f$. According to formula (\[for2\])) we have
$$\delta f=f^{\Delta}+E(f) \delta.$$
Consider the $N$-th order $\delta$-differential operator given by
$$\label{lax1}
L=a_{N}\,{\delta}^{N}+a_{N-1}\,{\delta}^{N-1}+\cdots+a_{1}\,{\delta}+a_{0},$$
where the coefficients $a_{i}$ $(i=0,1,\cdots N)$ are some $\Delta$-smooth functions of the variable $x \in {\mathbb
T}$. These functions are assumed to depend also on a continuous variable $t \in {\mathbb R}$, however, we will not (for simplicity) indicate explicitly the dependence on $t$.
[**Proposition 8**]{}.
*Let $L$ be given as in (\[lax1\]) and $A_{n}=(L^{n})_{>0}$ be the operator $L^{n}$ missing the $\delta^{0}$ term. Then the Lax equation*
$$\label{lax2}
{dL \over dt_{n}}=[A_{n},L]=A_{n}\,L-L\, A_{n}$$
for $n=1,2, \cdots $ produces a consistent hierarchy of coupled nonlinear evolutionary equations.
[**Example 4. Burgers equation on time scale:**]{} Let $L=v\,\delta+u$, where $u$ and $v$ are functions of $x \in {\mathbb T}$ and $t
\in {\mathbb R}$. Then for an appropriate operator $A$ the Lax equation
$${dL \over dt}=[A,L] \label{lax}$$
defines a system of two differential equations for the functions $u$ and $v$. We find the operator $A$ by using the Gelfand-Dikii formalism. Let us start with the second power of $L$ and assume $A=(L^2)_{>0}$, where
$$L^2=v\, E(v)\, \delta^2+[v \, v^{\Delta}+v\, E(u)+uv]\, \delta+v\,
u^{\Delta}+u^2.$$
We can assume $A=-(L^2)_{0}$ (the part of $-L^2$ without the $\delta$ terms). With this choice, (\[lax\]) gives
$$\begin{aligned}
{dv \over dt}&=&\mu\, v\, (v\, u^{\Delta}+u^2)^{\Delta}, \label{bur20}\\
{du \over dt}&=&v\,(v\,u^{\Delta}+ u^2)^{\Delta}, \, \label{bur21}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mu(x)=\sigma(x)-x$ for $x \in {\mathbb T}$.
Equations (\[bur20\]) and (\[bur21\]) given above are not independent of each other. It is easy to see that $v=\mu\,
u+\lambda$, where $\lambda $ is an arbitrary real function depending only on $x \in {\mathbb T}$. Then these two equations reduce to a single equation, a Burgers equation on time scales,
$${du \over dt}=(\mu\,u +\lambda)[u^2+(\mu u+\lambda)
u^{\Delta}]^{\Delta} . \label{bur22}$$
Let us present some special cases: [**(i)**]{} When ${\mathbb
T}={\mathbb R}$ then $\mu=0$ and $\delta=D$, the usual differentiation. Hence we can let $\lambda=1$ and (\[bur22\]) reduces to the standard Burgers equation on ${\mathbb R}$.[**(ii)**]{} When ${\mathbb T}=h{\mathbb Z}$ then $\mu(m)=h$ and $f^{\Delta}(m)= {1 \over h}[f(m+h)-f(m)]$ for any $f$. Then taking $\lambda=0$ in (\[bur22\]) we find
$${du(m) \over dt}=u(m)\,u(m+h)\,[u(m+2h)-u(m)], \label{bur23}$$
where $m \in h{\mathbb Z}$. The evolution equation given above in (\[bur23\]) represents a difference version of the Burgers equation. [**(iii)**]{} Let ${\mathbb T}=q^{\mathbb Z}$, where $q
\ne 1$ and $q>0$. Then we have $\mu(x)=(q-1)x$ and $f^{\Delta}(x)={f(qx)-f(x) \over (q-1)x }$ and taking $\lambda=0$ we get from (\[bur22\])
$${du(x) \over dt}=u(x)u(qx)[u(q^2x)-u(x)].$$
Taking $A_{n}=-(L^n)_{0}$ with $L$ given as in Example 4 we get a hierarchy of evolution equations (Burgers hierarchy on time scales) from
$${dL \over dt_{n}}=-[(L^n)_{0}, v\, \delta+u]$$
for all $n=1,2,3, \cdots$. Since $(L^n)_{0}$ is a scalar function, letting $(L^n)_{0}=\rho_{n}$ we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
{dv \over dt_{n}}&=&\mu\,v \, (\rho_{n})^{\Delta},\\
{du \over dt_{n}}&=&v\, (\rho_{n})^{\Delta},\end{aligned}$$
where the first three $\rho_{n}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{1}&=&u,\\
\rho_{2}&=&v\,u^{\Delta}+u^2,\\
\rho_{3}&=&v E(v) u^{\Delta \Delta}+[vv^{\Delta}+v
E(u)+uv]u^{\Delta}+(vu^{\Delta}+u^2)u.\end{aligned}$$ The above hierarchy reduces to a single evolution equation with $v=\mu\,u+\lambda$:
$$\label{bur5}
{du \over dt_{n}}=(\mu\, u+\lambda)
(\tilde{\rho}_{n})^{\Delta},~~~n=1,2, \cdots$$
where $\tilde{\rho}_{n}$ is equal to $\rho_{n}$ with $v=\mu\,
u+\lambda$. When ${\mathbb T}$ is a regular-discrete time scale, the first three $\tilde{\rho}_{n}$ are given for $\lambda=0$ by
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\rho}_{1}&=&u,\\
\tilde{\rho}_{2}&=&u\,E(u),\\
\tilde{\rho}_{3}&=&u\,E(u)\,E^2(u).\end{aligned}$$
It is possible to construct the recursion operator ${\mathcal R}$ by using the Lax representation [@GKS]-[@GZh]. The hierarchy satisfies a recursion relation like
$$\label{rec}
{dL \over dt_{n+1}}=L\, {dL \over dt_{n}}+[R_{n},L], ~~~ n=1,2,
\cdots$$
where $R_{n}$ is the remainder operator which has the same degree as the Lax operator $L$. We shall construct this operator for the Burgers equation with $\lambda=0$ on regular-discrete time scales. Choosing $R_{n}=\alpha_{n}\, \delta$ we get (by choosing $v(x)=\mu(x)\, u(x)$)
$${\mathcal R}=u\, E+[u\,(E(u)-u)]\, (E-1)^{-1}\, {E \over E(u)}.$$
One can generate the hierarchy (\[bur5\]) by application of the recursion operator ${\mathcal R}$ to the lowest order symmetry $u_{1}=u\, (E(u)-u)$:
$${du \over dt_{n}}={\mathcal R}^{n-1}\, u_{1}, ~~~ n=1,2, \cdots .$$
4. Algebra of Pseudo Delta Differential Operators on Regular Time Scales {#algebra-of-pseudo-delta-differential-operators-on-regular-time-scales .unnumbered}
========================================================================
Let us define the notion of regular time scales.
[**Definition 9**]{}. [*We say that a time scale ${\mathbb T}$ is regular if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously : $$\begin{aligned}
&&(i)~~ \sigma(\rho(x))=x~~ \mbox{for all}~~ x \in {\mathbb T}~~\mbox{and} \label{den3}\\
&&(ii)~~ \rho(\sigma(x))=x~~ \mbox{for all} ~~x \in {\mathbb T},
\label{den4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ and $\rho$ denote the forward and backward jump operators, respectively.*]{}
From (\[den3\]) it follows that the operator $\sigma: {\mathbb
T} \rightarrow {\mathbb T}$ is “onto” while (\[den4\]) implies that $\sigma$ is “one-to-one”. Therefore $\sigma$ is invertible and $\sigma^{-1}=\rho$. Similarly, the operator $\rho: {\mathbb T}
\rightarrow {\mathbb T}$ is invertible and $\rho^{-1}=\sigma$ if ${\mathbb T}$ is regular.
Let us set $x_{*}=\min {\mathbb T}$ if there exists a finite $\min
{\mathbb T}$, and set $x_{*}=-\infty$ otherwise. Also set $x^{*}=\max {\mathbb T}$ if there exists a finite $\max {\mathbb
T}$, and $x^{*}=\infty$ otherwise. It is not difficult to see that the following statement holds.
[**Proposition 10**]{}. [*A time scale ${\mathbb T}$ is regular if and only if the following two conditions hold:\
(i) The point $x_{*}={\mathbb T}$ is right-dense and the point $x^{*}=\max {\mathbb T}$ is left-dense.\
(ii) Each point of ${\mathbb T} \setminus \{x_{*},x^{*}\}$ is either two-sided dense or two-sided scattered.*]{}
In particular, ${\mathbb R}$, $h\,{\mathbb Z}$, and ${\mathbb
K}_{q}$ are regular time scales, as are $[0,1]$, $
[-1,0] \cup \{{1 \over k}: k \in {\mathbb N}\} \cup \{{k \over
k+1}: k \in {\mathbb N} \} \cup [1,2]$, and $(-\infty , 0] \cup
\{{1 \over k}: k \in {\mathbb N}\} \cup \{2k: k \in {\mathbb
N}\}$, where $[-1,0], [0,1], [1,2], (-\infty, 0]$ are real line intervals.
If $f: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is a function we define the functions $f^{\sigma}: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb
R}$ and $f^{\rho}: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ by $$f^{\sigma}(x)=f(\sigma(x))~~ \mbox{and}~~ f^{\rho}(x)=f(\rho(x))~~
\mbox{for all}~~ x \in {\mathbb T}.$$ Defining the shift operator $E$ by the formula $E\,f=f^{\sigma}$ we have $$(E\, f)(x)=f^{\sigma}(x)=f(\sigma(x))~~ \mbox{for all} ~~ x \in
{\mathbb T}.$$ The inverse $E^{-1}$ exists only in case of regular time scales and is defined by $$(E^{-1}\,f)(x)=f(\sigma^{-1}(x))=f(\rho(x))~~\mbox{for all} ~~ x
\in {\mathbb T}.$$ In the operator relations, for convenience, we will denote the shift operator by ${\cal E}$ rather than by $E$. For example, ${\cal E}\,f$ will denote the composition (product) of the shift operator ${\cal E}$ and the operator of multiplication by the function $f$. Obviously, for any integer $m \in {\mathbb Z}$, we have $${\cal E}^{m}\, f=(E^{m}\, f)\, {\cal E}^{m}.$$
Remember that $\delta$ denotes the delta differentiation operator acting in the operator relations by $\delta
f=f^{\Delta}+E(f) \delta$. The following proposition is an immediate consequence of the the formulas (\[for1\]), (\[for2\]).
[**Proposition 11**]{}. [*The operator formulas $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}=I+\mu\, \delta,~~ \mbox{and}\\
\delta\, f=f^{\Delta}+E(f)\, \delta \label{del68}\end{aligned}$$ hold, where the function $\mu: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb
R}$ is defined by $\mu(x)=\sigma(x)-x$ for all $x \in {\mathbb
T}$, and $I$ denotes the identity operator.*]{}
In this section we will assume that all our considered functions from ${\mathbb T}$ to ${\mathbb R}$ are $\Delta$-smooth and tend to zero sufficiently rapidly together with their $\Delta$-derivatives as $x$ goes to $x_{*}$ or $x^{*}$, where $x_{*}=\min {\mathbb T}$ if there exists a finite $\min {\mathbb
T}$ and $x_{*}=-\infty$ otherwise, $x^{*}=\max {\mathbb T}$ if there exists a finite $\max {\mathbb T}$ and $x^{*}=\infty$ otherwise. The inverse operator $\delta^{-1}$ exists on such functions. If $g: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb T}$ is such a function, then
$$[\Delta^{-1}(g)](x)=\int_{x_{*}}^{x}\, g(y) \, \Delta y .$$
[**Proposition 12**]{}. [*Let $f: {\mathbb T}
\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ be a $\Delta$-smooth function such that $f$ and all its $\Delta$-derivatives vanish rapidly at $x_{*}$ and $x^{*}$. Then the operator $\delta^{-1}\, f$ being the composition (product) of $\delta^{-1}$ and $f$ has the form of the formal series in powers of $\delta^{-1}$ $$\delta^{-1}\, f=\alpha_{0}\, \delta^{-1}+\alpha_{1}\,
\delta^{-2}+\cdots$$ where $\alpha_{0}=E^{-1}\,f$, and $\alpha_{k}=(-1)^k\,
(E^{-1}\,f)^{\nabla^{k}}$ for $k=1,2,\cdots$*]{}.
[**Proof**]{}. Multiplying (\[del68\]) on the left and right by $\delta^{-1}$ we obtain
$$\delta^{-1}\, E(f)=f \delta^{-1}-\delta^{-1} \, f^{\Delta}\,
\delta^{-1}.$$
Replacing here $f$ by $E^{-1} f$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq00}
\delta^{-1}\, f=(E^{-1}\, f)\, \delta^{-1}-\delta^{-1}
(E^{-1}\,f)^{\Delta}\, \delta^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Further, applying this rule to the function $(E^{-1} f)^{\Delta}$ and taking into account that by Proposition 4(i)
$$E^{-1}\,(E^{-1}\, f)^{\Delta}=(E^{-1})^{\nabla},$$
we find
$$\label{eq01}
\delta^{-1}\,(E^{-1} f)^{\Delta}=(E^{-1}\,f)^{\nabla}
\delta^{-1}-\delta^{-1}\, ((E^{-1} f)^{\nabla})^{\Delta}\,
\delta^{-2}.$$
Substituting this into the second term on the right-hand side of (\[eq00\]) we obtain $$\delta^{-1}\, f=(E^{-1}\, f) \delta^{-1}-(E^{-1} f)^{\nabla}\,
\delta^{-2}+\delta^{-1} \, ((E^{-1} f)^{\Delta})^{\nabla}\,
\delta^{-2}.$$ Continuing this procedure repeatedly we arrive at the statement of the proposition.
[**Definition 13**]{}.
*By $\Lambda$ we denote the algebra of pseudo delta differential operators. Any operator $K
\in \Lambda$ of order $k$ has the form*
$$\label{ell}
K=\sum_{\ell=-\infty}^{k} a_{\ell}\, \delta^{\ell}$$
where $a_{\ell}$’s are $\Delta$-smooth functions of $x
\in {\mathbb T}$. For $K$ given by (\[ell\]) we will use the following notations:
$$K_{\ge 0}=\sum_{\ell=0}^{k}\, a_{\ell}\, \delta^{\ell},~~
\mbox{and} ~~ K_{< 0}= \sum_{-\infty}^{-1}\, a_{\ell}\,
\delta^{\ell}.$$
As an example we let
$$\label{lax4}
L=a_{N}\, \delta^{N}+a_{N-1}\, \delta^{N-1}+ \cdots +a_{1}\,
\delta+a_{0}$$
where $a_{i} (i=0,1, \cdots,N)$ are some $\Delta$-smooth functions on ${\mathbb T}$. Then we have
[**Proposition 16**]{}.
*Let $L$ be given in (\[lax4\]). For each fixed $N$ the Lax equation*
$$\label{lax5}
{dL \over dt_{n}}=[A_{n},L], ~~~~ A_{n}=(L^{n \over N})_{ \ge 0},$$
for $n=1,2, \cdots $ not divisible by $N$, produces a (consistent) hierarchy of evolution equations (a KdV hierarchy on time scales) .
[**Proof**]{}. Since $(L^{n \over N})_{\ge 0}= L^{n
\over N}-(L^{n \over N})_{<0}$, we get
$$\label{gd1}
{dL \over dt_{n}}=[(L^{n \over N})_{ \ge 0},L]=-[L^{n \over N})_{
<0},L].$$
Evidently the commutator $[(L^{n/N})_{\ge 0},L]$ involves only nonnegative powers of $\delta$, while the commutator $[(L^{n/N})_{<0},L]$ has the form $\sum_{j=-\infty}^{N-1}\,
b_{j}\, \delta^{j}$. Therefore, we get by (\[gd1\]) that, for all $n$ not divisible by $N$, (\[lax5\]) produces nontrivial consistent $N+1$-number of evolutionary coupled $\Delta$-differential equations for $a_{i},~ i=0,1, \cdots , N$. Note that $a_{N}$ turns out to be a fixed (i.e., time independent) function of $x$.
[**Example 5**]{}. A [**KdV hierarchy on time scales**]{}. Let $$\label{lax55}
L=\delta^2+v \delta+u,$$ where $u$ and $v$ are $\Delta$-smooth functions. It is straightforward to find that $$L^{1/2}=\delta+\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}\, \delta^{-1}+\alpha_{2}\,
\delta^{-2}+\cdots$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
E(\alpha_{0})+\alpha_{0}=v, \label{alfa1}\\
E(\alpha_{1})+\alpha_{1}+(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta}+(\alpha_{0})^{2}=u, \label{alfa2}\\
E(\alpha_{2})+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{1}\,
E^{-1}(\alpha_{0})+(\alpha_{1})^{\Delta}=0. \label{alfa3}\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $n=1,3, \cdots$ we get the members of the KdV hierarchy.
[**(1)**]{}. Let $n=1$. Then Lax equation (\[lax5\]) becomes $${dv \over dt}\, \delta+{du \over dt}=[(L^{1/2})_{ \ge 0}, L]$$ and gives coupled equations for $u$ and $v$ $$\begin{aligned}
{du \over dt}&=&u^{\Delta}-v\,(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta}-(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta \Delta},
\label{kdv1}\\
{dv \over dt}&=&v^{\Delta}+E(u)-u-v\,[E(\alpha_{0})-\alpha_{0}] \nonumber\\
&&-E(\alpha_{0}^{\Delta})-E(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta}, \nonumber\\
&=& \mu
(u^{\Delta}-v\,(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta}-(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta\Delta}).
\label{kdv2}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the above equations we get $${dv \over dt}-\mu {du \over dt}=0,$$ and therefore $$v=\mu\, u+\lambda,$$ where $\lambda$ is an arbitrary real function depending only on $x
\in {\mathbb T}$. Thus, two equations (\[kdv1\]) and (\[kdv2\]) reduce to the following single equation $${du \over dt}=u^{\Delta}-(\mu \, u+\lambda)\,
(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta}-(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta \Delta}, \label{kdv3}$$ where $\alpha_{0}$ is expressed, according to (\[alfa1\]), from $$E(\alpha_{0})+\alpha_{0}=\mu \, u+\lambda. \label{kdv4}$$ If we take $\lambda=0$, then (\[kdv3\]) and (\[kdv4\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
&&{du \over dt}=u^{\Delta}-\mu \, u\,
(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta}-(\alpha_{0})^{\Delta \Delta}, \label{kdv5}\\
&&E(\alpha_{0})+\alpha_{0}=\mu \, u. \label{kdv6}\end{aligned}$$ We shall now give $\alpha_{0}$, for illustration, for particular cases of ${\mathbb T}$:
[**(i)**]{} In the case ${\mathbb
T}={\mathbb R}$ we have $\mu=0$ and (\[kdv6\]) gives $\alpha_{0}=0$ and (\[kdv5\]) becomes $${du \over dt}={du \over dx},$$ which is a linear equation explicitly solvable: $$u(x,t)=\varphi(x+t),$$ where $\varphi$ is an arbitrary differentiable function.
[**(ii)**]{} In the case ${\mathbb
T}={\mathbb Z}$ we have $\mu=1$ and (\[kdv6\]) is satisfied by $$\alpha_{0}(n)=-\sum_{k=-\infty}^{n-1}\, (-1)^{n+k}\, u(k), ~~ n
\in {\mathbb Z}$$ and therefore the equation (\[kdv5\]) becomes $${du(n) \over dt}=-u^2(n)+2u(n)+2(-1)^n\, [2+u(n)]\,
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{n-1}\, (-1)^{k}\, u(k),$$ for $n \in {\mathbb Z}$.
[**(iii)**]{} In the case ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb K}_{q}$ we have $\mu(x)=(q-1) x$ and (\[kdv6\]) is satisfied by $\alpha_{0}(0)=0$ and $$\label{alfa51}
\alpha_{0}(x)=-(q-1)\sum_{y \in (0, q^{-1}x]}\,
(-1)^{log_{q}(xy)}\, y u(y)$$ for $x \in {\mathbb K}_{q}$ and $x \ne 0$. Substituting (\[alfa51\]) into (\[kdv5\]) we can get an evolution equation for $u$.
[**(iv)**]{} Let ${\mathbb T}=(-\infty,
0) \cup {\mathbb K}_{q}=(-\infty,0] \cup q^{\mathbb Z}$. In this case $\mu(x)=0$ if $x \in (-\infty, 0]$ and $\mu(x)=(q-1) x$ if $x
\in q^{\mathbb Z}$. The equation (\[kdv6\]) is satisfied by the function $\alpha_{0}$ given by
$$\alpha_{0}(x)=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & x \in (-\infty, 0]\\
-(q-1)\Sigma_{y \in (0, q^{-1}x]}\, (-1)^{log_{q}(xy)}\, y u(y)&
x\in q^{\mathbb Z}
\end{array} \right.$$
Therefore (\[kdv5\]) will yield an evolution equation coinciding on $(-\infty, 0]$ and $q^{\mathbb Z}$ with the evolution equations described in the examples (i) and (iii), respectively. Now an essential complementary point is that the solution [*u*]{} must satisfy at $x=0$ the smoothness conditions $$u(0^{-})=u(0^{+}),~~~ u^{\prime}(0^{-})=u^{\Delta}(0^{+}).$$
[**(2)**]{}. Letting $n=3$, first we get
$$L^{3/2}=\delta^{3}+p\, \delta^{2}+q\, \delta+r+ (\mbox{terms with
negative powers of } \delta)$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
p&=&\alpha_{0}+E(v), \\
q&=&v^{\Delta}+E(u)+\alpha_{0}\,v+\alpha_{1}, \\
r&=&u^{\Delta}+\alpha_{0}\, u+\alpha_{1}\, E^{-1}(v)+\alpha_{2},\end{aligned}$$ and the Lax equation $${dv \over dt}\, \delta+{du \over dt}=[(L^{3/2})_{ \ge 0}, L],$$ gives the coupled equations for $u$ and $v$ $$\begin{aligned}
{du \over dt}&=&u^{\Delta \Delta \Delta }+p\,u^{\Delta \Delta}+q\,
u^{\Delta}-r^{\Delta \Delta}-v\,r^{\Delta}, \\
{dv \over dt}&=&v^{\Delta \Delta \Delta}+E(u^{\Delta
\Delta})+(E(u^{\Delta}))^{\Delta}+E(u)^{\Delta \Delta}+p\,
[v^{\Delta
\Delta}+E(u^{\Delta}) \nonumber\\
&&+E(u)^{\Delta}] +q\,(v^{\Delta}+E(u)-u)+rv-q^{\Delta
\Delta}-E(r^{\Delta})\nonumber\\
&&-E(r)^{\Delta}-v\,q^{\Delta}-v E(r).\end{aligned}$$
As in the first member of the hierarchy ($n=1$ case), the above $\Delta$-KdV equations reduce to a single equation for the function $u$. Below in Corollary 23 we found that $v=\mu(x) u+\lambda(x)$. Letting $\lambda=$ constant we get
$${du \over dt}=u^{\Delta \Delta \Delta }+p\,u^{\Delta \Delta}+q\,
u^{\Delta}-r^{\Delta \Delta}-v\,r^{\Delta}.$$
It is possible to write the above equation more explicitly in terms of $u$ for ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb R}$, ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb
Z}$, and for ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb K}_{q}$ but they are quite lengthy. For the discrete case we give a KdV hierarchy in Example 8, next section.
5. Shift Lax Operators on Regular-Discrete Time Scales {#shift-lax-operators-on-regular-discrete-time-scales .unnumbered}
======================================================
Let ${\mathbb T}$ be a time scale. Let us set $x_{*}=\min {\mathbb
T}$ if there exists a finite $\min {\mathbb T}$ and $x_{*}=-\infty$ otherwise. Also set $x^{*}=\max {\mathbb T}$ if there exists a finite $\max {\mathbb T}$ and $x^{*}=\infty$ otherwise. We will briefly write $x_{*}=\min {\mathbb T}$ and $x^{*}=\max {\mathbb T}$.
[ **Definition 17**]{}.[*We say that a time scale ${\mathbb T}$ is regular-discrete if the following two conditions are satisfied:\
(i) The point $x_{*}$ is right-dense and the point $x^{*}$ is left-dense.\
(ii) Each point of ${\mathbb T}\backslash \{x_{*},x^{*}\}$ is two-sided scattered (isolated)*]{}.
The shift operator $E$ is defined on functions $f: {\mathbb T}
\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ by the formula
$$(Ef)(x)=f(\sigma(x)), ~~~ \mbox{for} ~~ x \in {\mathbb T}$$
where $\sigma: {\mathbb T} \rightarrow {\mathbb T}$ is the forward jump operator.
In this section we deal only with regular-discrete time scales ${\mathbb T}$. For such time scales ${\mathbb T}$ we have $$\mu(x)=\sigma(x)-x \ne 0,~~ \mbox{for all}~ x \in {\mathbb
T}\backslash \{x_{*},x^{*}\}$$ and, therefore, on functions given on ${\mathbb T} \backslash
\{x_{*},x^{*}\}$ we have the operator relationship $$\delta={1 \over \mu}\,({\mathcal E}-1).$$ All our functions will be assumed to be defined on ${\mathbb T}
\backslash \{x_{*},x^{*}\}$ and tends to zero sufficiently rapidly as $x$ goes to $x_{*}$ or $x^{*}$.
This shift operator ${\mathcal E}$, should be quite useful in the application of the Gel’fand-Dikii formalism. The reason is that for any integer $m$ we have the simple product rule $$\label{epsil}
{\mathcal E}^{m} u=(E^{m} u) \,{\mathcal E}^{m}.$$ Hence, for regular-discrete time scales, we can define an algebra of ${\mathcal E}$ operators.
[**Definition 18**]{}.
*An algebra , $\Lambda_{\epsilon}$, of ${\mathcal E}$ operators satisfying the operator equation (\[epsil\]) is defined as follows: Any operator $K$ in $\Lambda_{\epsilon}$ with degree $k$ is of the form*
$$K=\sum_{-\infty}^{k}\, a_{\ell}\, {\mathcal E}^{\ell}$$
where $a_{\ell}$ are functions of $x \in {\mathbb T}$ that depend also on $t \in {\mathbb R}$.
Hence we can form Lax operators in $\Lambda_{\epsilon}$, and produce integrable equations on regular-discrete time scales. Following [@blaz1] we obtain two classes of Lax representations.
[**Proposition 19**]{}.
*The Lax equation*
$$\label{lax19}
{dL \over dt_{\ell}}=[(L^{\ell})_{ \ge k},L],~~~~k=0,1$$
produces consistent hierarchy of equations for $\ell=1,2,\cdots$ with the following suitable Lax operators
$$\begin{aligned}
L&=&{\mathcal E}^{\alpha+n}+u_{\alpha+n-1}\,{\mathcal
E}^{\alpha+n-1}+\cdots+u_{\alpha} {\mathcal E}^{\alpha}, \\
L&=&v_{\alpha+n}\,{\mathcal
E}^{\alpha+n}+v_{\alpha+n-1}\,{\mathcal
E}^{\alpha+n-1}+\cdots+v_{\alpha+1}\, {\mathcal
E}^{\alpha+1}+{\mathcal E}^{\alpha},\end{aligned}$$
for $k=0$ and $k=1$, respectively. Here $u_{i}$ and $v_{i}$ are functions defined on ${\mathbb T}$ and the integer $\alpha$ is restricted to satisfy the inequality $-n < \alpha \le -1$
.
[**Remark.**]{} Lax operators above and the following examples are given on any regular-discrete time scale ${\mathbb
T}$ (we can take in particular ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb Z}$ or ${\mathbb K}_{q}$). This means that for any function $u$ on such a time scale $E(u)=u(\sigma(x))$ where $\sigma$ is the jump operator defined in the second section. Hence our examples and results should be considered as more general than those considered in [@blaz1]. In the case of Ref.[@blaz1] time scale is just the integers (${\mathbb T}={\mathbb Z}$) where $E(u(n))=u(n+1)$
[**Example 6**]{}. [**Two field equations**]{}. Let $k=0$, $\alpha=-1$ and $$L=u_{-1}\, {\mathcal E}^{-1}+u_{0}+{\mathcal E} \equiv v\,
{\mathcal E}^{-1}+u+ {\mathcal E}.$$ Then we find $$\begin{aligned}
\ell=1~~~~{dv \over dt_{1}}&=&v(u-E^{-1}(u)), \\
{du \over dt_{1}}&=&E(v)-v,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\ell=2~~~~{dv \over dt_{2}}&=&u^2\,v+E(v)\,v-vE^{-1}(v)-v\,E^{-1}(u^2), \\
{du \over dt_{2}}&=&u\,E(v)+E(u)\,E(v)-v\,E^{-1}(u)-u\,v,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\ell=3~~~~{dv \over dt_{3}}&=&uv^2+u^3 v-vE^{-1}(v)E^{-2}(u)-2vE^{-1}(u)E^{-1}(v)- \nonumber\\
&&v E^{-1}(u^3)+2uvE(v)-v^2E^{-1}(u)+v E(u)E(v),\\
{du \over
dt_{3}}&= &E(v)[u^2+u E(u)+E(u^2)+E(v)+(E^2(v))]- \nonumber\\
&&v[E^{-1}(v)+E^{-1}(u^2)+uE^{-1}(u)+u^2+v].\end{aligned}$$ This is a Toda hierarchy on discrete time scales. The recursion relation between the $n+1$-th and $n$-th elements of the hierarchy is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
v_{n+1}&=&uv_{n}+vu_{n}+vE^{-1}(u_{n})+v\,(E^{-1}(u)-u)\,(1-E)^{-1}{v_{n}
\over v},\\
u_{n+1}&=& E(v_{n})+u u_{n}+v(1-E)^{-1}\, {v_{n} \over
v}-E(v)(1-E)^{-1}E{v_{n} \over v}.\end{aligned}$$
From this recursion relation the recursion operator of the hierarchy follows
[**Example 7**]{}. [**Four-field system on time scale.**]{} We give two examples which are studied in [@blaz1] for the case ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb Z}.$\
[**1**]{}. Let $k=0$ and $\alpha=-2$ and $$L={\mathcal E}^2+w\,{\mathcal E}+v+u\,{\mathcal
E}^{-1}+p\,{\mathcal E}^{-2}.$$ Then we get the four-filed equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\ell=1~~~{dp \over dt_{1}}&=&vp-pE^{-2}(v), \\
{du \over dt_{1}}&=&vu+wE(p)-pE^{-2}(w)-uE^{-1}(v), \\
{dv \over dt_{1}}&=& w E(u)+E^2(p)-uE^{-1}(w)-p,\\
{dw \over dt_{1}}&=&E^{2}(u)-u.\end{aligned}$$
[**2**]{}. Let $k=1$ and $\alpha=-2$ and $$L=\bar{q}\,{\mathcal E}^2+\bar{w}\,{\mathcal
E}+\bar{v}+\bar{u}\,{\mathcal E}^{-1}+{\mathcal E}^{-2}.$$ Then we get another four-filed equations $$\begin{aligned}
\ell=1~~~{d \bar{u} \over dt_{1}}&=& \bar{w}-E^{-2}(\bar{w}),\\
{d \bar{v} \over dt_{1}}&=& \bar{w}E(\bar{u})+\bar{q}-E^{-2}(\bar{q})-
\bar{u}E^{-1}(\bar{w}),\\
{d \bar{w} \over dt_{1}}&=& \bar{w}E(\bar{v})+\bar{q}E^2(\bar{u})-
\bar{u}E^{-1}(\bar{q})-\bar{v}\bar{w},\\
{d \bar{q} \over dt_{1}}&=&\bar{q}E^{2}(\bar{v})-\bar{v}\bar{q}.\end{aligned}$$
So far we considered the hierarchies coming from Proposition 19 with integer powers of the Lax operators. Now we consider the rational powers of the Lax operator.
[**Proposition 22**]{}.
*Let*
$$L=w\,{\mathcal E}^{N}+u_{N-1}\, {\mathcal E}^{N-1}+ \cdots +u_{0},$$
where $w(x)$ is a function of $x$ which is not a dynamical variable $dw/dt=0$, $u_{i}~, i=0,1, \cdots, N-1$ are functions of $t$ and $x \in {\mathbb T}$. Then $${dL \over dt_{n}}=[(L^{n/N})_{ \ge 0}, L],~~~n=1,2, \cdots
\label{l17}$$ produces hierarchies of integrable systems. Here $n$ is a positive integer not divisible by $N$. Furthermore the function $u_{0}$ is also not dynamical, i.e., $u_{0}=u_{0}(x)$, not depending on $t$.
[**Corollary 23** ]{}.
*When $N=2$ and $w={1 \over
\mu}E({1 \over \mu})$ then the $\Delta$-KdV Lax operator (\[lax55\]) reduces to the above form with*
$$\begin{aligned}
u_{0}&=&-{v \over \mu}+{1 \over \mu^2}+u,\\
u_{1}&=&-{1 \over \mu}[E({1 \over \mu})+{1 \over \mu}]+{v
\over\mu}.\end{aligned}$$
Hence in part (2) of Example 5 we have a single equation with $v=-\mu u_{0}+{1 \over \mu}+\mu u$.
In the following example we study the $N=2$ case in more detail.
[**Example 8**]{}.[**KdV on discrete time scales**]{}. Let
$$L=wE(w)\,{\mathcal E}^{2}+u\, {\mathcal E}+v.$$
Then
$$L^{1/2}=w\,{\mathcal E}+\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}\, {\mathcal
E}^{-1}+\alpha_{2} \, {\mathcal E}^{-2}+ \cdots$$
where first three $\alpha_{i}$ are given as $$\begin{aligned}
w\,(E(\alpha_{0})+\alpha_{0})&=&u, \\
w\,E(\alpha_{1})+E^{-1}(w)\,\alpha_{1}&=&v-(\alpha_{0})^2, \\
w\,E(\alpha_{2})+E^{-2}(w)\, \alpha_{2}&=&-{\alpha_{1}\,E^{-1}(u)
\over E^{-1}(w)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we calculate $L^{3/2}$ by $$L^{3/2}=wE(w)E^2(w)\,{\mathcal E}^3+p_{2}\, {\mathcal E}^2+p_{1}\,
{\mathcal E}+p_{0}+ \mbox{negative powers of}~ {\mathcal E}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
p_{2}&=&E(w)[w\,E^2(\alpha_{0})+u],\\
p_{1}&=&w E(w)\,E^2(\alpha_{1})+u E(\alpha_{0})+wv, \\
p_{0}&=&wE(w)E^2(\alpha_{2})+u E(\alpha_{1})+v\alpha_{0},\\
&=&wE^{-1}(w)[E^{-1}+E(w)E]^{-1}\,(E(\alpha_{1}){u \over w})+v
(1+E)^{-1}{u \over w}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[l17\]) with $N=2$ produces a hierarchy of evolution equations. It turns out that $v$ becomes a constant in the whole hierarchy. We give the first two members of the hierarchy (for $n=1$ and $n=3$):
$$\begin{aligned}
u_{t_{1}}&=&u(1-E)(1+E)^{-1}\,u ,\\
u_{t_{3}}&=&u\,(1-E)\,p_{0},\end{aligned}$$
where $p_{0}$ is given above. The next members of the hierarchy can be found by taking $n=5$ in (\[l17\]) or by applying the recursion operator ${\mathcal R}$ to $u_{t_{3}}$. For ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb K}_{q}$ and $w=1$ the above hierarchy and its Hamilton formulation were given by Frenkel [@fren]. The recursion operator of this hierarchy with $w=1$ can be found by using (\[rec\]) with $R_{n}=\alpha_{n} {\mathcal E}+\beta_{n}$. We find that
$$\begin{aligned}
(E^2-1)\, \alpha_{n}&=&E^2 (u_{n}),\\
(E^2-1)\, \beta_{n}&=&uE(u_{n})+E(u)\, \alpha_{n}-u\,
E(\alpha_{n})\end{aligned}$$
and the equation which determines the recursion operator is $$u_{n+1}=v u_{n}-u (E-1)\, \beta_{n},~~~n=0,1,2, \cdots .$$ We find that $${\mathcal R}=v-u(E+1)^{-1}\,[-u+E(u)E](E^2-1)^{-1}\,E.$$
When the Lax operator is of degree one and has an infinite power series in operator ${\mathcal E}^{-1}$ the corresponding system is called the KP hierarchy.
[**Proposition 24**]{}.
*Let $$L={\mathcal E}+u_{0}+u_{1}\, {\mathcal E}^{-1}+u_{2}\, {\mathcal
E}^{-2}+\cdots .$$ Then $${dL \over dt_{n}}=[(L^{n})_{ \ge 0}, L], ~~~ n=1,2,\cdots ,$$ produces the following hierarchy*
$$\begin{aligned}
n=1~~~{du_{0} \over dt_{1}}&=&(E-1)u_{1}, \\
{du_{1} \over dt_{1}}&=&(E-1)u_{2}+u_{1}[u_{0}-E^{-1}(u_{0})],\\
&&............................. \nonumber\\
{du_{k} \over
dt_{1}}&=&(E-1)\,u_{k+1}+u_{k}\,[u_{0}-E^{-k}(u_{0})],~~~k=0,1,
\cdots .\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
n=2~~~{du_{0} \over dt_{2}}&=&(E^2-1)u_{2}-u_{1}E^{-1}(E+1)\,u_{0} \nonumber\\
&&+E(u_{1})(E(u_{0})+u_{0}), \\
{du_{1} \over
dt_{2}}&=&(E^2-1)\,u_{3}+\alpha_{1}E(u_{2})-u_{2}E^{-2}(\alpha_{1})
\nonumber \\
&&+\alpha_{0}u_{1}-u_{2} E^{-1}(\alpha_{0}),\\
&&............................. ,\nonumber\\
{du_{k} \over
dt_{2}}&=&(E^2-1)u_{k+2}+\alpha_{1}E(u_{k+1})-u_{k+1}E^{-k-1}(\alpha_{1})
\nonumber\\
&& +\alpha_{0}u_{k}-u_{k}E^{-k}(\alpha_{0}), ~~~ k=0,1, \cdots,\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha_{0}=(E+1)u_{1}+(u_{0})^2$ and $\alpha_{1}=(E+1)u_{0}$. The case ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb Z}$ of this hierarchy is discussed in [@blaz1] (see also the references therein) and the case ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb K}_{q}$ is discussed in [@fren] and [@thre].
6. Trace Functional and Conservation Laws {#trace-functional-and-conservation-laws .unnumbered}
=========================================
Let ${\mathbb T}$ be a regular time scale and $\Lambda$ be the algebra of pseudo delta differential operators. Any operator $F
\in \Lambda$ of order $k$ has the form
$$\label{exp1}
F=a_{k}\, \delta^{k}+a_{k-1}\, \delta^{k-1}+ \cdots + a_{1}\,
\delta+a_{0}+a_{-1}\, \delta^{-1}+a_{-2}\, \delta^{-2}+\cdots$$
where $a_{\ell}$’s are $\Delta$-smooth functions of $x \in
{\mathbb T}$ (they are also functions of $t \in {\mathbb R}$). The coefficients $a_{0}$ and $a_{-1}$ we call respectively the [*free term*]{} (zero order term) and the [*residue* ]{} of $F$ associated with its “$\delta$-expansion” (\[exp1\]) and write
$$\label{not1}
\mbox{Free}_{\delta}\, F=a_{0}(x) ~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\mbox{Res}_{\delta}\, F=a_{-1}(x).$$
In case of regular-discrete time scales ${\mathbb T}$ we have $$\label{delta1}
\delta={1 \over \mu}\, ({\mathcal E}-I)={1 \over \mu}\, {\mathcal
E}-{1 \over \mu}$$ and therefore the same operator $F$ can be expanded in series with respect to the powers of ${\mathcal E}$ of the form
$$\label{exp2}
F=b_{k}\, {\mathcal E}^{k}+b_{k-1}\, {\mathcal
E}^{k-1}+\cdots+b_{1}\, {\mathcal E}+b_{0}+b_{-1}\, {\mathcal
E}^{-1}+b_{-2}\, {\mathcal E}^{-2}+ \cdots$$
We write $$\label{not2}
\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E}\, F=b_{0}(x) ~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\mbox{Res}_{\mathcal E}\, F=b_{-1}(x).$$ Substituting (\[delta1\]) and
$$\delta^{-1}=({\mathcal E}-I)^{-1}\, \mu=({\mathcal
E}^{-1}+{\mathcal E}^{-2}+\cdots)\, \mu=E^{-1}(\mu)\, {\mathcal
E}^{-1}+E^{-2}(\mu)\, {\mathcal E}^{-2}+ \cdots ,$$
into (\[exp1\]) and taking into account that
$$E^{-1}(\mu)=\mu(\rho(x))=\sigma(\rho(x))-\rho(x)=x-\rho(x)=\nu(x),$$
we find that
$$\label{res1}
\mbox{Res}_{\mathcal E}\, F=\nu\, \mbox{Res}_{\delta}\, F.$$
[**Definition 25.**]{}
*The trace of an operator $F
\in \Lambda $ is defined by*
$$\mbox{Tr}(F)=\int_{\mathbb T}\, \mbox{Res}_{\delta}\, \{F(I+\mu
\delta)^{-1} \}\, \nabla x,$$
where the nabla integral is defined according to Section 2.
[**Proposition 26.**]{}
*Let $F$ be given as in (\[exp1\]). In case of regular-discrete time scales we have*
$$\mbox{Res}_{\delta} \{F(I+\mu \delta)^{-1} \}={ 1 \over \nu(x)}\,
\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E}\,F$$
for $x \in {\mathbb T}\setminus \{x_{*},x^{*} \}$, where $x_{*}=\min {\mathbb T}$ and $x^{*}=\max {\mathbb T}$. Therefore in this case
$$\mbox{Tr}(F)=\int_{\mathbb T}\, (\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E}F){\nabla
x \over \nu(x)}=\sum_{x \in {\mathbb T}}\, b_{0}(x).$$
[**Proof**]{}. Since $I+\mu \delta={\mathcal E}$ we have, by using (\[res1\]) and (\[exp2\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
\nu\, \mbox{Res}_{\delta} \{F(I+\mu \delta )^{-1}
\}=\mbox{Res}_{\mathcal E} \{ F(I+\mu \delta)^{-1}
\}=\mbox{Res}_{\mathcal E}\, (F
{\mathcal E}^{-1}) \nonumber \\
=\mbox{Res}_{\mathcal E}\,(b_{k} {\mathcal E}^{k-1}+ \cdots
+b_{1}+b_{0}\, {\mathcal E}^{-1}+ \cdots
)=b_{0}=\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E}(F).\end{aligned}$$
[**Proposition 27**]{}.
*For all $F_{1}, F_{2} \in
\Lambda $*
$$\label{tr1}
\mbox{Tr}([F_{1},F_{2}])=\mbox{Tr}(F_{1} F_{2}-F_{2} F_{1})=0,$$
in other words the pairing $(F_{1},F_{2})=Tr(F_{1} F_{2})$ is symmetric.
We prove (\[tr1\]) only for particular cases of time scales ${\mathbb T}$. They indicate a way to the proof in the general case of regular time scales.
[**(i)**]{}. If ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb R}$, then $\delta=\partial={d \over dx} \cdot$ and $\mu(x)=0$,
$$F=a_{k} \partial^{k}+\cdots +a_{1} \partial+a_{0}+a_{-1}
\partial^{-1}+ \cdots$$
and $$\mbox{Tr}(F)=\int_{\mathbb R}\, \mbox{Res}(F) dx=\int_{\mathbb
R}\, a_{-1}(x) dx .$$ It is well known that (for example, see [@blaz1]) for such functional $Tr(F)$ the statement (\[tr1\]) holds.
[**(ii)**]{}.Let ${\mathbb T}$ be a regular-discrete time scale. Then by Proposition 26 we have $$\label{tr2}
\mbox{Tr}([F_{1},F_{2}])=\int_{\mathbb T}\mbox{Res}_{\delta}
\{[F_{1},F_{2}] (I+\mu \delta)^{-1} \} \nabla x=\int_{\mathbb T}\,
(\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E} [F_{1},F_{2}]) {\nabla x \over
\nu(x)}=0.$$ It is enough to check (\[tr2\]) for monomials $F_{1}=A {\mathcal
E}^{k}$ and $F_{2}=B{\mathcal E}^{\ell}$. By the use of the property (\[epsil\]) of ${\mathcal E}$ we have $$F_{1}F_{2}=A(E^{k}\,B)\, {\mathcal E}^{k+\ell} ~~~
\mbox{and}~~~F_{2}F_{1}=B(E^{\ell}\,A).$$ Therefore $Free_{\mathcal E}[F_{1},F_{2}]$ is either zero or
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E}[F_{1},F_{2}]=A(E^{k} B)-B
(E^{-k}\,A)=(E^k-I)(E^{-k}A)B \nonumber\\
&&=(I-E^{-1})\,(E^{k}+E^{k-1}+\cdots+E+I)(E^{-k}A)B=\nu(x)[\Phi(A,B)]^{\nabla},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\Phi(A,B)=(E^{k}+E^{k-1}+\dots+E+I)(E^{-k}A)B$. Hence $$\int_{\mathbb T}\, \mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E} [F_{1},F_{2}] \,
{\nabla x \over \nu(x)}=\int_{\mathbb T}[\Phi(A,B)]^{\nabla}
\nabla x=\Phi(A,B)|^{x^{*}}_{x_{*}}=0$$ so that (\[tr1\]) is proved for regular-discrete time scales.
[**(iii)**]{}. Let ${\mathbb T}$ be a mixed time scale, say, of the form ${\mathbb T}=(-\infty, 0) \cup {\mathbb K}_{q}$, where $(-\infty,0)$ denotes the real line interval. Then for any $F_{1},F_{2} \in \Lambda$ we have, taking into account Proposition 26, that $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Tr}([F_{1},F_{2}])=\int_{\mathbb T}\, \mbox{Res}_{\delta}\,
\{[F_{1},F_{2}](I+\mu \delta)^{-1} \} \nabla x \nonumber \\
=\int_{-\infty}^{0}\,(\mbox{Res}_{\partial}([F_{1},F_{2}])
dx+\int_{{\mathbb K}_{q}}\, (\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal
E}\,[F_{1},F_{2}]) {\nabla x \over \nu(x)}.\end{aligned}$$ Take for instance $F_{1}=A \delta$ and $F_{2}=B \delta^{-1}$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\mbox{Res}_{\partial}\,[F_{1},F_{2}]=\mbox{Res}_{\partial}\,[A
\partial, B
{\partial}^{-1}]=AB^{\prime}+A^{\prime}B=(AB)^{\prime}, \nonumber\\
&&\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E} [F_{1},F_{2}]=\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal
E}\,[{A \over \mu}\,({\mathcal E}-I),B({\mathcal E}-I)^{-1}\, \mu]
\nonumber\\
&&=AE(B)-BE^{-1}(A)\end{aligned}$$
Therefore
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{0}\,(\mbox{Res}_{\partial} [F_{1},F_{2}])
dx=\int_{-\infty}^{0}\,(AB)^{\prime} dx=A(0^{-})B(0^{-}), \\
\int_{{\mathbb K}_{q}}\,\mbox{Free}_{\mathcal E}
[F_{1},F_{2}]\,{\nabla x \over \nu(x)}=\int_{{\mathbb
K}_{q}}[AE(B)-BE^{-1}(A)]\,{\nabla x \over \nu(x)} \nonumber\\
=\sum_{x \in {\mathbb
K}_{q}}\,[A(x)B(qx)-A(q^{-1}x)B(x)]=-A(0^{+})B(0^{+}).\end{aligned}$$
Hence $$\mbox{Tr}([F_{1},F_{2}])=A(0^{-})B(0^{-})-A(0^{+})B(0^{+})=0,$$ where $A$ and $B$ are $\Delta$-smooth functions on ${\mathbb T}$ and hence they are continuous at $x=0$.
[**Proposition 28**]{}[*Equation (\[lax5\]) implies that $${d \over dt_{n}}L^{k}=[A_{n},L^{k}], ~~~~ A_{n}=(L^{n \over N})_{
\ge 0},$$ for all $k={\ell \over N}$, where $\ell$ is any positive integer.*]{}
Propositions 27 and 28 imply the next Proposition
[**Proposition 29**]{}.
*For all $\ell=0,1,\cdots $ the functionals*
$$\label{con1}
H_{\ell}=\mbox{Tr} (L^{\ell \over N}),$$
are common constants of motion for the hierarchy (\[lax5\]) and (\[lax19\]).
Note that in proof of Proposition 29 it is, in particular, used the fact that the flows (vector fields) defined by the different members of the hierarchy all commute with each other (see [@diki], [@will]).
8. Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
=============
We have developed the Gel’fand-Dikii approach to time scales. So far the integrable systems were studied on ${\mathbb R}, {\mathbb
Z}$ or on ${\mathbb K}_{q}$. Here we gave a unified and extended approach. In particular cases when ${\mathbb T}={\mathbb R},
{\mathbb Z}, {\mathbb K}_{q}$ we find several examples of the integrable systems. We developed the algebra of $\Delta$-pseudo differential and ${\mathcal E}$-shift operators. We established the GD formalism on these algebras and introduced several Lax representations on these algebras. All these Lax representations are straightforward generalizations of the Lax representations on pseudo differential algebras of integrable systems on ${\mathbb
R}$ and the Lax representations of the algebra of shift operators on ${\mathbb Z}$. The Burgers and KdV hierarchies on time scales that we found are the special cases of these Lax representations. We also generalized the Frenkel KdV hierarchy introduced on ${\mathbb K}_{q}$ to arbitrary discrete time scales. We constructed the recursion operators of each example considered in this paper and gave a way of constructing the constants of motions by introducing an appropriate trace form on time scales.
In this work we did not consider the r-Matrix construction and the Hamiltonian formulation of integrable systems on time scales. The trace form on a general time scale needs a little care. Such a work is in progress and will be communicated in a separate paper.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is partially supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences and by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey.
APPENDIX: Recursion operators of four field systems {#appendix-recursion-operators-of-four-field-systems .unnumbered}
===================================================
We give the recursion operator of the Four-field systems on time scale which are studied in example 7.
**1.** For the case $k=0$, $\alpha=-2$, we obtain the recursion relation between the $n+1$-th and $n$-th elements of the hierarchy as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
w_{n+1}=&w(E+1)^{-1}E(v_{n})+E(v)(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{2}(w_{n})
-v(E^{2}-1)^{-1}w_{n}+\nonumber\\&w(E+1)^{-1}(1-E)w(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E(w_{n})+E^{2}(u_{n})+(1-E^{2})\eta_{n}
\label{a1},\\
v_{n+1}=&w
E(u_{n})+vv_{n}-u(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{-1}(w_{n})+E(u)(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{2}(w_{n})+\nonumber \\
&(1-E^{2})p(1-E^{2})^{-1}
\frac{p_{n}}{p}+E^{2}(p_{n})+(E^{-1}(w)-wE) \eta_{n}\label{a2},\\
u_{n+1}=&wE(p_{n})+u(E+1)^{-1}(E+1+E^{-1})v_{n}-p(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{-2}(w_{n})+\nonumber\\
&u(E+1)^{-1}(E-1)E^{-1}(w)(E^{2}-1)^{-1}w_{n}+E(p)(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{2}(w_{n})+\nonumber\\
&(E^{-2}(w)-w
E)p(1-E^{2})^{-1}\frac{p_{n}}{p}+vu_{n}+(E^{-1}(v)-v)\eta_{n}\label{a3},\\
p_{n+1}=&uE^{-1}(u_{n})+p(1+E^{-2})v_{n}+p(E^{-1}-E^{-2})w(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E(w_{n})
+\nonumber \\
&(E^{-2}(v)-v)p(1-E^{2})^{-1}\frac{p_{n}}{p}+vp_{n}+(E^{-1}(u)-uE^{-1})\eta_{n},
\label{a4}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{n}=&(E^{2}(p)-E(p)E^{2})^{-1}[E^{2}(u)E(p_{n})+E^{2}(p)u_{n}+
(uE^{2}(p)-E^{2}(u)E(p))\nonumber\\
&(1-E^{2})^{-1}E^{2}(\frac{p_{n}}{p})].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
**2.** For the case $k=1$, $\alpha=-2$, the recursion relation between the $n+1$-th and $n$-th elements of the hierarchy is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{u}_{n+1}=&E^{-2}(\bar{w}_{n})+\bar{u}(1+E)^{-1}(E-1)\bar{u}(1-E^{2})^{-1}E(\bar{u}_{n})
+\bar{v}\bar{u}_{n}+\bar{u}(1+E)^{-1}\bar{v}_{n}+\nonumber\\&(E^{-1}(\bar{v})-\bar{v})
(1-E^{2})^{-1}\bar{u}_{n}+(1-E^{-2})\bar{\zeta}_{n}\label{b1},\\
\bar{w}_{n+1}=&\bar{u}E^{-1}(\bar{q}_{n})+\bar{w}(1+E)^{-1}(E^{2}+E+1)\bar{v}_{n}+
(E^{-1}(\bar{q})-\bar{q}E^{4})(1-E^{2})^{-1}\bar{u}_{n}+
\nonumber\\&\bar{w}(1+E)^{-1}(1-E)E(\bar{u})(1-E^{2})^{-1}E^{2}(\bar{u}_{n})+\bar{v}\bar{w}_{n}
+(E(\bar{v})-\bar{v})\bar{\zeta}_{n}+\nonumber\\&(E^{2}(\bar{u})-\bar{u}E^{-1})
\bar{q}(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{2}(\frac{\bar{q}_{n}}{\bar{q}})\label{b2},\\
\bar{q}_{n+1}=&\bar{v}\bar{q}_{n}+\bar{w}E(\bar{w}_{n})+\bar{q}(1+E^{2})\bar{v}_{n}
+(E^{2}(\bar{v})-\bar{v})\bar{q}(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{2}(\frac{\bar{q}_{n}}{\bar{q}})+\nonumber\\&\bar{q}(1+E)^{-1}(1-E^{2})E(\bar{u})
(1-E^{2})^{-1}E^{2}(\bar{u}_{n})+
(E(\bar{w})-\bar{w} E)\bar{\zeta}_{n}\label{b3},\\
\bar{v}_{n+1}=&E^{-2}(\bar{q}_{n})+\bar{u}E^{-1}(\bar{w}_{n})+
(E^{-1}(\bar{w})-\bar{w}E^{3})(1-E^{2})^{-1}\bar{u}_{n}+\bar{v}\bar{v}_{n}+\nonumber\\&(E(\bar{u})-\bar{u}E^{-1})
\bar{\zeta}_{n}+
(1-E^{2})\bar{q}(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E^{2}(\frac{\bar{q}_{n}}{\bar{q}}).\label{b4},\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\bar{\zeta}_{n}=(\bar{q}E^{2}-E(\bar{q}))^{-1}[\bar{q}E^{2}(\bar{w}_{n})
+(E^{2}(\bar{w})\bar{q}E-
\bar{w}E(\bar{q}))(E^{2}-1)^{-1}E(\frac{\bar{q}_{n}}{\bar{q}})].\nonumber$$
From the recursion relations obtained in both cases, we can construct the recursion operators of the hierarchies.
[100]{} A.S. Fokas and I.M. Gel’fand, [*Bi-Hamiltonian structures and integrability*]{}, in [**Recent developments in soliton theory**]{}, edited by A.S. Fokas and V.E. Zakharov, Springer-Verlag, New York , 1992. L.A. Dickey, [**Soliton Equations and Hamiltonian Systems**]{}, World Scientific, Singapore (1991). M. Blaszak, [**Multi-Hamiltonian Theory of Dynamical Systems**]{}, (Texts and Monographs in Physics) Springer, Berlin (1998) E. Frenkel, [Internat. Math. Res. Notices]{}, [**No.2**]{}, 55-76 (1996) ([arXiv:q-alg/9511003]{}). B. Khesin, V. Lyubashenko and C. Roger, [Journal of Functional Analysis]{}, [**143**]{}, 55-97 (1997). M. Adler, E. Horozov and P. van Moerbeke, [Phys. Lett. ]{} [**A 242**]{}, 139-151 (1998). B. Aulbach and S. Hilger, [*Linear Dynamic Process with Inhomogeneous Time Scale*]{}, in: [**Nonlinear Dynamics and Quantum Dynamical Systems**]{} (Gaussing, 1990), [Math. Res.,]{} [**59**]{}, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1990, pp.9-20. S. Hilger, [Results Math.]{}, [**18**]{}, 18-56 (1990). V. Kac and P. Cheung, [**Quantum Calculus**]{}, Springer Verlag, New York Berlin Heidelberg (2002). M. Bohner and A. Peterson, [**Dynamic Equations on Time Scales: An introduction with Applications**]{}, Birkhauser, Boston (2001). M. Bohner and A. Peterson, Editors, [**Advances in Dynamic Equations on Time Scales**]{}, Birkhauser, Boston (2003). F. M. At[i]{}c[i]{} and G. Sh. Guseinov, [J. Comput. Appl.Math.]{}, [**141**]{}, 75-99 (2002). G. Sh. Guseinov, [J. Math. Anal. Appl.]{}, [**285**]{}, 107-127 (2003). M. Gürses, A. Karasu and V.V. Sokolov, [J. Math. Phys]{}, [**40**]{}, 6473-6490 (1999). M. Blaszak, [Rep. Math. Phys]{}, [**48**]{}, no. 1-2., 27-38 (2001) M. G[" u]{}rses and K. Zheltukhin, [J. Math. Phys.]{} [**42**]{}, 1309-1325 (2001). G. Wilson, [Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., ]{} [**86**]{}, 131-143 (1979).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It was shown recently that, without jeopardizing the success of the $\Lambda$ cold dark matter model on cosmic scales, the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) can be derived as an emergent phenomenon when axionlike dark matter particles condense into superfluid on the galactic scales. We propose in this paper a Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) scalar field conformally coupled to the matter components. To maintain the success of MOND phenomenon of dark matter superfluid on the galactic scales, the fifth force introduced by the DBI scalar should be screened on the galactic scales. It turns out that the screening effect naturally leads to a simple explanation for a longstanding puzzle that the MOND critical acceleration coincides with present Hubble scale. This galactic coincidence problem is solved, provided that the screened DBI scalar also plays the role of dark energy on the cosmic scales.'
author:
- 'Rong-Gen Cai'
- 'Shao-Jiang Wang'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Dark matter superfluid and DBI dark energy
---
Introduction
============
Recently, a novel theory of dark matter (DM) superfluidity [@Berezhiani:2015pia; @Berezhiani:2015bqa] was proposed to combine the success of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) [@Milgrom:1983ca; @Milgrom:1983pn; @Milgrom:1983zz] on galactic scales with the triumph of the $\Lambda$ cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) on cosmic scales. The MOND turns out to be an emergent phenomenon of DM itself on galactic scales due to a MOND-like force between baryons mediated by superfluid phonons of the axionlike particles condensed as superfluid with a coherence length of order the galactic size and a critical temperature of order micro-Kelvin. The $\Lambda$CDM model is eventually recovered beyond galactic scales when the fraction of particles in the condensate decreases with increasing temperature due to larger velocity dispersion and hence larger DM temperature in galaxy clusters.
It was known as the galactic coincidence [@Famaey:2011kh] that a critical acceleration scale appears in various seemingly unrelated Kepler-like laws of galactic dynamics, which cannot be simply explained in a common way in the context of the cold dark matter (CDM) scenario. However, MOND predicts such a universal acceleration scale $a_0\approx10^{-10} \mathrm{m/s^2}$, which should intriguingly happen to be of order the present Hubble scale $H_0\sim a_0$ or more boldly the cosmological constant scale $\Lambda^4\sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2a_0^2$. Although MOND now emerges from DM itself on galactic scales in the context of DM superfluidity, the galactic coincidence still manifests itself as an input parameter in order to fix other parameters to their preferred values. It should be in any case striking that the dark matter and dark energy sectors have such a common scale even though it is currently unclear whether it is just a coincidence or smoking gun for new physics.
It was also known as the cosmic coincidence that the energy density used to account for the late-time cosmic acceleration happens to be the same order of magnitude as the matter components today. Alternative to the standard cosmological constant scenario, one might as well consider a slowly rolling scalar field known as dynamical dark energy (DE) with proper screening mechanisms [@Joyce:2014kja] to hide the fifth force from the local tests of gravity. To at least alleviate the cosmic coincidence, the energy density in the scalar field should at least track [@Zlatev:1998tr; @Steinhardt:1999nw] the background energy density and then grow to dominate the energy budget at late times. Either the screening mechanism or tracking behavior can be realized if general interactions between dark energy and matter components are concerned.
In this paper, we propose a very simple explanation for the galactic coincidence problem by conformally coupling a Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) scalar field with local matter components. To effectively screen the fifth force mediated by the DBI scalar field from the MONDian force mediated by DM superfluid phonons on galactic scales, the galactic coincidence $a_0=\Lambda^2/2gM_{\mathrm{Pl}}\sim H_0$ is derived, provided that the DBI characteristic scale $\Lambda^4\sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2H_0^2\sim(\mathrm{meV})^4$ coincides with current critical energy density for conformal coupling $g\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$. This allows us to interpret the DBI scalar field as a dynamical DE in the presence of a conformal coupling term. The equation of state (EOS) of our DBI dark energy mimics that of Chaplygin gas.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:2\], we review the DM superfluidity and define the MOND transition scale. In Sec. \[sec:3\], we propose a DBI-like scalar conformally coupled with the matter component to solve the galactic coincidence problem. In Sec. \[sec:4\], the possibility of our DBI scalar playing the role of DE is explored. The final section is devoted to conclusions and discussions.
Dark matter superfluid {#sec:2}
======================
In the nonrelativistic regime, DM superfluid [@Berezhiani:2015pia; @Berezhiani:2015bqa] is effectively described by the MOND Lagrangian with a conformal coupling term to baryons, $$\label{eq:MONDTb}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MOND}T_\mathrm{b}}=\frac{2}{3}\Lambda(2m)^{3/2}X\sqrt{|X|}+\frac{\alpha\Lambda\theta}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}T_{\mathrm{b}},$$ where DM particle $m$ is of order $\mathrm{eV}$ to ensure the formation of Bose-Einstein condensation and the phonon excitation $X=\dot{\theta}-m\Phi-(\vec{\nabla}\theta)^2/2m$ is described by the Goldstone boson $\theta$ for a spontaneously broken global $U(1)$ symmetry under the external gravitational potential $\Phi$. The dimensionless parameter $\alpha$ and dimensionful parameter $\Lambda$ can be fixed later by inputting the MOND critical acceleration $a_0$ in order to reproduce the MONDian profile. For static spherically symmetric profile $\theta=\mu t+\varphi(r)$ at constant chemical potential $\mu$ and baryons distribution $T_{\mathrm{b}}=-\rho_{\mathrm{b}}(r)$, the equation of motion (EOM) $$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2\sqrt{2m|X|}\varphi'(r)\right)=\frac{\alpha\rho_{\mathrm{b}}(r)}{2M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}$$ can be integrated for the $X<0$ branch to obtain $$\varphi'(r)\simeq\sqrt{\frac{\alpha M_{\mathrm{b}}(r)}{8\pi M_{\mathrm{Pl}}r^2}}\equiv\sqrt{\kappa}$$ for $\kappa\gg\mu-m\Phi$ with $M_{\mathrm{b}}(r)\equiv4\pi\int_0^rr'^2\mathrm{d}r'\rho_{\mathrm{b}}(r')$, which admits a MONDian acceleration, $$a_{\varphi}=\alpha\frac{\Lambda}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\varphi'\simeq\sqrt{\frac{\alpha^3\Lambda^2}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\frac{GM_{\mathrm{b}}(r)}{r^2}},$$ if one identifies $$\frac{\alpha^3\Lambda^2}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\equiv a_0,$$ hence $\alpha\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$ for $\Lambda\sim\mathrm{meV}$.
The general picture of DM superfluidity is that the DM halo core where galaxies are located is almost entirely condensed and the dynamics is dominated by the MONDian force mediated by the DM superfluid phonons, whereas galaxy clusters are either in a mixed phase or entirely in the normal phase just as those on cosmic scales. Therefore, it is natural to define a MONDian transition radius $$\label{eq:MONDr}
r_{\mathrm{MOND}}=\sqrt{\frac{MG}{a_0}}$$ in the context of the DM superfluid core with core radius $r_{\mathrm{MOND}}$ containing the total mass of $M$. To see that this is a reasonable definition, consider a DM halo with central density $\rho_0\sim M_{r_0}/r_0^3$ and core radius $r_0=\sqrt{M_{r_0}G/a_0}$; one obtains a constant surface density $\rho_0r_0\sim M_{r_0}/r_0^2\sim a_0/G$ independent of galaxy luminosity found recently by several astrophysical observations [@Kormendy:2004se; @Spano:2007nt; @Donato:2009ab; @Gentile:2009bw]. One can even reproduce a sort of baryonic Tully-Fisher relation (BTFR) [@McGaugh:2000sr; @McGaugh:2005qe; @McGaugh:2011ac] $M_{r_0}\sim\rho_0r_0^3\sim(a_0/G)r_0^2\sim v^4/Ga_0$ by using $\rho_0r_0\sim a_0/G$ and $a_0\sim v^2/r_0$. The MONDian transition radius thus serves as a natural separation between the MOND regime $r<r_0$ with $a_{\mathrm{N}}<a_0$ and the Newtonian regime $r>r_0$ with $a_{\mathrm{N}}>a_0$ where $a_{\mathrm{N}}=GM_r/r^2$.
DBIonic screening {#sec:3}
=================
The action of the scalar field we propose in this paper has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DBITm}
\nonumber S_{\mathrm{DBI}T_{\mathrm{m}}}=&\int\mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{-f}\left(-\Lambda^4\sqrt{1-\Lambda^{-4}(\partial\phi)^2}\right)\\
&+\int\mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{-f}\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}T_{\mathrm{m}},\end{aligned}$$ which will be referred to as the $\mathrm{DBI}T_{\mathrm{m}}$ action for short. It should be kept in mind that the same symbol $\Lambda$ used in our action (\[eq:DBITm\]) has nothing to do with that in the action (\[eq:MONDTb\]), although they actually coincide as we will see later. Here, $f$ is the determinant of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric of a 3-brane moving in a five-dimensional Minkowski space with two time dimensions, $$\mathrm{d}s_5^2=-\mathrm{d}w^2+f_{\mu\nu}\mathrm{d}x^{\mu}\mathrm{d}x^{\nu}.$$ Here, the Gaussian normal transverse coordinate $w(x)=\Lambda^{-2}\phi(x)$ is written in terms of the DBI scalar field $\phi(x)$. The first term in $\mathrm{DBI}T_{\mathrm{m}}$ action (\[eq:DBITm\]) can thus be interpreted as a cosmological constant term, $$S=\int\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{-g}(-\Lambda^4)=\int\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{-f}(-\Lambda^4\gamma^{-1}),$$ in terms of the induced metric $g_{\mu\nu}=f_{\mu\nu}-\Lambda^{-4}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi$ on the brane, and the inverse of the induced metric is just $g^{\mu\nu}=f^{\mu\nu}+\Lambda^{-4}\gamma^2\partial^{\mu}\phi\partial^{\nu}\phi$ with an abbreviation $\gamma\equiv1/\sqrt{1-\Lambda^{-4}(\partial\phi)^2}$.
The first term in (\[eq:DBITm\]) differs from the standard DBI action $$S_{\mathrm{DBI}}=\int\mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{-f}\left(-\Lambda^4\sqrt{1+\Lambda^{-4}(\partial\phi)^2}\right)$$ by a flipped sign in front of the derivative term, which as we will see is essential for the so-called DBIonic screening mechanism [@Burrage:2014uwa]. It is worth noting that the first term in (\[eq:DBITm\]) also differs from $$S_{\mathrm{DBIonic}}=\int\mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{-f}\left(\Lambda^4\sqrt{1-\Lambda^{-4}(\partial\phi)^2}\right)$$ in standard DBIonic screening by an overall sign of the action, which as we will see is also essential for the scalar field to mediate a repulsive fifth force and to drive the late-time acceleration. The second term in the $\mathrm{DBI}T_{\mathrm{m}}$ action (\[eq:DBITm\]) describes a conformal coupling of the DBI scalar with the trace of the energy-momentum tensor of background matter fields with strength $g\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$ from the stringy perspective.
Suppose the DBI scalar field $\phi(r)$ with a static and spherically symmetric profile is coupled to a static local source $T_{\mathrm{m}}=-\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(r)$; then, the EOM $$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(\frac{r^2\phi'(r)}{\sqrt{1-\Lambda^{-4}\phi'(r)^2}}\right)=-\frac{g}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(r)$$ can be integrated to give $$\phi'(r)=-\frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{DBI}}}\right)^4}},$$ where a DBI transition radius [@Burrage:2014uwa] $$\label{eq:DBIr}
r_{\mathrm{DBI}}=\frac{1}{\Lambda}\left(\frac{gM}{4\pi M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^{1/2}$$ is introduced to separate the DBI regime $r\gg r_{\mathrm{DBI}}$ with repulsive force $$\vec{a}_{\phi}=-\frac{g}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi'(r)\hat{r}\simeq2g^2 G\frac{M}{r^2}\hat{r}=-2g^2\vec{a}_{\mathrm{N}}$$ from the Newtonian regime $r\ll r_{\mathrm{DBI}}$ with screened force $$\vec{a}_{\phi}=-\frac{g}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi'(r)\hat{r}\simeq-2g^2\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{DBI}}}\right)^2\vec{a}_{\mathrm{N}}.$$
To retain the success of the MOND phenomenon of DM superfluidity on galactic scales, the DBI force should also be screened from the MOND force on the galactic scale, which renders an identification of the DBI transition radius (\[eq:DBIr\]) with the MOND transition radius (\[eq:MONDr\]), $$r_{\mathrm{DBI}}^2=\frac{1}{\Lambda^2}\frac{gM}{4\pi M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\Leftrightarrow r_{\mathrm{MOND}}^2=\frac{MG}{a_0}.$$ Therefore, the galactic coincidence $$a_0=\frac{\Lambda^2}{2gM_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\simeq H_0$$ is derived, provided that $$\Lambda^4\simeq M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2H_0^2\simeq(\mathrm{meV})^4$$ for a conformal coupling $g$ of order unity. It turns out as a nice surprise that $\Lambda^4$ coincides with current critical energy density and $\Lambda$ in the $\mathrm{DBI}T_{\mathrm{m}}$ action (\[eq:DBITm\]) matches that in the $\mathrm{MOND}T_{\mathrm{b}}$ action (\[eq:MONDTb\]). This is why we use the same symbol for the scale $\Lambda$ in both actions (\[eq:MONDTb\]) and (\[eq:DBITm\]), which shares the same scale with the cosmological constant.
DBI dark energy {#sec:4}
===============
The repulsive feature of the DBI force and the unexpected match of $\Lambda^4$ with the current critical energy density inspire us to explore the possibility of our DBI scalar field playing the role of dark energy.
We start with the total Lagrangian $$\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\phi}+\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\phi T}+\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\phi}&=-\Lambda^4\sqrt{1-\Lambda^{-4}(\partial\phi)^2};\\
\mathcal{L}_{\phi T}&=\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}T_{\mathrm{m}};\\
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}}&=\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}}(f_{\mu\nu},\psi).\end{aligned}$$
Backreaction on matter
----------------------
In the absence of the conformal coupling term, the matter component is supposed to behave as a pressureless fluid with the trace $T_{\mathrm{m}}=-\rho_{\mathrm{m}}$ of the energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}^{\mathrm{m}}=(2/\sqrt{-f})\delta(\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}})/\delta f^{\mu\nu}$. In the presence of the conformal coupling term, the matter field could exchange momentum by interacting with the DBI scalar field. Therefore, the conformal coupling term would necessarily introduce an effective pressure in the matter fluid, and the effective EOS parameter of matter could in principle deviate from zero. We will show below that such a deviation from pressureless fluid can be made arbitrarily small for a sub-Planckian DBI scalar.
The EOM of the DBI scalar field for a spatial homogenous profile $\phi(t)$ is simply $$\label{eq:EOM}
\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}\gamma^{-2}+\frac{gT_{\mathrm{m}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\gamma^3}=0,$$ according to the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\frac{\partial{(\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\phi}+\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\phi T})}}{\partial\phi}=\partial_{\mu}\frac{\partial(\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\phi}+\sqrt{-f}\mathcal{L}_{\phi T})}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\phi)}.$$
In the absence of the conformal coupling term, the energy-momentum tensor of the DBI scalar field can be computed as $$\label{eq:T1}
T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi}=f_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{L}_{\phi}-\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_{\phi}}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)}\partial_{\nu}\phi$$ with its energy density and pressure of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\phi}=&\Lambda^4\gamma;\\
p_{\phi}=&-\Lambda^4\gamma^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of the conformal coupling term, the conservation equation of the above energy-momentum tensor should be written as $$\label{eq:conservation1}
\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi}=-\frac{gT_{\mathrm{m}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\partial_{\nu}\phi,$$ where the temporal component of the above equation reads $$\label{eq:conservation10}
\dot{\rho}_{\phi}+3H(\rho_{\phi}+p_{\phi})=-\frac{g\rho_{\mathrm{m}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\dot{\phi},$$ which is consistent with the EOM (\[eq:EOM\]).
In the absence of the conformal coupling term, the EOM (\[eq:EOM\]) has a trivial solution $\dot{\phi}=0$, and the EOS parameter $$w_{\phi}=\frac{p_{\phi}}{\rho_{\phi}}=-\gamma^{-2}\equiv-1-\Lambda^{-4}\dot{\phi}^2$$ would simply imply a cosmological constant with $w_{\phi}=-1$. In the presence of the conformal coupling term, the EOM (\[eq:EOM\]) cannot admit such a trivial solution $\dot{\phi}=0$ unless $\phi$ is always equal to zero, which is of less physical interest. Therefore, our DBI scalar should generally behave as a dynamical Chaplygin gas [@Kamenshchik:2001cp] $p_{\phi}=-\Lambda^8/\rho_{\phi}$ with phantomlike EOS parameter and superluminal sound speed [@Mukhanov:2005bu] $c_s^2=\dot{p}/\dot{\rho}=\gamma^{-2}$, where the closed timelike curves are argued to be evaded within the regime of validity of the effective field theory (EFT) due to chronology protection [@Burrage:2011cr; @Babichev:2007dw]. With slow-roll condition $\dot{\phi}\ll\Lambda^2$, our DBI scalar could serve as a candidate for the DE sector. We will show below that such a slow-roll condition can be satisfied for a sub-Planckian DBI scalar as well.
To derive the conservation equation for the matter component, we start with an alternative definition of the energy-momentum tensor for the DBI scalar, $$\label{eq:T2}
T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi+\phi T}=f_{\mu\nu}(\mathcal{L}_{\phi}+\mathcal{L}_{\phi T})-\frac{\partial(\mathcal{L}_{\phi}+\mathcal{L}_{\phi T})}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)}\partial_{\nu}\phi,$$ with its energy density and pressure of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\phi T}=&\Lambda^4\gamma+\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\rho_{\mathrm{m}};\\
p_{\phi T}=&-\Lambda^4\gamma^{-1}-\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\rho_{\mathrm{m}}.\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of the conformal coupling term, the conservation equation of the above energy-momentum tensor should be written as $$\label{eq:conservation2}
\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi+\phi T}=\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\partial_{\nu}T_{\mathrm{m}},$$ where the temporal component of the above equation reads $$\label{eq:conservation20}
\dot{\rho}_{\phi T}+3H(\rho_{\phi T}+p_{\phi T})=\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\dot{\rho}_{\mathrm{m}},$$ which is also consistent with the EOM (\[eq:EOM\]).
Since the total energy-momentum tensor is conserved, the conservation equation of the energy-momentum tensor of the matter component is thus $$\label{eq:conservation3}
\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}^{\mathrm{m}}=-\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\partial_{\nu}T_{\mathrm{m}},$$ where the temporal component of the above equation reads $$\label{eq:conservation30}
\dot{\rho}_{\mathrm{m}}+3H\rho_{\mathrm{m}}=-\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\dot{\rho}_{\mathrm{m}}.$$ The source term on the right-hand side of above equation can be accounted for by recognizing the effective EOS parameter of the matter component as $$w_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+\frac{g\phi}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}-1.$$ Therefore, the backreaction of the DBI field on the matter component due to the conformal coupling term can be safely neglected in the field region $\phi\ll M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ of the DBI scalar for conformal coupling of order unity. From now on, we will take a fiducial value $g=1$ for the conformal coupling in order to solve the galactic coincidence problem.
Steady flow assumption
----------------------
In the rest of this section, we will work with the assumption, called the *steady flow* assumption, that the energy flow from the DBI scalar to the matter component is conserved. We define the energy flow as the energy-momentum tensor associated with the conformal coupling term $$T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi T}=T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi+\phi T}-T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi}=f_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{L}_{\phi T};$$ then, steady flow assumption is expressed as $$\label{eq:conservation4}
\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi T}=\frac{g}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\partial_{\nu}(\phi T_{\mathrm{m}})=0,$$ where the temporal component of the above equation reads $$\label{eq:conservation40}
\dot{\phi}\rho_{\mathrm{m}}+\phi\dot{\rho}_{\mathrm{m}}=0.$$ The steady flow assumption simply states that, although the energy-momentum tensors of the DBI field and matter field are not separately conserved as indicated in Eqs. (\[eq:conservation1\]) and (\[eq:conservation3\]), there is no loss during the energy transfer from the DBI scalar to the matter component and the total energy-momentum tensor of the DBI field and the matter field is conserved, namely, $\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi}+\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}^{\mathrm{m}}=-\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi T}=0$. We will justify numerically the steady flow assumption below.
With the steady flow assumption, one can solve the DBI field $$\phi(a)=\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{g}W\left(\frac{g\phi_0}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}e^{\frac{g\phi_0}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^3\right)$$ analytically by combining Eq. (\[eq:conservation30\]) with Eq. (\[eq:conservation40\]), where $\phi_0\equiv\phi(a=a_0)$ with present-day scale factor $a_0\equiv1$ and $W(z)$ is the Lambert W function defined by $z=W(z)\exp[W(z)]$. Hence, the evolution equation (\[eq:conservation30\]) of the matter component can be directly integrated to give $$\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(a)=\rho_{\mathrm{m}0}\exp\left(-3\int_{a_0}^{a}\frac{\mathrm{d}\ln a'}{1+W\left(\frac{g\phi_0}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}e^{\frac{g\phi_0}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\left(\frac{a'}{a_0}\right)^3\right)}\right).$$ The evolutions of DBI field, the effective EOS parameter of matter component, the matter energy density, and the conformal coupling term are presented in Fig. \[fig:phi and so on\]
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
The backreaction of the DBI field on the matter component is negligible during the matter dominated era as long as a sub-Planckian field value for the DBI field at present is specified. However, the effective EOS parameter of the matter component will eventually approach $-1$ in the future, causing an unavoidable vacuum decay to matter, saving us from big rip singularity as we will see. The steady flow assumption is justified by a constant conformal coupling term. At small scale factor $a\ll1$, the evolution of the Lambert W function $W(a^3)\sim a^3$ compensates the evolution of the matter component $\rho_{\mathrm{m}}\sim a^{-3}$ to render a constant conformal coupling term $\phi T_{\mathrm{m}}\sim W(a^3)\rho_{\mathrm{m}}\sim\mathrm{const}$. At a large scale factor, the constant nature of the conformal coupling term is nontrivial.
The evolution of the energy density of the DBI field can be solved numerically by rewriting Eq. (\[eq:conservation10\]) as $$\rho'_{\phi}(a)+\frac{3}{a}\left(\rho_{\phi}(a)-\frac{\Lambda^8}{\rho_{\phi}(a)}\right)=-\frac{g\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(a)}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi'(a).$$ With numerical solution $\rho_{\phi}(a)$, one can evaluate all other quantities like $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\phi}(a)&=-\left(\Lambda^{-4}\rho_{\phi}(a)\right)^{-2};\\
w_{\phi}^{\mathrm{eff}}(a)&=w_{\phi}(a)+\frac{g a}{3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi'(a)\frac{\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(a)}{\rho_{\phi}(a)};\\
\rho_{\phi T}(a)&=\rho_{\phi}(a)+\frac{g}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi(a)\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(a);\\
w_{\phi T}(a)&=\frac{-\frac{\Lambda^8}{\rho_{\phi}(a)}-\frac{g}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi(a)\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(a)}{\rho_{\phi}(a)+\frac{g}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi(a)\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(a)};\\
w_{\phi T}^{\mathrm{eff}}(a)&=w_{\phi T}(a)-\frac{g a}{3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\phi(a)\frac{\rho'_{\mathrm{m}}(a)}{\rho_{\phi T}(a)},\end{aligned}$$ where the effective EOS parameters $w_{\phi}^{\mathrm{eff}}(a)$ and $w_{\phi T}^{\mathrm{eff}}(a)$ of the DBI scalar field are defined by rewriting Eqs. (\[eq:conservation10\]) and (\[eq:conservation20\]) in a form without the interacting term, $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{\rho}_{\phi}+3H(1+w_{\phi}^{\mathrm{eff}})\rho_{\phi}=0;\\
&\dot{\rho}_{\phi T}+3H(1+w_{\phi T}^{\mathrm{eff}})\rho_{\phi T}=0.\end{aligned}$$ The evolutions of the above quantities are plotted in Fig. \[fig:rhophi and so on\].
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
The division of DBI fluid from matter fluid is somewhat artificial since the DBI scalar and matter component are coupled together. However, the difference between definitions (\[eq:T1\]) and (\[eq:T2\]) of the energy-momentum tensor of the DBI scalar are shown to be negligible in Fig. \[fig:rhophi and so on\]; therefore, we will just stick to Eq. (\[eq:T1\]) for the sake of simplicity. We also compute the evolution of the Hubble parameter by $3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2H(a)^2=\rho_{\phi T}(a)+\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(a)+\rho_{\mathrm{r}}(a)$ and the fractions of energy density by $\Omega_i(a)=\rho_i(a)/3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2H(a)^2$ in Fig. \[fig:Hubble and Omega\].
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
It is worth noting that the DBI scalar relaxes its phantom nature by vacuum decaying to matter, preventing the matter component from being diluted away and leading to a constant Hubble parameter in the asymptotic future free of big rip singularity.
Slow-roll conditions
--------------------
Last but not least, it is the slow-roll condition $$\label{eq:slow-roll 1}
\frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{\Lambda^4}\ll1$$ that allows us to interpret our DBI scalar as a candidate for the dark energy sector. To evaluate analytically the EOS parameter of our DBI DE, we propose a second slow-roll condition, $$\label{eq:slow-roll 2}
\left|\frac{\ddot{\phi}}{3H\dot{\phi}\gamma^{-2}}\right|\ll1,\left|\frac{\ddot{\phi}}{\frac{g\rho_{\mathrm{m}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\gamma^3}}\right|\ll1,$$ on the EOM (\[eq:EOM\]) and find that $$\dot{\phi}^2\simeq\frac{g^2T_{\mathrm{m}}^2}{9M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2H^2\gamma^2}.$$ Recalling that the factor $\gamma\equiv1/\sqrt{1+\Lambda^{-4}\dot{\phi}^2}$ and the matter component $T_{\mathrm{m}}=-\rho_{\mathrm{m}}=-3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2H^2\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}$ and the galactic coincidence $\Lambda^4=4g^2M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2H_0^2$, one can immediately derive from the above equation the EOS parameter $$\label{eq:EOS}
w_{\phi}=-\gamma^{-2}\simeq\frac{1}{-1+E^2\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}^2/4},$$ where the reduced Hubble parameter $E=H/H_0$ is understood and the conformal coupling $g$ is surprisingly canceled out. Testing Eq. (\[eq:EOS\]) with the present value of matter fraction $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}0}\approx0.3$, one finds the present value of the EOS of our DBI DE, $$\label{eq:w0}
w_{\phi0}\simeq\frac{1}{-1+\Omega_{\mathrm{m}0}^2/4}\approx-1.023,$$ perfectly matching the Planck 2015 constraints [@Ade:2015xua]. A distinct feature of our DBI DE is that $w_{\phi0}$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}0}$ are strongly correlated without other free parameters encountered. Although behaving mildly like the phantom at present, our DBI DE will relax its phantom nature by vacuum decaying to matter, preventing matter from being diluted away, resulting in a constant Hubble parameter and leading to a de Sitter future free of big rip singularity. The validity of the first and second slow-roll conditions (\[eq:slow-roll 1\]) and (\[eq:slow-roll 2\]) is presented in Fig. \[fig:slow-roll\].
![The evolutions of the first slow-roll condition $\dot{\phi}^2\ll\Lambda^4$ and the second slow-roll condition $|\ddot{\phi}|\ll3H\dot{\phi}\gamma^{-2}, |\ddot{\phi}|\ll\frac{g\rho_{\mathrm{m}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\gamma^3}$, with respect to the scale factor for initial conditions $\phi_0/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}.$[]{data-label="fig:slow-roll"}](phidot.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
![The evolutions of the first slow-roll condition $\dot{\phi}^2\ll\Lambda^4$ and the second slow-roll condition $|\ddot{\phi}|\ll3H\dot{\phi}\gamma^{-2}, |\ddot{\phi}|\ll\frac{g\rho_{\mathrm{m}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\gamma^3}$, with respect to the scale factor for initial conditions $\phi_0/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}.$[]{data-label="fig:slow-roll"}](onebytwo.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
![The evolutions of the first slow-roll condition $\dot{\phi}^2\ll\Lambda^4$ and the second slow-roll condition $|\ddot{\phi}|\ll3H\dot{\phi}\gamma^{-2}, |\ddot{\phi}|\ll\frac{g\rho_{\mathrm{m}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\gamma^3}$, with respect to the scale factor for initial conditions $\phi_0/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}.$[]{data-label="fig:slow-roll"}](onebythree.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
Conclusions and discussions {#sec:5}
===========================
It was recently claimed that the axionlike dark matter particles can condense on galactic scales as a superfluid, the phonons of which mediate MONDian force between baryons, and thus MOND arises as an emergent phenomenon of dark matter itself. The standard $\Lambda$CDM model is recovered on cosmic scales in the presence of dark matter particles in the normal phase instead of the condensed phase. We have proposed to study the possible origin of the MOND critical acceleration scale in the context of dark matter superfluidity. We have introduced a DBI-like scalar field conformally coupled to the matter components. It turns out that the MOND critical acceleration is roughly at the same magnitude with the present Hubble scale, provided that the conformally coupled DBI scalar plays the role of dark energy.
However, one might be concerned with the possible ghost problem of our proposal. In canonical quantum field theory, a Lagrangian with a wrong-sign kinetic term, after canonical quantization, usually admits the negative norm states with negative energy, namely, the ghost states. If there are no other fields directly coupled to the ghost field, it would not cause us any trouble. However, if there are other fields with a correct-sign kinetic term directly coupled to the ghost field, the vacuum would be unstable because it could generate a pair of ghost particles with negative energy and a pair of normal particles with positive energy. We argue that the possible ghost problem might not be as pronounced as it appears to be due to the following three features encountered in our model. First, the Hamiltonian density turns out to be positive and bounded below, which suggests that there might be a stable vacuum where ghost particles can condense. Second, the equation of motion is second order in the time derivative, which might evade the ghost problem from the view point of Ostrogradsky’s theorem. Third, even if the ghosts indeed exist, they are indirectly coupled to the matter fields via the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Since the matter fields act as a source term, there are simply no sources for ghosts to be generated when DBI-like scalar field come to dominate. This might explain why the equation of state of our DBI dark energy approaches $-1$ in the end. Therefore, our model should be treated as a phenomenological model which requires further study in the future.
S.J.W. would like to thank Lasha Berezhiani and Alexander Vikman for helpful correspondences and Bin Hu, Jian-Wei Hu, Qi Guo, and Run-Qiu Yang for helpful discussions. We would like to thank an anonymous referee for greatly improving the presentation and validity of the paper. R.G.C. is supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Grant No.XDB09000000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'During the adiabatic time evolution levels crossing violates the adiabaticity and makes transitions between levels possible. Conventionally only two energy levels cross simultaneously. The transition probabilities for this case were found by Landau and Zener [@landau],[@zener]. However, the multilevel crossing happens systematically rather than occasionally if the Hamiltonian possesses a special symmetry. The simplest physical realization of the multilevel crossing are the Zeeman multiplet in a varying magnetic field and an electron in one-dimensional chain driven by the time-dependent electric field. We present asymptotics of the transition amplitudes for these kinds of the multilevel crossing. They are based on an exact solution for a model n-state, time-dependent Schrödinger equation.'
address: |
$^1$Department of Physics, Texas A&M University, College Station,\
Texas 77843-4242,\
$^2$Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chernogolovka, Moscow region\
142432, Russia
author:
- 'V.L. Pokrovsky$^{1,2}$, N.A. Sinitsyn$^1$'
title: 'On the generalized Landau-Zener problem.'
---
[2]{} Landau-Zener theory is one of the most important and influential results in non-stationary quantum mechanics. It has numerous applications ranging from the molecular dissociation [@LL], slow atomic and molecular collisions [@collisions] to electron transfer in biomolecules [@biomolecules]. Recently it was successfully employed for the experimental determination of very small tunnel splittings [@WS1] and quantum phase interference [@WS2] in molecular nanomagnets.
Landau-Zener (LZ) theory [@landau],[@zener] deals with an adiabatic process in a quantum system with discrete spectrum under external bias. The adiabaticity is violated when a pair of levels move towards each other strongly enhancing the transitions between the two states. LZ determined the transition probabilities for the two-level crossing.
LZ theory considers the crossing of more than two levels at one moment of time to be an unlikely process. However, in some systems such a crossing may occur systematically stemming from high symmetry of the underlying Hamiltonian. A realistic example is a multiplet of atomic electronic states with the total spin $S$ or total rotational moment $J$ larger than 1/2 in varying external magnetic or electric field. The Zeeman splitting between $%
2S+1$ or $2J+1$ levels regularly vanishes at nodes of the magnetic field.
Another example is provided by localized electronic states in a symmetric crystal environment. This degeneracy can be lifted by driving external fields, as in the previous example and by the Jahn-Teller effect. A similar degeneracy is displayed by a large spin placed in a crystal environment of high symmetry [@vk]. For some specific Hamiltonians employed in nanomagnets theory the existence of multilevel crossing at specific values of parameters (components of magnetic field) was shown [@diab],[@diab2]. Though this degeneracy probably is unstable with respect to perturbations of the Hamiltonian, these perturbations are small for real nanomagnets as it was demonstrated in the experiment by Wernsdorfer [*et al.*]{}[@WS2].
In this work we find analytically the transition amplitudes for special cases of multilevel crossing. For this special symmetry the transition amplitudes can be expressed in terms of a two-level problem. Physically this case corresponds to transitions in the Zeeman multiplet placed into a strong, time-dependent magnetic field directed along a constant axis ($z$) and a weak, slowly varying or constant magnetic field in the perpendicular direction ($x$).
The time-dependent Shrödinger equations for two levels are:
$$\begin{aligned}
i\dot{b}_1 = E_1(t)b_1+\Delta(t)b_2 \nonumber \\
i\dot{b}_2= E_2(t)b_2 +\Delta(t)b_1 \label{2c2}\end{aligned}$$
Near a crossing point the dependence of energy levels on time is approximately linear $E_{\alpha}(t)=\dot{E}_{\alpha}t;\,\,\alpha =1,2$, whereas the non-diagonal matrix elements of the Hamiltonian can be taken constants. In terms of new amplitudes $a_{1,2}=e^{-i(\dot{E}_1+\dot{E}_2)t^2
/4}b_{1,2}$, after a time rescaling, equations (\[2c2\]) can be simplified as follows [@zener]:
$$\begin{aligned}
i\dot{a}_{1} &=&ta_{1}/2+\gamma a_{2} \nonumber \\
i\dot{a}_{2} &=&-ta_{2}/2+\gamma a_{1} \label{2c1}\end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma =\Delta /\sqrt{\dot{\Omega}},\,\,\,\dot{\Omega}=\dot{E}_{1}-%
\dot{E}_{2}$. Eliminating $a_{2}$ from these equations, we find the parabolic cylinder equation for $a_{1}(t)$. Its solution which has asymptotics $a_{1}\simeq \exp (-\frac{it^{2}}{4}-i\gamma ^{2}\ln |t|)$ (and $%
a_{2}=0)$ at $t\rightarrow -\infty $ is the Weber function $D_{-i\gamma
^{2}}(e^{i\pi /4}t)$ whose asymptotics are well known [@gradstein]. The scattering matrix for the two-level system is conveniently written in terms of modified amplitudes $c_{1}=a_{1}\exp (if);\,\,c_{2}=a_{2}\exp (-if)$ where $f=\frac{t^{2}}{4}+\gamma ^{2}\ln |t|$. It reads:
$$U_{\infty }=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\exp (-\pi \gamma ^{2}) & -\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }\exp (-\frac{\pi \gamma ^{2}}{2}%
+\frac{i\pi}{4})}{\gamma \Gamma (-i\gamma ^{2})} \\
\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }\exp (\frac{\pi \gamma ^{2}}{2}-\frac{i\pi}{4})}{\gamma
\Gamma ( i\gamma ^{2})} & \exp (-\pi \gamma ^{2})
\end{array}
\right) \label{2l-S-matr}$$
Let us consider a system with the total spin $S>1/2$ in constant magnetic field $H_{x}$ along $x$-direction and varying with time, much larger in average field $H_{z}(t)$ along $z$-direction. Its time evolution is regulated by the Hamiltonian: $$\hat{H}_{S}=-h_{x}\hat{S}_{x}-h_{z}(t)\hat{S}_{z} \label{h1}$$ where $h_{\alpha }=g\mu _{B}H_{\alpha };\,\,\alpha =x,z$ and $\hat{S_{z}},%
\hat{S_{x}}$ are the spin operators. In he vicinity of its node $h_{z}(t)$ can be approximated by a linear function $h_{z}(t)=\dot{h}_{z}t$ where $\dot{%
h}_{z}$ is the time derivative of $h_{z}(t)$ taken at the node. After a proper rescaling of time and energy the Hamiltonian (\[h1\]) takes a following form: $$\hat{H}=2\gamma \hat{S_{x}}+t\hat{S_{z}} \label{h2}$$ It depends on one dimensionless parameter $\gamma =\frac{h_{x}}{\sqrt{\dot{h}%
_{z}}}$ (the LZ parameter). This Hamilton operator belongs to the $SO(3)$ algebra. This fact allows to derive the evolution of an arbitrary spin $S$ in a varying magnetic field from the solution of Schrödinger equation for spin $1/2$ in the same field. The corresponding evolution operator $%
U_{S}(t)$ is an operator of rotation belonging to the group $SO(3)$ and acting in its irreducible representation. Since the composition law does not depend on a specific representation, the resulting evolution operator at a fixed moment of time represents the same rotation for any spin. Thus, the problem is reduced to expression of the rotation operator for spin $S$ if it is known for spin $1/2$. Note that the Hamiltonians (\[h1\],\[h2\]) are most general for the case of 2-level crossing.
The multi-spinor technique is most appropriate for this purpose (see [@LL], ch. VIII). In general the spin S state can be represented as a direct symmetric product of 2S spin 1/2 states: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| S,m\right\rangle =\sqrt{\frac{(S+m)!(S-m)!}{(2S)!}}\left( \left|
++...+--...-\right\rangle +\right.\nonumber\\
\left.\left| ++...-+-...-\right\rangle +...\right)
\label{multispin}\end{aligned}$$ where each ket contains $S+m$ spins up and $S-m$ spins down and all permutations are performed. Let the $SU(2)$ matrix rotating spin 1/2 states is:
$$u=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
a & b \\
-b^{*} & a^{*}
\end{array}
\right) \label{su2}$$
with $|a|^{2}+|b|^{2}=1$. Equivalently an individual spinor is transformed according to:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left| +\right\rangle &\rightarrow &a\left| +\right\rangle -b^{*}\left|
-\right\rangle ; \nonumber \\
\left| -\right\rangle &\rightarrow &b\left| +\right\rangle +a^{*}\left|
-\right\rangle \label{transf2}\end{aligned}$$
The transformation for the state (\[multispin\]) can be obtained as the direct product of transformations (\[transf2\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\left| S,m\right\rangle \rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{(S+m)!(S-m)!}{(2S)!}}%
a^{S+m}(-b^{*})^{S-m}\left| S,S\right\rangle +\nonumber\\
\left( \frac{\sqrt{2S}(2S-1)!}{%
(S-m-1)!(S+m)!}a^{S+m}(-b^{*})^{S-m-1}a^{*}+
\frac{\sqrt{2S}(2S-1)!}{(S+m-1)!(S-m)!}a^{S+m-1}(-b^{*})^{S-m}b\right)
\left| S,S-1\right\rangle ... \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A general matrix element of the rotation operator $\langle m\mid U_{S}\mid m^{\prime }\rangle$ for the spin S representation is expressed in terms of $a,b,a^{*},b^{*}$ in the following way [@edmonds], [@3v]: $$\langle m\mid U_{S}\mid m^{\prime }\rangle =\left[ \frac{(S+m^{\prime
})!(S-m^{\prime })!}{(S+m)!(S-m)!}\right] ^{1/2}a^{m^{\prime
}+m}b^{m^{\prime }-m}P_{S-m^{\prime }}^{m^{\prime }-m,m^{\prime
}+m}(2|a|^{2}-1) \label{general}$$ where $P_{n}^{a,b}(x)$ are the Jacobi polynomials [@erdelyi]. The matrix elements possess the following symmetry properties: $\langle -m\mid
U_{S}\mid -m^{\prime }\rangle =(-1)^{|m|+|m^{\prime }|}\langle m\mid
U_{S}\mid m^{\prime }\rangle ^{*}$, $\left| \langle m\mid U_{S}\mid
m^{\prime }\rangle \right| =\left| \langle m^{\prime }\mid U_{S}\mid
m\rangle \right| =\left| \langle -m^{\prime }\mid U_{S}\mid -m\rangle
\right| $.
Equation (\[general\]) displays oscillations of matrix elements associated with oscillatory behavior of the Jacobi polynomials. The number of nodes $%
N(m,m^{\prime})$ of the matrix elements $\langle m\mid U_S\mid
m^{\prime}\rangle$ can be determined geometrically as the number of the square shell to which it belongs in the square matrix. We accept the number of the external square with $max(|m|,|m^{\prime}|)=S$ for zero and number is increasing when the square shell size is decreasing. Analytically $%
N(m,m^{\prime})=S-max(|m|,|m^{\prime}|)$. Due to symmetry several matrix elements (2, 4 or 8) become zero at the same value of $|a|$ or $\gamma$. Central matrix elements have maximal number of nodes ($S$ for integer spins, $S-1/2$ for half-integer spins).
The scattering matrix for our problem can be found from the general expression (\[general\]) by substitution: $$a=\exp (-\pi \gamma ^{2}),\,\,\,\,b=-\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }\exp {(\frac{\pi
\gamma ^{2}}{2}+\frac{i\pi }{4})}}{\gamma \Gamma (-i\gamma ^{2})}
\label{a,b}$$ which follows from comparison of equations (\[2l-S-matr\],\[su2\]). To make our results more visual, we present explicitly the scattering matrices for spins $S=1$ and $S=3/2$:
$S=1$.
$$U_{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{lll}
a^{2} & \sqrt{2}ab & b^{2} \\
-\sqrt{2}ab^{*} & 2|a|^{2}-1 & \sqrt{2}a^{*}b \\
b^{*2} & -\sqrt{2}a^{*}b^{*} & a^{*2}
\end{array}
\right) \label{U11}$$
$S=3/2.$
$$U_{3/2}=\left(
\begin{array}{llll}
a^{3} & \sqrt{3}a^{2}b & \sqrt{3}ab^{2} & b^{3} \\
-\sqrt{3}a^{2}b^{*} & (3|a|^{2}-2)a & (3|a|^{2}-1)b & \sqrt{3}a^{*}b^{2} \\
\sqrt{3}ab^{*2} & -(3|a|^{2}-1)b^{*} & (3|a|^{2}-2)a^{*} & \sqrt{3}a^{*2}b
\\
-b^{*3} & \sqrt{3}a^{*}b^{*2} & -\sqrt{3}a^{*2}b^{*} & a^{*3}
\end{array}
\right) \label{U3/2}$$
To save space we present only several transition probabilities for $S=2$, all the rest can be found from symmetry properties (see above): $W_{2,2-k}=\frac{4!}{k!(4-k)!}(|a|^2)^{4-k}(1-|a|^2)^k,\,\,k=0...4;
W_{1,1}=|a|^4(4|a|^2-3)^2; W_{1,0}=6|a|^2(1-|a|^2)^2(2|a|^2-1)^2;
W_{1,-1}=(1-|a|^2)^2(4|a|^2-1)^2; W_{0,0}=(6|a|^4-6|a|^2+1)^2$. Additionally we present transition probabilities for $S=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
W_{1,1}=e^{-4\pi\gamma^2};\,\,W_{1,0}=2(e^{ -2\pi \gamma ^{2}}-e^{ -4\pi \gamma ^{2}});\nonumber\\
W_{1,-1}=\left( 1-e^{ -2\pi \gamma ^{2}}\right) ^{2};\,\,W_{0,0}=
\left( 1-2e^{ -2\pi\gamma ^{2}}\right) ^{2}.
\label{prob}\end{aligned}$$ Other probabilities can be readily found from symmetry relations. As a consequence of Jacobi polynomials oscillation, the matrix elements of inner squares have nodes at some special values of $\gamma $. Thus, element $%
(U_{1})_{00}$ is zero at $|a|^{2}=1/2$ or at $\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi }%
\ln 2}\approx 0.332$. Elements of the matrix $%
(U_{3/2})_{1/2,1/2}=(U_{3/2})_{-1/2,-1/2}^{*}$ become zero at $|a|^{2}=2/3$, i.e. at $\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi }\ln \frac{3}{2}}\approx 0.254$. Other two matrix elements $(U_{3/2})_{1/2,-1/2}=(U_{3/2})_{-1/2,1/2}^{*}$ become zero at $|a|^{2}=1/3$, i.e. at $\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi }\ln 3}\approx
0.418$. In the matrix $U_{2}$ 4 independent matrix elements have nodes: $%
(U_{2})_{11}$ at $|a|^{2}=3/4$; $(U_{2})_{00}=0$ at $|a|^{2}=\frac{1}{2}%
\left( 1\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right) $; $(U_{2})_{10}=0$ at $|a|^{2}=1/2$; $%
(U_{2})_{1,-1}=0$ at $|a|^{2}=1/4$.
[*Electron motion driven by electric field*]{}. Here we present another exact solution. It describes transitions at intersection of infinite number of equidistant levels. This system can be described by the Hamiltonian, which matrix representation is
$$H_{nm}=nh(t)\delta_{nm}+\gamma t_{nm} \label{h3}$$
where $t_{nm}=1$ if $|n-m|=1$ and zero otherwise. The physical implementation of this model is an electron tunneling in a discrete equidistant chain placed into a varying homogeneous electric field directed along the chain. We have introduced a natural set of states $|n>$ located at the $n$-th site. The tunneling between the sites is suppressed by the external field since it lifts the degeneration of energy. However, when the field becomes zero the tunneling rate grows. Near this point we accept the time dependence of the electric field as linear. Then, after rescaling of time the initial Hamiltonian (\[h3\]) reads:
$$H_{mn}=t\delta _{mn}+g(\delta _{m,n+1}+\delta _{m,n-1}) \label{h4}$$
where $g=\gamma /\sqrt{eE\Delta }$. It corresponds to a system of Shrödinger equations:
$$i\dot{a}_n=nta_n+g(a_{n-1}+a_{n+1}) \label{z1}$$
The problem is to find the scattering matrix for this system. In other words, we are looking for an asymptotic at $t\rightarrow +\infty$ of a solution $a_n(t)$ which obeys the initial condition $|a_n(t)|^2=%
\delta_{n,n^{\prime}}$ at $t\rightarrow -\infty$.
Let introduce an auxiliary function $u(\varphi ,t)=\sum_{n=-\infty }^{\infty
}a_{n}(t)e^{in\varphi }$. System (\[z1\]) is equivalent to a following equation in partial derivatives for $u(\varphi ,t)$: $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+t\frac{\partial u}{\partial \varphi }+2ig\cos
\varphi u\,=\,0 \label{partial}$$ We should find a solution of this equation which obeys the initial condition: $u(\varphi ,t)\rightarrow \exp [in^{\prime }(-\frac{t^{2}}{2}%
+\varphi )]$ at $t\rightarrow -\infty $. Given the solution $u(\varphi ,t)$, the amplitudes $a_{n}(t)$ can be found by the inverse Fourier transformation: $a_{n}(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{0}^{2\pi }u(\varphi
,t)e^{-in\varphi }d\varphi $. The solution of eq. (\[partial\]) which obeys proper boundary conditions is: $$\begin{aligned}
u(\varphi ,t)=\exp \left[ -i\left( 2g\int\limits_{-\infty }^{t}\cos \left(
\varphi -\frac{t^{2}}{2}+\frac{t^{^{\prime }2}}{2}\right) dt^{^{\prime
}}+\right.\right.\nonumber\\
\left.\left. n^{^{\prime }}\left( \varphi -\frac{t^{2}}{2}\right) \right)
\right]
\label{u}\end{aligned}$$ Putting $t=+\infty $ in the solution (\[u\]) and taking the inverse Fourier-transform, we arrive at the asymptotics: $$a_{n}(t)\approx \exp (-int^{2}/2+i(n^{\prime }-n)\pi /4)J_{|n-n^{\prime
}|}(2\sqrt{2\pi }g) \label{ampl}$$ Thus, the scattering amplitudes in terms of modified states with the fast phase factor $\exp (-int^{2}/2)$ incorporated are: $$\langle n\mid U_{\infty }\mid n^{\prime }\rangle =e^{i(n^{\prime }-n)\pi
/4}J_{|n-n^{\prime }|}(2\sqrt{2\pi }g) \label{scat}$$ It displays infinite number of oscillations with the LZ parameter $g$. However, for large $|n-n^{\prime }|$ the oscillations start with $g\gg
|n-n^{\prime }|$. For smaller values of $g$ the amplitudes are small.
This result can be easily extended to a more general non-diagonal matrix elements dep in which hopping from any site to any other site is allowed and its amplitude depends only on distance between sites. The corresponding Hamiltonian has the following matrix elements:
$$H_{mn}=nt\delta _{mn}+g_{m-n};\quad g_{-k}=g_{k}^{*} \label{ext}$$
For simplicity we present below the result for real $g_{k}=g_{-k}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle n\right| U_{\infty }\left| n^{^{\prime }}\right\rangle =\frac{%
e^{i(n^{\prime }-n)\pi /4}}{2\pi }%
\int \limits_{0}^{2\pi }\exp \left( -i2\sqrt{2\pi }f(\varphi
,g_{j})\right.\nonumber\\
\left. +i(n^{^{\prime }}-n)\varphi \right) d\varphi
\label{amplext}\end{aligned}$$
where $f(\varphi ,g_{j})=\sum\nolimits_{k}\frac{g_{k}}{\sqrt{k}}\cos
k\varphi $.
In conclusion, we presented a generalization of the LZ theory for arbitrary number of crossing equidistant levels in the case of time-dependent magnetic field and an electron in an infinite chain subject to a time-dependent electric field. In both cases high symmetry of the problem allows to find not only asymptotics, but also intermediate values of the amplitudes. A number of analytical solutions exists for spin $1/2$ in time dependent magnetic fields [@td] and all they can be generalized for higher spins. At the same time, our results are not universal. If the number of levels is more than two, they can approach to crossing point not equidistantly, and non-diagonal elements of Hamiltonian do not necessarily depend on one parameter only. In the majority of cases when the levels intersect systematically they remain equidistant, but the non-diagonal matrix elements of the Hamiltonian are different from above considered. Even in a simple case of a constant electric field perpendicular to the time dependent magnetic field, the Hamiltonian contains the elements changing the projection $m$ by $\pm 2$. For this case we have found general statement on separability and can reduce the problem to already solved one for $S\leq 2$. On the other hand, our solutions demonstrate phenomena that are probably universal, like oscillations of the transition probabilities.
[*Acknowledgments*]{}. This work was supported by NSF under the grant DMR 0072115 and by DOE under the grant DE-FG03-96ER45598. One of us (VP) acknowledges the support of the Humboldt Foundation. We thank A. Kashuba and W. Saslow for important remarks.
L.D.Landau, Physik Z. Sowjetunion 2, 46 (1932)
C.Zener, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 137, 696 (1932)
L.D.Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics Pergamon, Oxford (1967)
D.S. Crothers, J.G. Huges, J. Phys. B10, L557 (1977)
A. Garg,N. J. Onuchi, V. Ambegaokar, J. Chem. Phys., 83, 4491 (1985)
W. Wernsdorfer, R. Sessoli, Science, 284, 133 (1999)
W. Wernsdorfer, , T. Ohm, C. Sangregorio, R. Sessoli, D. Mailly, C. Paulsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3903 (1999)
A.Garg, Europhys. Lett. 50, 382 (2000), cond-mat/0003113
Ch-S. Park, A. Garg cond-mat/0010373
V.A. Kalatsky, V.L. Pokrovsky, Phys.Rev A, 60, 3, 1824 (1999).
I.S. Gradstein and I.M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series and Products. Academic Press, NY 1965.
A.R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics, Princeton (1957).
A. Erdelyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, F.G. Tricomi, Higher Transcendental Functions, Mc Grow-Hill. NY 1955.
N. Vilenkin, A. Klimyk, Representation of Lie group and special functions, Vols. 1-3 (Kluwer, Dordrecht (1991)
A.M. Ishkhanyan, Optics Communications 176 (2000) 155-161
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantizing the gravitational field described by General relativity being a notorious difficult, unsolved and maybe meaningless problem I use in this essay a different strategy: I consider a linear theory in the framework of Special relativity where the potentials are the components of four linear forms. General relativity and other similar covariant non linear theories can be formulated in this way. The theory that I propose is Lorentz invariant, linear, simple, and can be quantized following similar steps to those that led to quantum electrodynamics.'
author:
- 'Ll. Bel[^1]'
title: 'Quantum gravity: the Inverse problem'
---
Gravity theory
==============
[*Field potentials*]{}
I use Greek indices and doted Greek indices. Both can be raised or lowered with the Minkowski metric $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$; and indices $\rho$ and ${{\dot{\rho}}}$ can be contracted as usual:
$$\label{indices}
\alpha,\beta\cdots\mu=0,1,2,3 \quad {{\dot{\rho}}},{{\dot{\sigma}}}\cdots=0,1,2,3$$
Let us consider four linear forms $\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha$, functions of $x^\alpha$, named the potentials, in the framework of Special relativity. The field components are:
$$\label{Field components}
F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\beta}=\partial_\alpha \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\beta} -\partial_\beta \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha}, \quad F_\alpha=F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\rho}$$
They are invariant under the local gage transformations:
$$\label{gage}
\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha} \mapsto \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha}+\partial_\alpha \zeta^{{\dot{\rho}}}$$
From its definition it follows that:
$$\label{structure eqs}
\partial_{\alpha}F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\beta\gamma}+\partial_{\beta}F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\gamma\alpha}+\partial_{\gamma}F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\beta}=0$$
[*Lagrangian*]{}
Following the steps of Maxwell theory the Lagrangian I am interested in is:
$$\label{Lagrangian}
{\cal L}=-\frac14 F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\beta} F^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_{\lambda\mu}\eta^{\alpha\lambda}\eta^{\beta\mu}\eta_{\rho\sigma}
+\frac12 F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha{{\dot{\rho}}}}F^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_{\lambda{{\dot{\sigma}}}}\eta^{\alpha\lambda}$$
this particular choice being justified later.
This Lagrangian is globally Lorentz invariant, and locally gage invariant. The field equations derived from it are:
$$\label{Field equations}
G^\beta_{{\dot{\rho}}}=j^\beta_{{\dot{\rho}}}$$
$j^\beta_{{\dot{\rho}}}$ being the four conserved currents one wishes to consider as sources, and
$$\label{Gtensor}
G^\beta_{{\dot{\rho}}}= \partial_\alpha F^{\alpha\beta}_{{\dot{\rho}}}-\partial_\alpha F^\alpha \delta^\beta_\rho+\partial_\rho F^\beta,
\quad F_\alpha=F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\rho}$$
is a conserved tensor:
$$\label{conservation}
\partial_\beta G^\beta_{{\dot{\rho}}}\equiv 0$$
[*Metric of space-temps*]{}
The tetrad formalism of General relativity starts also with four linear forms $\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha$ but instead of considering the field variables (\[Field components\]) it uses them to introduce the 4-dimensional Riemannian hyperbolic metric:
$$\label{metric}
g_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{{{\dot{\rho}}}{{\dot{\sigma}}}}\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha \theta^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_\beta$$
and uses as field equations the highly non linear Einstein’s equations, that beautiful and successful as they are at the macroscopic level, they are stubbornly resisting quantization.
This metric is locally Lorentz covariant: $$\label{Lorentz}
\theta^{{{\dot{\rho}}}\prime}_\alpha=L^{{{\dot{\rho}}}^\prime}_{{\dot{\sigma}}}\theta^b_\alpha\Rightarrow
g^\prime_{\alpha\beta}=g_{\alpha\beta}$$ locally meaning that the matrix elements $L^{{{\dot{\rho}}}^\prime}_{{\dot{\sigma}}}$ could be functions of $x^\alpha$. But it is not gage invariant. So that to each solution of the field equations (\[Field equations\]) will correspond a functional family of metrics $g_{\alpha\beta}(x^\alpha,S^{{\dot{\rho}}})$
On the other hand the Weitzenb[ö]{}ck formalism starts with a Riemannian hyperbolic metric but defines the potentials by a diagonal decomposition (\[metric\]) and uses as main concept that of torsion instead of that of curvature, [@Weitzenbock]-[@Maluf].
Let us assume that:
$$\label{thetas}
\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha = \delta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha+\frac12 {\hat f}^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha}, \quad {\hat f}^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha}=O(1)$$
and:
$$\label{symmetry}
\eta_{\alpha\rho}{\hat f}^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\beta-\eta_{\beta\rho}{\hat f}^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha=0$$
where ${\hat f}^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha}$ are small quantities so that its powers can be neglected. The corresponding metric will be:
$$\label{approximate metric}
g_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}+h_{\alpha\beta},$$
where:
$$\label{h's}
h_{\alpha\beta}=\frac12(\eta_{\alpha\rho}{\hat f}^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\beta+\eta_{\beta\rho}{\hat f}^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha)$$
that with a gage transformation (\[gage\]) will become:
$$\label{approximate gage}
g_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}+h_{\alpha\beta}+\frac12(\partial_\alpha \zeta_\beta+\partial_\beta \zeta_\alpha),
\quad \zeta_\alpha=\eta_{\alpha{{\dot{\sigma}}}}\zeta^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_\alpha$$
A straightforward calculation shows that:
$$\label{S=G}
S_{\alpha\beta}=-\frac12 G_{\alpha\beta}$$
where $G_{\alpha\beta}$ is the tensor defined in (\[Gtensor\]) and $S_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Einstein tensor of the linear metric (\[approximate metric\]):
$$\label{Linear Einstein}
S_{\alpha\beta}=R_{\alpha\beta}-\frac12 R\eta_{\alpha\beta}$$
where:
$$R_{\alpha\lambda}=-\frac12\eta^{\beta\mu}(\partial_{\alpha\lambda}h_{\beta\mu}+\partial_{\beta\mu}h_{\alpha\lambda}
-\partial_{\alpha\mu}h_{\beta\lambda}-\partial_{\beta\lambda}h_{\alpha\mu})$$
Therefore a linear new theory based on the Lagrangian (\[Lagrangian\]) is equivalent to Einstein’s theory when both are considered at the linear approximation.
Free Graviton waves
===================
A graviton wave is by definition a solution of the vacuum field equations:
$$\label{vacuum}
G_{\alpha\beta}=0$$
with:
$$\label{waves}
\theta_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}=f_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}\exp(i\, l_{\sigma}x^\sigma), \quad l_\sigma l^\sigma=0$$
the propagation vector $l_\sigma$ being a null vector and the polarization tensor $f_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}$ a constant tensor that by a gage transformation (\[gage\]) where:
$$\label{zeta}
\zeta^{{\dot{\rho}}}=\lambda^{{\dot{\rho}}}\exp(i\,l_\sigma x^\sigma)$$
becomes:
$$\label{Gage fixing}
f^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha \rightarrow f^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha + l_\alpha \lambda^{{\dot{\rho}}}$$
The gage invariant field components are thus:
$$\label{wave fields}
F_{\alpha\beta}^{{\dot{\rho}}}=i(f_\beta^{{\dot{\rho}}}l_\alpha - f_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}l_\beta)\exp(i\, l_{\sigma}x^\sigma),$$
and:
$$\label{wave contraction}
F_\alpha=i(f l_\alpha - f_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}l_\rho)\exp(i l_{\sigma}x^\sigma), \quad f=f_\rho^{{\dot{\rho}}}$$
The vacuum field equations are thus:
$$\label{polarization 1}
-l^\alpha f_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}l_\beta+(l^\alpha f_\alpha^{{\dot{\sigma}}}l_\sigma)\delta_\beta^\rho+l^\rho(f l_\beta-f_\beta^{{\dot{\sigma}}}l_\sigma)=0$$
The contraction of the two indices $\beta$ and ${{\dot{\rho}}}$ yields:
$$\label{scalar equation}
l^\alpha f_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}l_\rho=0$$
and therefore (\[polarization 1\]) becomes:
$$\label{polarization 2}
-l^\alpha f_\alpha^{{\dot{\rho}}}l_\beta+f l_\beta l^\rho-l^\rho f_\beta^{{\dot{\sigma}}}l_\sigma=0$$
Introducing the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of $f_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\rho\beta} f^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha$:
$$\label{sym-ant def}
f^{-}_{\alpha\beta}=\frac12(f_{\alpha\beta}-f_{\beta\alpha}), \quad
f^{+}_{\alpha\beta}=\frac12(f_{\alpha\beta}+f_{\beta\alpha})$$
so that: $$\label{fab}
f_{\alpha\beta}= f^{+}_{\alpha\beta}+ f^{-}_{\alpha\beta}$$ and defining:
$$\label{vector v}
v^{-}_\rho\equiv l^\alpha f^{-}_{\alpha\rho}, \quad v^{+}_\rho\equiv l^\alpha f^{+}_{\alpha\rho}$$
the above equation (\[polarization 2\]) becomes:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sym-ant eq1}
-(v^{+}_\beta l_\rho+v^{+}_\rho l_\beta)+ f l_\beta l_\rho &+& \\
-(v^{-}_\beta l_\rho-v^{-}_\rho l_\beta) &=&0\end{aligned}$$
The first row is symmetric in $\beta$ and $\rho$ and the second row is antisymmetric and therefore the equation is equivalent to the two equations system:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sym-ant eq2}
-(v^{+}_\beta l_\rho+v^{+}_\rho l_\beta)+ f\, l_\beta l_\rho &=&0 \\
-(v_\beta l_\rho-v_\rho l_\beta) &=&0\end{aligned}$$
from where it follows that $$\label{l+,l-}
l^\alpha f^{-}_{\alpha\rho}=a^{-} l_\rho, \quad l^\alpha f^{+}_{\alpha\rho}=\frac12 f l_\rho, \quad f=f_\rho^{{\dot{\rho}}}$$ Using (\[fab\]) leads the two conditions above to the more convenient form:
$$\label{b1,b2}
l^\alpha f_{\alpha\rho}=b_1 l_\rho, \quad l^\alpha f_{\rho\alpha}= b_2 l_\rho,$$
with:
$$\label{f}
b_1+b_2=f \ ;$$
$b_1$ is gage invariant, but $b_2$ is not.
Let $u^\alpha$ be a time-like unit vector, to be named a gage-fixing vector. With a gage transformation (\[Gage fixing\]) we get:
$$\label{e0}
u^\alpha f_{\alpha\beta}\rightarrow u^\alpha f_{\alpha\beta}+(u^\alpha l_\alpha) \zeta_\beta$$
and therefore, since the coefficient of $\zeta_\beta$ is different of zero,it is always possible to implement the condition:
$$\label{g-codition}
u^\alpha f_{\alpha\beta}=0$$
Doing that implies that a gage invariant translation of (\[b1,b2\]) is:
$$\label{GageInv}
f^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\beta}l^\alpha=b_1 \, l^{{\dot{\rho}}}l_\beta,\quad f^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\beta}l_\rho=0$$
Helicities
==========
Let $\vec{e}_0$ be any time-like, gage-fixing unit vector; $\vec{e}_1$ a unit-vector on the 2-plane $\Pi$ defined by $\vec{e}_0$ and $\vec l$, and complete an orthogonal frame with two unit orthogonal vectors $\vec{e}_a$ (a=2,3) on the 2-plane orthogonal to $\Pi$.
Using the conditions (\[GageInv\]), and the above defined reference frame, the strict matrix components of $f_{\alpha\beta}$ are:
--------------- -------------- ----------- -----------
$f_{00}$ $-f_{00}$ $f_{02}$ $f_{03}$
$-f_{00}-b_1$ $f_{00}+b_1$ $-f_{02}$ $-f_{03}$
$f_{20}$ $f_{20}$ $f_{22}$ $f_{23}$
$f_{30}$ $f_{30}$ $f_{32}$ $f_{33}$
--------------- -------------- ----------- -----------
With this simplification the preceding matrix becomes:
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$-b_1$ $b_1$ $0$ $0$
$f_{20}$ $f_{20}$ $f_{22}$ $f_{23}$
$f_{30}$ $f_{30}$ $f_{32}$ $f_{33}$
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Now two cases might be considered. If we assume that the matrix $f_{\alpha\beta}$ is symmetric then the matrix becomes:
----- ----- ------------ ------------
$0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$0$ $0$ $f_+$ $f_\times$
$0$ $0$ $f_\times$ $-f_+$
----- ----- ------------ ------------
This corresponds to an helicity 2 of the graviton.
If we assume that the matrix $f_{\alpha\beta}$ is antisymmetric then the matrix becomes:
----- ----- ----------- ----------
$0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$0$ $0$ $0$ $\bar f$
$0$ $0$ $-\bar f$ $0$
----- ----- ----------- ----------
that corresponds to an helicity 0.
I recover thus the algebraic structure of the graviton concept we are familiar with from the framework of General relativity at the linear approximation, ([@Weinberg]), ([@Kiefer])
Canonical energy-momentum tensor
================================
The canonical energy-momentum tensor:
$$\label{Canonical}
t^\alpha_\gamma=\partial_\gamma \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\delta\frac{\partial \cal L}{\partial(\partial_\alpha \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\delta)}-{\cal L}\delta^\alpha_\gamma$$
corresponding to the Lagrangian (\[Lagrangian\]) can be easily calculated using the following convenient form of the derivatives of ${\cal L}$ :
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Der Lagrangian}
\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial(\partial_\alpha\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\beta)}=
-\frac12\partial_\lambda\theta^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_\mu(&(&\eta^{\alpha\lambda}\eta^{\beta\mu}-\eta^{\beta\lambda}\eta^{\alpha\mu})\eta_{\rho\sigma}\\
-&(&\eta^{\alpha\lambda}\delta^\beta_\rho-\eta^{\beta\lambda}\delta^\alpha_\rho)\delta^\mu_\sigma
+(\eta^{\alpha\mu}\delta^\beta_\rho-\eta^{\beta\mu}\delta^\alpha_\rho)\delta^\lambda_\sigma))\end{aligned}$$
The preceding result, with the corresponding expression of the Lagrangian (\[Lagrangian\]) and the use of (\[GageInv\]) proves, after a simple calculation, that for a graviton field the Canonical energy-momentum tensor is:
$$\label{e-m}
t^\alpha_\gamma=-\frac12(f^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\beta f^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_\mu \eta^{\beta\mu} \eta_{\rho\sigma}+2b_1 b_2)\exp(2 \,i\, l_\rho x^\rho)l^\alpha l_\gamma$$
that can be simplified with a gage transformation that makes $b_2=0$.
Quantum gravity Lagrangian
==========================
This essay is a proposal to reverse the problem of Quantum gravity: instead of accepting that General relativity is a theory that applies both at the macroscopic level and the microscopic one, I suggest that we should keep General relativity to deal with macroscopic problems only and try to find a new theory to deal with microscopic ones, with the condition that at the linear approximation both theories coincide.
Given four linear forms $\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha$ there are two equivalent descriptions of the geometrical frame of General relativity. The best known and almost universally used is based on the concept of Riemann curvature, while a second one, little used, is based on the concept of Weitzenböck torsion [@Schucking]-[@Bel]. The formula (\[S=G\]) above proves this equivalence at the first approximation. The unrestricted equivalence is discussed in [@Bel].
To be more specific: I propose to discuss the quantum interaction of a spin-1/2 wave function $\psi$ with a Poincaré invariant theory of the gravitational field $F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\beta}$ based on the Lagrangian:
$$\label{QLagrangian}
{\cal L}=-\frac14 F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha\beta} F^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_{\lambda\mu}\eta^{\alpha\lambda}\eta^{\beta\mu}\eta_{{{\dot{\rho}}}{{\dot{\sigma}}}}
+\frac12 F^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\alpha{{\dot{\rho}}}}F^{{\dot{\sigma}}}_{\lambda{{\dot{\sigma}}}}\eta^{\alpha\lambda}
+i{\bar\Psi}\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\Psi-m{\bar\Psi}\Psi-p_\rho\bar{\Psi}\gamma^\mu\Psi \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\mu}$$
where $p_\rho$ are the components of the 4-momentum of the interacting fermion with mass $m$ so that:
$$\label{mass}
\eta_{\rho\sigma}q^\rho q^\sigma=-m^2$$
The equations of motion that follow are:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqF}
\partial_\alpha F^{\alpha\beta}_{{\dot{\rho}}}-\partial_\alpha F^\alpha \delta^\beta_\rho+\partial_\rho F^\beta&=&q_\rho{\bar\Psi}\gamma^\beta\Psi, \nonumber \\
i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\Psi-m\Psi~&=&q_\rho\gamma^\mu\Psi \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_{\mu}\end{aligned}$$
They are invariant under local gage transformations:
$$\label{quantum gage}
\theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha\rightarrow \theta^{{\dot{\rho}}}_\alpha+\partial_\alpha \zeta^{{\dot{\rho}}}, \quad \psi\rightarrow \exp(-i q_\sigma \zeta^{{\dot{\sigma}}})\psi$$
and global Lorentz transformations.
Quantization can now proceed as usual introducing the operators:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{operator f(+2)}
\hat f^+_{\alpha\rho}(x^\beta,p_\mu)=\sum_{\sigma=\pm 2}\int \frac{d^3 l}{\sqrt{2|\vec l|}}
(&a(\vec l,p_\mu,\sigma)e_{\alpha\rho}(\vec l,p_\mu,\sigma)\exp(i\,l_\beta x^\beta) \nonumber \\
+ &a^\dagger(\vec l,p_\mu,\sigma)e^*_{\alpha\rho}(\vec l,p_\mu,\sigma)\exp(-i\,l_\beta x^\beta))\end{aligned}$$
where to describe the interaction of a fermion with a graviton with helicity 2:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e's}
e_{\alpha\rho,+2}(\vec l,p_\mu,+2)=e_{2\alpha}e_{2\rho}-e_{3\alpha}e_{3\rho} \\
e_{\alpha\rho}(\vec l,p_\mu,-2)=e_{2\alpha}e_{3\rho}+e_{3\alpha}e_{2\rho}\end{aligned}$$
where $e_{2\alpha}$ and $e_{3\alpha}$ are any two unit complex vectors orthogonal to $l_\alpha$ and $p_\alpha$.
The formulas corresponding to helicity 0 are:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{operator f(0)}
\hat f^-_{\alpha\rho}(x^\beta,p_\mu)=\int \frac{d^3 l}{\sqrt{2|\vec l|}}
(&a(\vec l,p_\mu)e_{\alpha\rho}(\vec l,p_\mu)\exp(i\,l_\beta x^\beta) \nonumber \\
+ &a^\dagger(\vec l,p_\mu)e^*_{\alpha\rho}(\vec l,p_\mu)\exp(-i\,l_\beta x^\beta))\end{aligned}$$
where:
$$\label{e's}
e_{\alpha\rho}(\vec l,p_\mu)=e_{2\alpha}e_{3\rho}-e_{3\alpha}e_{2\rho}$$
Notice that considering the creation, $a$, and annihilation ,$a\dagger$, amplitudes of a graviton as explicit functions of the 4-momentum $p_\mu$ of the Dirac particle that is the real vector “charge” of the gravitational field makes of (\[operator f+\]) and (\[operator f-\]) truly tensor definitions. (compare with [@Weinberg] and Kiefer)
This dependence should be reminded also when writing the corresponding non zero commutators:
$$\label{commutators+}
[a(\vec l, p_\mu, \sigma),a^\dagger(\vec l^\prime, p_\mu, \sigma^\prime)]=\delta_{\sigma\sigma^\prime}\delta(\vec l-\vec l^\prime),$$
or:
$$\label{commutators+}
[a(\vec l, p_\mu),a^\dagger(\vec l^\prime, p_\mu)]=\delta(\vec l-\vec l^\prime),$$
depending on the case.
General relativity is formulated in terms of a curved 4-dimensional geometry, using the concepts of curvature or torsion depending on taste [@Weitzenbock]-[@Maluf]. But another conceptual ingredient in the theory is that schematized observers are part of the theory and this make sense only at the macroscopic level.
In my opinion Quantum gravity could be based on Eqs. (\[EqF\]) that does not depend on Riemann curvature, or Weitzenböck torsion of space-time. This can be accepted at the microscopic level, where the main concepts are those of gravitons mediating the gravitational interactions of Dirac particles, and observers are no more part of the theory. Observers are only preparing experiments and observing results as they always have done when dealing with photons and Dirac particles.
[9]{}
R. [*Invarianten Theory*]{}, Nordhoff, Groningen (1923) E. Schucking and E. J. Surowitz, arXiv:gr-qc/073149 v1 E. Schucking, arXiv:gr-qc/0803.4128 v1 V. c. Andrade and J. G. Pereira, arXiv:gr-qc/9703059 v1 V. c. Andrade, L. C. T. Guillen and J. G. Pereira, arXiv:gr-qc/0011087 v2 Ll. Bel, arXiv:gr-qc/0605057 v3 D. Bini and B. Mashhoon , arXiv:1502.04183v3 \[gr-qc\] J. M. Maluf , arXiv:1303.3897v1 \[gr-qc\] S. Weinberg, [*General Relativity and Gravitation*]{}, John Wiley and sons (1972) C. Kiefer, [*Quantum gravity*]{}, Oxford University Press (2007)
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove weighted uniform estimates for the resolvent of the Laplace operator in Schatten spaces, on non-trapping asymptotically conic manifolds of dimension $n\ge 3$, generalizing a result of Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin], obtained in the Euclidean setting. As an application of these estimates we establish Lieb–Thirring type bounds for eigenvalues of Schrödinger operators with complex potentials on non-trapping asymptotically conic manifolds, extending those of Frank [@Frank_2011], [@Frank_2015], Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin], and Frank and Simon [@Frank_Simon] proven in the Euclidean setting. In particular, our results are valid for the metric Schrödinger operator in the Euclidean space, with a metric being a sufficiently small compactly supported perturbation of the Euclidean one. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first Lieb–Thirring type bounds for non-self-adjoint elliptic operators, with principal part having variable coefficients.'
address:
- |
Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’Orsay\
Université Paris-Sud\
Bat. 425, 91405 Orsay Cedex\
France
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Australian National University\
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of California, Irvine\
CA 92697-3875, USA
author:
- Colin Guillarmou
- Andrew Hassell
- Katya Krupchyk
title: 'Eigenvalue bounds for non-self-adjoint Schrödinger operators with non-trapping metrics'
---
Introduction and statement of results
=====================================
Recently there have been numerous works devoted to the study of eigenvalues of the Schrödinger operator $\mathcal{P}=\Delta+V$ in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, with $\Delta$ being the nonnegative Laplace operator and $V$ being a complex-valued potential. Of particular interest here is the problem of obtaining quantitative information concerning the localization and distribution of the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{P}$ under the only assumption that $V\in L^p({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, for some $1 \le p<\infty$. Here we may remark that the spectrum of $\mathcal{P}$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$ consists then of isolated eigenvalues of finite algebraic multiplicity, see [@Frank_2015 Proposition B.2].
The following two types of results are of particular interest for this problem. The first one deals with bounds on the individual eigenvalues of $\mathcal{P}$ in terms of the $L^ p$-norm of the potential. If $V$ is real-valued, so that $\mathcal{P}$ admits a natural self-adjoint realization, then the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{P}$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$ are negative and by the variational principle and Sobolev’s inequalities, for any eigenvalue $\lambda<0$ of $\mathcal{P}$, we have the scale-invariant bounds, $$\label{eq_intro_1}
|\lambda|^{\gamma}\le C_{\gamma,n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |V(x)|^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}dx$$ for every $\gamma\ge\frac{1}{2}$ if $n=1$ and every $\gamma>0$ if $n\ge 2$. Here the constant $C_{\gamma,n}>0$ depends on $\gamma$ and $n$ only, see [@Keller_61], [@Lieb_Thirring], [@Frank_Simon].
If the potential $V$ is complex-valued, the problem is more involved due to the lack of variational techniques and the absence of a spectral resolution theorem. In dimension $n=1$ the bound with $\gamma=\frac{1}{2}$ was proved by Abramov, Aslanyan, and Davies in [@Abramov_Aslanyan_Davies]. In dimensions $n\ge 2$, Frank [@Frank_2011] established the bound for all eigenvalues $\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$ and for all $0<\gamma\le \frac{1}{2}$, see also [@Frank_Simon]. The work [@Frank_2015] gives a replacement of the bound for all $\gamma>\frac{1}{2}$. We refer to [@Laptev_Safronov], [@Cuenin], [@Enblom_A], [@Cuenin_Kenig], [@Mizutani_critical], for some other recent works on bounds on the individual eigenvalues for non-self-adjoint operators of Schrödinger type.
The second type of result is concerned with bounds on sums of powers of absolute values of eigenvalues of $\mathcal{P}$, generalizing the classical Lieb–Thirring bounds [@Lieb_Thirring] to the non-self-adjoint case. If $V$ is real-valued then the Lieb–Thirring inequality has the following form, $$\label{eq_intro_2}
\sum |\lambda|^{\gamma}\le C_{\gamma,n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}V_-(x)^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}dx,$$ where $V_-=\max(-V,0)$, $\gamma\ge \frac{1}{2}$ if $n=1$, $\gamma>0$ if $n=2$, and $\gamma\ge 0$ if $n\ge 3$. The summation in the left hand side in extends over all negative eigenvalues of $\mathcal{P}$, counted with their multiplicities. The situation in the non-self-adjoint case is less clear. In particular, Bögli [@Bogli_Sabine] established that for any $p>n$, there exists a non-real potential $V\in L^p({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that the Schrödinger operator $\mathcal{P}$ has infinitely many non-real eigenvalues accumulating at every point of the essential spectrum $[0,\infty)$, thus showing that inequalities like cannot hold in the non-self-adjoint case for $p>n$. A possible modification of Lieb–Thirring’s inequality to the non-self-adjoint case was suggested in [@Demuth_Hansmann_Katriel_LT], and is as follows, $$\label{eq_intro_2_new}
\sum \frac{d(\lambda)^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}}{|\lambda|^{\frac{n}{2}}}\le C_{\gamma,n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|V(x)|^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}dx,$$ where $$\label{eq_intro_2_new_d}
d(\lambda)=\text{dist}(\lambda, [0,\infty)).$$ We refer to [@Demuth_Hansmann_Katriel_2app], [@Demuth_Hansmann_Katriel_2009], [@Frank_Sabin], [@Sambou], [@Frank_Laptev_Lieb_Seiringer] for some of the important contributions to generalizations of Lieb–Thirring’s inequality to the setting of complex potentials.
A crucial idea of Frank [@Frank_2011] in establishing bounds on the individual eigenvalues of the Schrödinger operator $\mathcal{P}$ with a complex-valued potential was to make use of the uniform $L^p$ resolvent estimates for $\Delta$ of Kenig, Ruiz, Sogge [@Kenig_Ruiz_Sogge]. Recently, this approach was extended to the case of non-self-adjoint Schrödinger operators with inverse-square potentials by Mizutani [@Mizutani], to the case of magnetic Schrödinger and Pauli operators with complex electromagnetic potentials by Cuenin and Kenig [@Cuenin_Kenig], and to the case of the Dirac and fractional Schrödinger operators with complex potentials by Cuenin [@Cuenin].
Developing the idea of Frank [@Frank_2011] further, Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin] obtained some very interesting uniform weighted bounds for the resolvent of $\Delta$ in suitable Schatten classes, and applied these bounds to derive uniform estimates on the sums of eigenvalues of non-self-adjoint Schrödinger operators, thus obtaining some results towards proving the conjectured Lieb–Thirring inequality in the case of complex potentials. Recently, this approach was extended by Cuenin [@Cuenin] to the case of the Dirac and fractional Schrödinger operators with complex potentials.
Notice that in all the works described above the principal part of the operators considered has constant coefficients. It is nevertheless of significant interest to extend both types of results to the case of complex potential perturbations of the Laplace–Beltrami operator $\Delta_g$ considered on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ or more generally, on a complete non-compact Riemannian manifold, generalizing the Euclidean structure near infinity.
Of particular interest here is the class of asymptotically conic manifolds, introduced by Melrose [@Melrose] and defined as follows. We say that $(M,g)$ is asymptotically conic if $M$ is the interior of a smooth compact manifold with boundary $\overline{M}$, $g$ is a smooth metric on $M$ such that there exists a smooth boundary defining function $x$ on $\overline{M}$ with $(M,g)$ isometric outside a compact set to $(0,\epsilon)_x\times {\partial}\overline{M}$ with the metric $$\label{asym_con_metric_intr}
g=\frac{dx^2}{x^4}+\frac{h(x)}{x^2}=\frac{dx^2}{x^4}+\frac{\sum h_{jk}(x,y)dy^jdy^k}{x^2},$$ where $h$ is a smooth one-parameter family of metrics on the boundary ${\partial}\overline{M}$. Here $y=(y_1,\dots, y_{n-1})$ stand for local coordinates on ${\partial}\overline{M}$ and $(x,y)$ are the corresponding local coordinates on $M$ near ${\partial}\overline{M}$. Let $z=(z_1,\dots, z_n)$ be local coordinates away from ${\partial}\overline{M}$. We say that $M$ is non-trapping if every geodesic $z(s)$ in $M$ reaches ${\partial}\overline{M}$ as $s\to \pm \infty$. The function $r=1/x$ near $x=0$ can be thought of as a “radial" variable near infinity and $y=(y_1,\dots, y_{n-1})$ can be regarded as $n-1$ “angular" variables. Rewriting in the $(r,y)$ coordinates, we observe that the metric $g$ is asymptotic to the exact conic metric $dr^2+r^2h(0)$ on $(r_0,\infty)_r\times {\partial}\overline{M}$ as $r\to \infty$.
The most important example of an asymptotically conic manifold is the Euclidean space $M={\mathbb{R}}^n$, after a radial compactification. It is non-trapping with ${\partial}\overline{M}=\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with the standard metric, and with $(r,y)$ being the usual polar coordinates. More generally, any compactly supported perturbation of the Euclidean space is also asymptotically conic, and it is non-trapping provided that it is sufficiently small in $C^2$, see [@HTW].
The purpose of this paper is to extend both types of results on the localization of complex eigenvalues for Schrödinger operators, from the Euclidean setting to that of an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold. Throughout the paper, we let $M$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$. From [@GuHaSi_III], we recall that the Laplace operator $\Delta_g$, associated with the metric $g$, is nonnegative self-adjoint on $L^2(M)$ with the domain $H^2(M)$. The spectrum of $\Delta_g$ is purely absolutely continuous and is given by $\text{Spec}(\Delta_g)=[0,\infty)$.
Our starting point is the following uniform $L^p$ resolvent estimates of the Kenig–Ruiz–Sogge type for the Laplace operator $\Delta_g$ on an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold, established in the work [@GuHa] of the first two authors.
\[thm\_GuHa\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$. Then for all $p\in [\frac{2n}{n+2}, \frac{2(n+1)}{n+3}]$, there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $z\in {\mathbb{C}}$ and for all $f\in L^p(M)$, we have $$\label{eq_KRS_manifold}
\| (\Delta_g -z)^{-1}f\|_{L^{p'}(M)}\le C|z|^{n(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2})-1}\|f\|_{L^p(M)}.$$ Here $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}=1$.
As explained in [@GuHa], when $z\in (0,+\infty)$, the operator in may be taken to be either the outgoing or incoming resolvent $(\Delta_g-(z\pm i0))^{-1}$, defined by $$(\Delta_g-(z\pm i0))^{-1}=\lim_{\delta\to 0^+}(\Delta_g-(z\pm i\delta))^{-1}$$ as a map $x^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}L^2(M)\to x^{-1/2-{\varepsilon}}L^2(M)$ for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, where $x$ is the boundary defining function, thanks to the limiting absorption principle, see [@Melrose], [@HaVa] for details.
We shall next recall the definition of the Schatten spaces of operators on $L^2(M)$, see [@Simon_trace]. Let $A$ be a compact operator on $L^2(M)$, and let $\mu_j(A)$ be the singular values of $A$, given by $\mu_j(A)=\lambda_j((A^*A)^{1/2})$. Here $\lambda_j(B)$ denotes the eigenvalues of a positive self-adjoint compact operator $B$, arranged in decreasing order. The Schatten norm of $A$ of order $1\le q<\infty$ is defined as follows, $$\|A\|^q_{{\mathcal}{C}_{q}(L^2(M))}=\sum_{j=1}^\infty \mu_j(A)^q=\text{tr} ((A^*A)^{q/2}).$$
The main contribution of the present paper is the following weighted uniform Schatten class estimate for the resolvent of $\Delta_g$, generalizing a result of Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin Theorem 12], obtained in the Euclidean setting.
\[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$. Let $p\in [\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n+1}{2}]$. Then there exists $C>0$ such that for all $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0\}$ and all $W_1,W_2 \in L^{2p}(M)$, we have $W_1(\Delta_g-z)^{-1} W_2\in \mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))$, $q=\frac{p(n-1)}{n-p}\in [n-1,n+1]$, and $$\label{toprove}
\|W_1(\Delta_g-z)^{-1} W_2\|_{\mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))}\le C |z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}} \|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)} \|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}.$$
**Remark.** When $z\in (0,+\infty)$, the operator in may be taken to be either the outgoing or incoming resolvent $(\Delta_g-(z\pm i0))^{-1}$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] is based on the following weighted Schatten norm estimates on the spectral measure $dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda)$ of $\sqrt{\Delta_g}$, which extend the corresponding estimates of Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin Theorem 2], obtained in the Euclidean setting. We believe that these estimates may be of some independent interest.
\[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$. Let $p\in [1, \frac{n+1}{2}]$. Then there exists $C>0$ such that for all $\lambda>0$ and all $W_1,W_2 \in L^{2p}(M)$, we have $W_1 dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) W_2\in \mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))$, $q=\frac{p(n-1)}{n-p}\in [1,n+1]$, and $$\| W_1 dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_q (L^2(M))} \leq C \lambda^{-1 + \frac{n}{p}} \| W_1 \|_{L^{2p}(M)} \| W_2 \|_{L^{2p}(M)}.
\label{spec-meas-bound}$$
Let us now consider the Schrödinger operator $\Delta_g +V$ with a complex valued potential $V\in L^{p}(M)$, $\frac{n}{2}\le p<\infty$. As explained in Section \[sec\_4\_individual\], this operator has a natural $m$-sectorial realization on $L^2(M)$, and the spectrum of $\Delta_g +V$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$ consists of isolated eigenvalues of finite algebraic multiplicity.
As an application of Theorem \[thm\_GuHa\], we have the following generalization of the results of Frank [@Frank_2011], [@Frank_2015], and Frank and Simon [@Frank_Simon] concerning bounds on the individual eigenvalues of non-self-adjoint Schrödinger operators in the Euclidean setting to that of an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold, see also [@FaKreVe].
\[thm\_indiviual\_asymptotically conic\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$.
- Let $V\in L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)$ for some $0< \gamma\le \frac{1}{2}$. Then any eigenvalue $\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}$ of the operator $\Delta_g+V$ satisfies $$\label{eq_8_0}
|\lambda|^\gamma\le C_{\gamma, n} \|V\|_{L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)}^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}},$$ where the constant $C_{\gamma, n} >0$ depends on $\gamma$ and $n$ only.
- Let $V\in L^{\frac{n}{2}}(M)$ be such that $\|V\|_{L^{\frac{n}{2}}(M)}$ is sufficiently small. Then the operator $\Delta_g+V$ has no eigenvalues.
- Let $V\in L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)$ for some $\gamma> \frac{1}{2}$. Then any eigenvalue $\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}$ of the operator $\Delta_g+V$ satisfies $$\label{eq_8_0_iii}
d(\lambda)^{\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{2}}\le C_{\gamma, n}\|V\|^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}_{L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)},$$ where $d(\lambda)$ is given by and the constant $C_{\gamma, n} >0$ depends on $\gamma$ and $n$ only.
**Remark.** Parts (i) and (ii) of Theorem \[thm\_indiviual\_asymptotically conic\] have been established in [@GuHa Proposition 7.2 ], without specifying the radius of the disk, containing the eigenvalues of $\Delta_g+V$, in part (i).
As a consequence of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\], we obtain the following generalization of a result of Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin Theorem 16], concerning Lieb-Thirring type inequalities for the sums of eigenvalues of $\Delta_g+V$ in the case of a short range potential $V\in L^p(M)$, $p=\frac{n}{2}+\gamma$, where $0\le \gamma\le \frac{1}{2}$.
\[thm\_main\_sums\_asymp\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$, and let $V\in L^p(M)$ with $p$ such that $$\frac{n}{2}\le p\le \frac{n+1}{2}.$$ Let us denote by $\lambda_j$ the eigenvalues of $\Delta_g+V$ in $ {\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$, repeated according to their algebraic multiplicities. The following estimates then hold:
- If $p=\frac{n}{2}$, we have $$\label{eq_11_0_asym}
\sum_{j} \frac{\emph{{\hbox{Im}\,}}\sqrt{\lambda_j}}{1+|\lambda_j|}< \infty,$$ where the branch of the square root is chosen to have positive imaginary part.
- If $\frac{n}{2}<p \le \frac{n+1}{2}$, then $$\label{eq_11_0_1_asym}
\sum_{j} \frac{d(\lambda_j)}{|\lambda_j|^{(1-\varepsilon)/2}}\le C_{\varepsilon,p,n} \|V\|_{L^p(M)}^{\frac{(1+\varepsilon) p}{2p-n}},$$ for all $\varepsilon$ satisfying $$\begin{cases}
\varepsilon\ge 0, & \frac{n}{2}<p< \frac{n^2}{2n-1},\\
\varepsilon>\frac{p(2n-1)-n^2}{n-p}\ge 0, & \frac{n^2}{2n-1} \le p\le \frac{n+1}{2}.
\end{cases}$$
**Remark.** If $\frac{n}{2}<p\le \frac{n+1}{2}$, then by Theorem \[thm\_indiviual\_asymptotically conic\] we know that the eigenvalues of $\Delta_g+V$ are confined to an open disk centered at the origin. Furthermore, it follows from that if a sequence of eigenvalues ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)\ni \lambda_{j_k}\to E>0$ then ${\hbox{Im}\,}\lambda_{j_k}\in \ell^1$. In the case $p=\frac{n}{2}$ the bound controls a possible accumulation rate of eigenvalues in ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$ at infinity, and it implies in particular with the help of $${\hbox{Im}\,}(\sqrt{\lambda})=\frac{|{\hbox{Im}\,}\lambda|}{\sqrt{2(|\lambda|+{\hbox{Re}\,}\lambda)}}$$ that if a sequence of eigenvalues ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)\ni \lambda_{j_k}\to E>0$ then ${\hbox{Im}\,}\lambda_{j_k}\in \ell^1$.
As another application of the Schatten class estimates for the resolvent of $\Delta_g$ given in Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\], we get the following generalization of a result of Frank [@Frank_2015 Theorem 1.2], concerning Lieb-Thirring type inequalities for the sums of eigenvalues $\Delta_g+V$ in the case of a long range potential $V\in L^p(M)$, $p=\gamma+\frac{n}{2}$, $\gamma> \frac{1}{2}$.
\[thm\_sums\_long\_range\_asym\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$, and let $V\in L^{p}(M)$ with $p=\gamma+\frac{n}{2}$, $\gamma> \frac{1}{2}$. Then the eigenvalues $\lambda_j\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$ of $\Delta_g+V$, repeated according to their algebraic multiplicities, satisfy the following bounds, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\bigg( \sum_{|\lambda_j|^\gamma \le C_{\gamma, n}\int_{M}|V|^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}dx} d(\lambda_j)^{2\gamma+\varepsilon} \bigg)^{\frac{\gamma}{2\gamma+\varepsilon}}\le L_{\varepsilon, \gamma, n} \int_{M}|V|^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}dx,$$ and for any $\varepsilon>0$, $0<\varepsilon'<\frac{\gamma}{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}},$ and $\mu\ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg( \sum_{|\lambda_j|^\gamma \ge \mu C_{\gamma,n} \int_{M}|V|^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}dx}\frac{d(\lambda_j)^{2\gamma +\varepsilon}}{|\lambda_j|^{2\gamma-\frac{\gamma}{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}+\varepsilon+\varepsilon'}}& \bigg)^{\frac{\gamma(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}{\gamma-\varepsilon'(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}} \\
&\le L_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon',\gamma,n} \mu^{-\frac{\varepsilon'(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}{\gamma-\varepsilon'(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}}\int_{M}|V|^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}dx.\end{aligned}$$
**Remark.** As observed in [@Frank_2015], Theorem \[thm\_sums\_long\_range\_asym\] has the following consequence: let $\gamma>1/2$ and $V\in L^{\gamma+n/2}(M)$. If $(\lambda_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ is a sequence of eigenvalues of $\Delta_g+V$ with $\lambda_j\to \lambda_0\in [0,\infty)$ then ${\hbox{Im}\,}\lambda_j\in l^p$ for any $p>2\gamma$.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec\_strategy\_main\_0\] we present our strategy for proving Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\], which is the main result of the paper. Section \[sec:spectral measure estimates\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\], giving Schatten norm estimates on the spectral measure. In Section \[sec\_consequences\] we derive some Schatten norm estimates on the resolvent of the Laplacian, as a direct consequence of the Schatten norm estimates on the spectral measure and give their analogues at the endpoint case $p=\frac{n}{2}$, needed in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\]. The principal step in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\], corresponding to the estimates on the spectrum, is carried out in Section \[sec\_on\_spectrum\]. Section \[sec\_4\_individual\] contains the proof of Theorem \[thm\_indiviual\_asymptotically conic\], which follows the arguments of [@Frank_2015] and [@Frank_Simon] closely, relying on Theorem \[thm\_GuHa\], with some small adjustments due to the fact that we are no longer in the Euclidean setting. Finally, we observe in Section \[sec\_bounds\_sum\_higher\] that Theorem \[thm\_main\_sums\_asymp\] and Theorem \[thm\_sums\_long\_range\_asym\] are direct consequences of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] combined with the arguments of [@Frank_Sabin Theorem 16] and [@Frank_2015 Theorem 1.2]. Appendix \[app\] contains the proof of Lemma \[Guillarmou\_Hassell\_remark\], needed in the main text. Appendix \[app\_2\] is concerned with the analysis of the microlocal structure of the spectrally localized outgoing and incoming resolvent, used in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\].
Strategy of the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] {#sec_strategy_main_0}
=========================================================================
Schatten norm estimates
-----------------------
The basic mechanism for proving Schatten norm estimates of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] and Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\] comes from the fact that the Schatten spaces are complex interpolation spaces, see [@Simon_trace Theorem 2.9], [@Simon_operator_theory p. 154], and from the following result of Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin Proposition 1].
\[prop:Frank-Sabin\] Let $T_s$ be an analytic family of operators in the sense of Stein, defined on the strip $\{ s \in {\mathbb{C}}\mid -\lambda_0 \leq \emph{{\hbox{Re}\,}} s \leq 0 \}$ for some $\lambda_0 > 1$, acting on functions on $M$. Assume that we have operator norm bounds $$\| T_{ir} \|_{L^2(M) \to L^2(M)} \leq M_0 e^{a|r|}, \quad \| T_{-\lambda_0 + ir} \|_{L^1(M) \to L^\infty(M)} \leq M_1 e^{a|r|} \quad \forall r \in {\mathbb{R}}$$ for some $a\ge 0$ and $M_0, M_1 > 0$. Then for any $W_1, W_2 \in L^{2\lambda_0}(M)$, the operator $W_1 T_{-1} W_2$ belongs to the Schatten class $\mathcal{C}_{2\lambda_0}(L^2(M))$ and we have the estimate $$\| W_1 T_{-1} W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_{2\lambda_0}} \leq M_0^{1 - \frac{1}{\lambda_0}} M_1^{\frac{1}{\lambda_0}} \| W_1\|_{L^{2\lambda_0}(M)} \| W_2\|_{L^{2\lambda_0}(M)}.$$
Let us recall briefly the proof of Proposition \[prop:Frank-Sabin\]. Assuming for convenience that $W_1, W_2$ are non-negative and simple, the result is established by considering the analytic family of operators $S_s = W_1^{-s} T_s W_2^{-s}$. This family has the property that $S_{-1} = W_1 T_{-1} W_2$ and it satisfies the following estimates on the boundary of the strip. For $s = ir$, $r$ real, we have $$\| S_{ir} \|_{L^2(M) \to L^2(M)} \le \| T_{ir} \|_{L^2(M) \to L^2(M)} \leq M_0 e^{a|r|},$$ and for $s = -\lambda_0 + ir$, we note that $T_s$ has kernel bounded pointwise by $M_1 a^{a|r|}$ and $W_1^{-s}$, $W_2^{-s}$ are $L^2$ functions, hence $S_s$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator with the Hilbert-Schmidt norm bounded by $M_1 e^{a|r|} \| W_1 \|_{L^{2\lambda_0}(M)}^{\lambda_0} \| W_2 \|_{L^{2\lambda_0}(M)}^{\lambda_0}$. Interpolating between the operator norm and the Hilbert-Schmidt norm gives us a bound on the Schatten norms, in particular at $s = -1$, where we obtain the Schatten norm at exponent $2\lambda_0$.
Strategy {#sec_strategy_main}
--------
The principal idea of the proof of the Euclidean analog of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\], which is due to Frank and Sabin [@Frank_Sabin Theorem 12], is to establish the following pointwise bound for the Schwartz kernel of the powers of the resolvent $(\Delta-z)^{-\alpha}$, $$\label{eq_int_pointwise_res}
|(\Delta-z)^{-\alpha}(x,y)| \leq Ce^{C(\text{Im}(\alpha))^2} |z|^{\frac{n-1}{4} - \frac{\text{Re} (\alpha)}{2}}|x-y|^{{\rm Re}(\alpha)-\frac{n+1}{2}}, \quad x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n.$$ Here $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$, $\alpha\in {\mathbb{C}}$, $\text{Re}(\alpha)\in [\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{n+1}{2}]$. The desired Schatten bound in the Euclidean case is therefore a consequence of combined with the Hölder and Hardy–Littelewood–Sobolev inequalities as well as an interpolation argument.
Unfortunately, the natural analog of the pointwise bound does not hold in general, for $z$ close to the spectrum of $\Delta_g$, for asymptotically conic manifolds, essentially because there can be conjugate points for the geodesic flow, and to prove the bound we have to proceed differently.
Our strategy of the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] is to establish the Schatten norm estimate for $W_1 (\Delta_g - z)^{-1} W_2$ for $z$ on the negative real axis, and for $z$ just above and below the spectrum, that is, for $W_1 (\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1} W_2$, for $z > 0$. We then use the Phragmén-Lindelöf theorem to obtain the result on the whole of the complex plane, excluding the origin.
Let us give the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\], assuming that it has been established for $z< 0$ and for $z \pm i0$, $z > 0$. Let $W_1, W_2\in L^{2p}(M)$ with $p\in [\frac{n}{2},\frac{n+1}{2}]$, and let us consider the following bilinear form for $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$, $$\label{eq_Bz}
B_z(W_1,W_2):=W_1(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}W_2.$$ When $z\in (0,\infty)$, we extend the definition of $B_z$ by taking the outgoing resolvent $(\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}$ in . Thus, we know that for $z \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus \{ 0 \}$, $B_z$ is a bounded bilinear form $$B_z: L^{2p}(M){\times}L^{2p}(M)\to {\mathcal}{C}_{q}(L^2(M)), \quad p\in \bigg[{\frac{n}{2}},\frac{n+1}{2}\bigg], \quad q=\frac{p(n-1)}{n-p},$$ such that $$\label{eq_Bz_1}
\| B_z(W_1,W_2)\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_{q}}\le C|z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}} \|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}.$$ We now complete the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] by a Phragmén-Lindelöf argument. In doing so, let $W_1,W_2\in C_0^\infty(M)$. We claim that the function $H(z):= B_z(W_1,W_2)$ is holomorphic in ${\hbox{Im}\,}z>0$ with values in ${\mathcal}{C}_q(L^2(M))$ such that $$\| H(z)\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_q}\le C(|z|^{-1/2}+|z|^{1/2}).$$ Indeed, for ${\hbox{Im}\,}z >0$, the operator $W_1(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}W_2: L^2(M)\to H^2(M)\cap \mathcal{E}'(K)$ is bounded where $K$ is a compact set containing the support of $W_1$. Furthermore, it depends holomorphically on $z$ with ${\hbox{Im}\,}z>0$, and satisfies the bound $$\|W_1(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}W_2 \|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), H^2(M))}\le C( |z|^{-1/2} + |z|^{1/2}), \quad {\hbox{Im}\,}z\ge 0, \quad z\ne 0,$$ see [@Melrose] for intermediate values of $z$, [@Vasy_Zworski_2000] for $|z| \to \infty$ and [@RoTa Prop. 1.26] for $|z| \to 0$. Now the embedding $H^2(M)\cap \mathcal{E}'(K)\to L^2(M)$ is an operator in ${\mathcal}{C}_{n/2+{\varepsilon}}$ for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ in view of the Weyl law for the Laplacian on a compact manifold. Since $q>n/2$, we deduce the claim.
The function $H(z)$ is continuous for ${\hbox{Im}\,}z\ge 0$, $z\ne 0$, with valued in ${\mathcal}{C}_q(L^2(M))$ and to avoid the problem at $z=0$, we consider the map $$F(z):={\langle}H(e^{z}),T{\rangle}e^{(1-\frac{n}{2p})z}$$ for a fixed $T\in {\mathcal}{C}_{q'}(L^2(M))$ with norm $\|T\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_{q'}}=1$. Here $\frac{1}{q'}+\frac{1}{q}=1$ and the product is the duality pairing between the Banach space ${\mathcal}{C}_{q}$ and its dual ${\mathcal}{C}_{q'}$. Then $F(z)$ is holomorphic in ${\hbox{Im}\,}z\in (0,\pi)$, continuous on the closure, and enjoys the bounds $$\begin{gathered}
|F(z)|\leq C e^{C|z|} \textrm{ for } 0\le {\hbox{Im}\,}z\le \pi, \\
|F(z)|\leq C \|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)} \textrm{ for } {\hbox{Im}\,}z\in \{0,\pi\}
\end{gathered}$$ in view of . Applying the Phragmén-Lindelöf principle, we deduce that $|F(z)|\leq C\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}$ for all $z\in {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $0\le {\hbox{Im}\,}z\le \pi$, and therefore, $$\|H(z)\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_q}\leq C|z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}}\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}, \quad {\hbox{Im}\,}z\ge 0, \quad z\ne 0.$$ By a density argument, we obtain the bound for ${\hbox{Im}\,}z\ge 0$, $z\ne 0$. By considering the adjoint of the operator $B_z$, we complete the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\].
This argument reduces the problem to proving estimate for $z \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus \{ 0 \}$. We find it convenient to first prove the corresponding estimate for the spectral measure given in Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\]. The proof of Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\] relies crucially on the $TT^*$ structure of the spectral measure.
When $z\in (-\infty,0)$ and $p\in (\frac{n}{2},\frac{n+1}{2}]$, the Schatten norm estimate is a direct consequence of Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\], and at the endpoint case $p=\frac{n}{2}$, the Schatten norm estimate follows from the heat kernel estimates due to Grigor’yan [@Gr] and Varopoulos [@Va].
Establishing the Schatten norm estimate for $W_1 (\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1} W_2$ with $z>0$ represents the main difficulty in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\]. When doing so, following [@GHS], [@GuHa] and [@HaZh], we use a microlocal partition of the identity $\sum_{i=1}^N Q_i(\eta)= {\operatorname{Id}}$, where $Q_i(\eta)$ are pseudodifferential operators depending on the energy parameter $0<\eta\sim |z|^{1/2}$, constructed in [@GHS]. Splitting up the operator $W_1 (\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1} W_2$ by means of the partition of the identity, we are led to estimate the individual terms $W_1Q_i(\eta)^*(\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)W_2$, and here the most interesting contributions arise when $i=j$. When handling those, we proceed by establishing pointwise bounds for the Schwartz kernel of the operator $$Q_i(\eta)^*\phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)(\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-s}Q_j(\eta),\quad \text{Re}\,s\in \bigg[\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{n+1}{2}\bigg],$$ analogous to the Euclidean estimates . Here $\phi$ is a cut-off near $1$.
Schatten norm estimates on the spectral measure. Proof of Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\] {#sec:spectral measure estimates}
=============================================================================================================
Our starting point is the operator partition of unity, ${\operatorname{Id}}= \sum_{i=1}^N Q_i(\eta)$, depending on $\eta > 0$, constructed in [@GHS]. This partition of unity enjoys the following estimates, in particular: for all $k=0,1,2,\dots,$ there is $C_k>0$ such that for all $m,m'\in M$, we have $$\label{eq_sec_measure_1}
\begin{aligned}
\Big|{\partial}_{{\lambda}}^k\big(Q_i(\eta)^*dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}({\lambda})Q_i(\eta)\big)(m,m')\Big|\leq C_k{\lambda}^{n-1-k}(1+{\lambda}d(m,m'))^{-\frac{(n-1)}{2}+k}, \\ \lambda\in [(1-\delta)\eta,(1+\delta)\eta],
\end{aligned}$$ with $\delta>0$ sufficiently small but fixed and $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ being the Riemannian distance on $M$. We say more about this partition of the identity in Section \[sec:partition of unity\] below; here, we can use results of [@GHS] and [@Chen] as a ‘black box’. Then for all $\lambda\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta,(1+\delta/2)\eta]$, we use the partition of unity to decompose the spectral measure sandwiched between two $L^{2p}$ functions: $$W_1 dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda)W_2 = \sum_{i, j = 1}^N W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_j(\eta) W_2.
\label{Q-decomp}$$
Let $p \in [1, \frac{n+1}{2}]$ and $q = \frac{p(n-1)}{n-p}\in [1,n+1]$. In the first step, we shall prove microlocalized estimates of the form $$\label{spec-meas-bound-QiQi}
\| W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_i(\eta) W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_q} \leq C \lambda^{-1 + \frac{n}{p}} \| W_1 \|_{L^{2p}(M)} \| W_2 \|_{L^{2p}(M)},$$ for the diagonal ($i=j$) terms of the decomposition . In doing so, we shall follow [@Frank_Sabin Proof of Theorem 2] and start by showing at the endpoints $p=\frac{n+1}{2}$ and $p=1$, i.e. $$\label{spec-meas-bound-QiQi_end_1}
\| W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_i(\eta) W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_{n+1}} \leq C \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{n+1}} \| W_1 \|_{L^{n+1}(M)} \| W_2 \|_{L^{n+1}(M)},$$ and $$\label{spec-meas-bound-QiQi_end_2}
\| W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_i(\eta) W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_{1}} \leq C \lambda^{n-1} \| W_1 \|_{L^{2}(M)} \| W_2 \|_{L^{2}(M)},$$ respectively. Once the estimates and have been established, the bound follows by a complex interpolation argument applied to the analytic family of operators $\zeta\mapsto W_1^{\frac{2}{n+1}+\zeta\frac{n-1}{n+1}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}} (\lambda)Q_i(\eta)W_2^{\frac{2}{n+1}+\zeta\frac{n-1}{n+1}}$ in the strip $0\le {\hbox{Re}\,}\zeta\le 1$, with $W_j\ge 0$ being simple functions such that $\|W_j\|_{L^2(M)}=1$, $j=1,2$, see [@Simon_trace Theorem 2.9].
Now to prove the estimate , we shall consider the following family of operators, $$T_s := Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}{\lambda}\bigg) \chi_+^s(\lambda - \sqrt{\Delta_g}) Q_i(\eta), \quad -\frac{(n+1)}{2} \leq {\hbox{Re}\,}s \leq 0,$$ introduced in [@GHS Definition 3.2] and [@Chen]. Here $\phi\in C^\infty_0((1-\delta/4,1+\delta/4))$ is such that $\phi(t)=1$ in a neighborhood of $t=1$, and $\chi_+^s$ is the family of distributions on ${\mathbb{R}}$, entire analytic in $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$ and such that $$\chi_+^s(\lambda)=\frac{\lambda_+^s}{\Gamma(s+1)}, \quad {\hbox{Re}\,}s>-1,$$ where $\lambda_+=\max(\lambda,0)$, see [@Hormander_books_1 Section 3.2]. Note that at least formally, we have $$\chi^0_+(\lambda-\sqrt{\Delta_g})=E_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda), \quad \chi_+^{-k}(\lambda-\sqrt{\Delta_g})=\bigg(\frac{d}{d\lambda}\bigg)^{k-1}dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda),\quad k=1,2,\dots.$$ Recall from [@GHS Definition 3.2] that $T_s$ is the operator whose Schwartz kernel is given by $$\label{eq_def_T_s}
\begin{aligned}
\big(Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}{\lambda}\bigg) &\chi_+^s(\lambda - \sqrt{\Delta_g}) Q_i(\eta)\big)(m,m')\\
&=
\int\chi_+^{k+s}(\lambda-\mu){\partial}_\mu^k\bigg (Q_i(\eta)^*\phi \bigg(\frac{\mu}{\lambda}\bigg) dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\mu) Q_i(\eta)\bigg)(m,m')d\mu,
\end{aligned}$$ where $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ is such that ${\hbox{Re}\,}s+k>-1$. As $\mu\in [\eta(1-\delta), \eta(1+\delta)]$ for $\lambda\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta,(1+\delta/2)\eta]$ and $\mu/\lambda\in \operatorname{supp}(\phi)$, thanks to the estimates the integral in is well defined.
As explained in [@GHS], the family of operators $T_s $ is analytic in the sense of Stein in the strip $-\frac{(n+1)}{2} \leq {\hbox{Re}\,}s \leq 0$. When ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = 0$, we have $$\| T_s\|_{L^2(M)\to L^2(M)}\le C e^{\frac{\pi |s|}{2}},$$ and relying on the estimates it was shown in [@GHS] and [@Chen] that when ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = -\frac{(n+1)}{2}$, we have $$\| T_s \|_{L^1(M) \to L^\infty(M)} \leq C (1 + |r|) e^{\frac{\pi |r|}{2}} \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{2}}, \quad s = -\frac{(n+1)}{2} + ir, \ r \in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ Applying Proposition \[prop:Frank-Sabin\], we get, for any two complex valued functions $W_1, W_2\in L^{n+1}(M)$, $$\begin{aligned}
W_1 T_{-1} W_2 &= W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}{\lambda}\bigg) \chi_+^{-1}(\lambda - \sqrt{\Delta_g}) Q_i(\eta) W_2\\
& = W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_i(\eta) W_2\end{aligned}$$ is in the Schatten $\mathcal{C}_{n+1}$ class and holds.
To show , we recall from [@GHS] that we have a pointwise kernel bound on the (microlocalized) spectral measure, $$\| Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_i(\eta) \|_{L^1(M) \to L^\infty(M)} \leq C \lambda^{n-1}.
\label{sm-Poisson}$$ Also, we have $$\label{eq_spectral_measure_dec}
dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) = (2\pi)^{-1} P(\lambda) P^*(\lambda),$$ where $P(\lambda):L^2({\partial}M)\to L^{r}(M)$, $r\in [\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1},\infty]$, is the Poisson operator, see [@GHS]. Using the $T^*T$ trick, it follows from and that $$\|Q_i(\eta)^* P(\lambda)\|_{L^2(\partial M) \to L^\infty(M)}\le C \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{2}}.$$ The Schwartz kernel $Q_i(\eta)^* P(\lambda)(m,m')$ of the operator $Q_i(\eta)^* P(\lambda)$ satisfies therefore, $$\|Q_i(\eta)^* P(\lambda)(m,\cdot) \|_{L^2({\partial}M)}\le C \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$$ for almost all $m\in M$. Thus, for any $W_1 \in L^2(M)$, the operator $W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* P(\lambda):L^2({\partial}M)\to L^2(M)$ is Hilbert-Schmidt with the norm bounded by $ C \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{2}} \| W_1 \|_{L^2(M)}$. Taking adjoints, we find that $P(\lambda)^* Q_i(\eta) W_2$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator with norm bounded by $C \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{2}} \| W_2 \|_{L^2(M)}$. Therefore, $(2\pi)^{-1}$ times the composition of these two operators, which is precisely $W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta}}(\lambda) Q_i(\eta) W_2$, is of trace class and follows.
In the second step, we shall bound the Schatten norm of the off-diagonal ($i \neq j$) terms in the decomposition , i.e. we shall prove the following estimate, $$\label{spec-meas-bound-QiQj}
\| W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_j(\eta) W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_q} \leq C \lambda^{-1 + \frac{n}{p}} \| W_1 \|_{L^{2p}(M)} \| W_2 \|_{L^{2p}(M)}.$$ As above, we shall exploit the $ T^*T$ structure of the spectral measure.
Let $T: L^2(M)\to L^2({\partial}M)$ be a compact operator and $q\ge 1$. Then $T^*T\in \mathcal{C}_q(L^2(M))$ if and only if $T\in \mathcal{C}_{2q}(L^2(M),L^2({\partial}M))$, and moreover, $\| T^* T\|_{ \mathcal{C}_q}=\|T\|_{ \mathcal{C}_{2q}}^2$. This is a consequence of the following equality for the singular values, $$\label{eq_singular_values_103}
\mu_k(T^*T)=\mu_k(T)^2.$$
Moreover, if $T_1, T_2$ are in $\mathcal{C}_{2q}(L^2(M),L^2({\partial}M))$, then $T_1^* T_2$ is in $\mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))$, and we have $$\label{T^*T-inequality}
\| T_1^* T_2 \|_{ \mathcal{C}_q}^q \leq \| T_1^* T_1 \|_{ \mathcal{C}_q}^q + \| T_2^* T_2 \|_{ \mathcal{C}_q}^q.$$ This follows from the Ky Fan inequality for singular values of compact operators $A$ and $B$, $$\mu_{m+n-1}(AB)\le \mu_{m}(A)\mu_n(B), \quad n,m\ge 1,$$ see [@Gohberg_Krein Chapter 2, Section 3], and the fact that $\mu_k(T_i^*)=\mu_k(T_i)$, which combine to give $$\label{eq_singular_values_113}
\mu_{2k}(T_1^*T_2)\le \mu_{2k-1}(T_1^*T_2)\le \mu_k(T_1)\mu_k(T_2).$$ Hence, using and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu_k(T_1^*T_2)^q &= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu_{2k}(T_1^*T_2)^q+ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu_{2k-1}(T_1^*T_2)^q \\ &\le \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2(\mu_k(T_1)\mu_k(T_2))^q\\
&\le \sum_{k=1}^\infty \bigg( \mu_k(T_1)^{2q}+ \mu_k(T_2)^{2q} \bigg)\\
&=
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu_k(T_1^*T_1)^q+\sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu_k(T_2^*T_2)^q,\end{aligned}$$ which proves .
Using , we write $$\label{eq_decom_with_poten}
W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_j(\eta) W_2 =(2\pi)^{-1} T_1^* T_2,$$ where $T_1 = P(\lambda)^* Q_i(\eta) \overline{W}_1$, and $ T_2 = P(\lambda)^* Q_j(\eta) W_2$. Now it follows from that $T_1^*T_1 \in \mathcal{C}_q(L^2(M))$, $T_2^*T_2 \in \mathcal{C}_q(L^2(M))$, and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|T_1^*T_1\|_{\mathcal{C}_q}\le C\lambda^{-1+\frac{n}{p}}\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)}^2,\quad
\|T_2^*T_2\|_{\mathcal{C}_q}\le C\lambda^{-1+\frac{n}{p}}\|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}^2.\end{aligned}$$ By the discussion above, this is equivalent to the fact that $T_1\in C_{2q}(L^2(M), L^2({\partial}M))$ and $T_2\in C_{2q}(L^2(M), L^2({\partial}M))$. It follows from and discussion above that $W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_j(\eta) W_2\in \mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))$, and using , we get that $$\|W_1Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_j(\eta) W_2\|_{\mathcal{C}_{q}}\le C\lambda^{-1+\frac{n}{p}}(\|W_1\|^2_{L^{2p}(M)} +\|W_2\|^2_{L^{2p}(M)}).$$ Thus, follows by bilinearity in $W_1,W_2$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\].
Consequences of the spectral measure estimates for $p\in (\frac{n}{2},\frac{n+1}{2}]$ and their analogues at the endpoint $p=\frac{n}{2}$ {#sec_consequences}
=========================================================================================================================================
Consequences of the spectral measure Schatten norm estimate {#subsections_cons_2}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Using Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\] and Minkowski’s integral inequality, we can deduce some Schatten estimates on the resolvent. In this subsection, we only treat the case $p > \frac{n}{2}$.
The first result applies for $z$ in any sector excluding the positive real axis.
\[prop:resolvent-away-from-spectrum1\] Let $p \in (\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n+1}{2}]$, and suppose $W_1, W_2\in L^{2p}(M)$. Let $\epsilon > 0$ be arbitrary. Then for $z \in {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $z \neq 0, \arg z \in [\epsilon, 2\pi - \epsilon]$, the sandwiched resolvent $W_1 (\Delta_g - z)^{-1}W_2$ is in the Schatten class $\mathcal{C}_q (L^2(M))$ with $q = \frac{p(n-1)}{n-p} \in (n-1, n+1]$, and we have $$\|W_1 (\Delta_g - z)^{-1}W_2\|_{\mathcal{C}_q}\le C |z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}}\| W_1 \|_{L^{2p}(M)} \| W_2 \|_{L^{2p}(M)},$$ where $C$ depends on $p$, $\epsilon$ and $(M,g)$, but not $z$.
We express the operator $W_1 (\Delta_g - z)^{-1}W_2$ as $$W_1 (\Delta_g - z)^{-1}W_2 = \int_0^\infty (\lambda^2 - z)^{-1} W_1 dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) W_2 d\lambda.$$ The result follows by estimating the Schatten norm of $W_1 dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) W_2 $ using Theorem \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\] and noting that provided $p > \frac{n}{2}$, we have $$\int_0^\infty |\lambda^2 - z|^{-1} \lambda^{-1+\frac{n}{p}} \, d\lambda \leq C |z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}},$$ where $C$ depends on $p$ and $\epsilon$ but does not depend on $z$ in the given sector.
In a similar manner we obtain ‘elliptic’ estimates on the resolvent, where we remove the singularity in the spectral multiplier. In this way we can obtain estimates on the positive real axis. To state these, we fix a function $\phi : [0, \infty) \to [0, 1]$ such that $\phi(t) = 1$ for $t$ in a neighbourhood of $t=1$, and has support in a slightly bigger neighborhood of $t=1$.
\[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\] Let $p \in (\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n+1}{2}]$, and suppose $W_1, W_2\in L^{2p}(M)$. Then for $z \in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus\{0\}$, the operator $W_1 \big(1 - \phi\big)\big(\frac{\Delta_g}{|z|}\big) (\Delta_g - z)^{-1}W_2$ is in the Schatten class $\mathcal{C}_q(L^2(M))$ with $q = \frac{p(n-1)}{n-p} \in (n-1, n+1]$, and we have $$\bigg\|W_1 \bigg(1 - \phi\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{|z|}\bigg) (\Delta_g - z)^{-1}W_2 \bigg\|_{\mathcal{C}_q}\le C |z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}}\| W_1 \|_{L^{2p}(M)} \| W_2 \|_{L^{2p}(M)},$$ where $C$ depends on $p$ and on $(M,g)$, but not $z$.
Again we express the operator using an integral over the spectral measure, and estimate the Schatten norm of the spectral measure using Proposition \[prop:spectral measure Schatten estimate\] and Minkowski’s integral inequality. This time we obtain the integral $$\int_0^\infty |\lambda^2 - z|^{-1} \bigg(1 - \phi\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\lambda^2}{|z|}\bigg) \lambda^{-1+\frac{n}{p}} \, d\lambda$$ and it is straightforward to check that this is bounded by $C |z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}}$ uniformly in $z$.
Analogues at the endpoint $p = \frac{n}{2}$
-------------------------------------------
In the case $p=\frac{n}{2}$, the arguments used in the proofs of Propositions \[prop:resolvent-away-from-spectrum1\] and \[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\] are no longer valid and need to be replaced. In view of the Phragmén–Lindelöf argument, explained in Section \[sec\_strategy\_main\], we only need to do this for $z$ negative in the case of Proposition \[prop:resolvent-away-from-spectrum1\] and $z$ positive in the case of Proposition \[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\]. To this end we prove the following two results.
\[negativez\] Let $p=\frac{n}{2}$. There is $C>0$ such that for all $z<0$ and for all $W_1,W_2\in L^{n}(M)$, the operator $W_1(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}W_2\in \mathcal{C}_{n-1}(L^2(M))$ and we have $$\label{eq_negativez}
\|W_1(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_{n-1}}\le C\|W_1\|_{L^n(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^n(M)}.$$
Here we use a slight variation of Proposition \[prop:Frank-Sabin\]. Let $W_1,W_2$ be non-negative simple functions and consider the analytic family of operators $$S_s=W_1^{-s} (\Delta_g - z)^s W_2^{-s}, \quad -\frac{(n-1)}{2}\le {\hbox{Re}\,}s\le 0.$$ Clearly, when ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = 0$, we have $$\label{eq_negativez_1}
\|S_s\|_{L^2(M) \to L^2(M)}\le C.$$ Next, we will show that, when ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = -\frac{(n-1)}{2}$, then $S_s$ is Hilbert-Schmidt and we have $$\label{eq_negativez_2}
\| S_s\|_{\mathcal{C}_2}\le C e^{C|\mathrm{Im} \, s|} \| W_1\|^{\frac{n-1}{2}}_{L^n(M)} \| W_2\|^{\frac{n-1}{2}}_{L^n(M)}.$$ This allows us to run the interpolation argument in the proof of Proposition \[prop:Frank-Sabin\].
To prove , on the line ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = -\frac{(n-1)}{2}$, we express $(\Delta_g - z)^{s}$ in terms of the heat kernel: $$\label{heatkernel_k_1}
\Gamma(-s) (\Delta_g-z)^{s}(m,m')= \int_0^\infty t^{-s-1}e^{tz} e^{-t\Delta_g}(m,m')dt.$$ We now use heat kernel estimates. Due to Varopoulos [@Va], we have the estimate $||e^{-t\Delta_g}||_{L^1\to L^\infty}\leq Ct^{-{\frac{n}{2}}}$ and by a result of Grigor’yan [@Gr], this implies a pointwise upper Gaussian estimate on the heat kernel $$\label{heatkernel}
|e^{-t\Delta_g}(m,m')|\leq Ct^{-{\frac{n}{2}}} e^{-\frac{cd(m,m')^2}{t}}, \quad t>0,$$ for some $c>0$. The integral in is convergent for all $m\ne m'$ due to . We thus get for all $m\not=m'$ and $z\in(-\infty,0)$, and uniformly for all $s$ such that ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = -\frac{(n-1)}{2}$, $$\label{heatkernel_k_2}
\begin{split}
|\Gamma(-s) (\Delta_g-z)^{s}(m,m')|& \leq C\int_0^\infty t^{-\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{cd(m,m')^2}{t}+z t} \, dt \\
& \leq C d(m,m')^{-1}\int_0^\infty t^{-\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{c}{t}+zd(m,m')^2t}dt \\
& \leq C d(m,m')^{-1}.
\end{split}$$ Using Hölder inequality, the generalized Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality of [@GaGa] and , we obtain for ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = -\frac{(n-1)}{2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|W^{-s}_1&(\Delta_g-z)^{s}W_2^{-s}\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_2(M)}^2 \\
&\leq C |\Gamma(-s)|^{-1} \int_{M \times M} W_1(m)^{n-1} d(m,m')^{-2} W_2(m')^{n-1} dV_g(m) dV_g(m') \\
&\leq C |\Gamma(-s)|^{-1} \| W_1^{n-1} \|_{L^{\frac{n}{n-1}}(M)} \| W_2^{n-1} \|_{L^{\frac{n}{n-1}}(M)} \leq C e^{C|\mathrm{Im} \, s|} \| W_1\|_{L^n(M)}^{n-1} \| W_2\|_{L^n(M)}^{n-1}\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $e^{C|\mathrm{Im} \, s|}$ is contributed by the Gamma function. This shows .
We now interpolate using the family $S_s$ between and , as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:Frank-Sabin\], and we obtain at $s = -1$ $$\| W_1 (\Delta_g - z)^{-1} W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_{n-1}} \leq C \| W_1\|_{L^n(M)} \| W_2\|_{L^n(M)}.$$ which completes the proof for $W_1$ and $W_2$ non-negative and simple. The extension to general $W_1, W_2 \in L^n(M)$ is standard.
We now prove an analogue of Proposition \[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\].
\[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\_n/2\] Let $p = \frac{n}{2}$ and suppose $W_1, W_2\in L^n(M)$, and let $\phi$ be as in Proposition \[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\]. Then for $z > 0$, the operator $W_1 \big(1-\phi\big)\big( \frac{\Delta_g}{z}\big) (\Delta_g - z)^{-1} W_2$ is in the Schatten class $\mathcal{C}_{n-1}(L^2(M))$ and $$\bigg\|W_1 \bigg(1-\phi\bigg)\bigg( \frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g - z)^{-1} W_2 \bigg\|_{\mathcal{C}_{n-1}}\le C \| W_1\|_{L^n(M)} \| W_2\|_{L^n(M)},$$ uniformly in $z$.
We first note that for $z > 0$, the operator $$W_1 \phi\bigg( \frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g + z)^{-1} W_2$$ is in the Schatten class $\mathcal{C}_{n-1}(L^2(M))$, and $$\bigg\|W_1 \phi\bigg( \frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g + z)^{-1} W_2 \bigg\|_{\mathcal{C}_{n-1}}\le C\| W_1\|_{L^n(M)} \| W_2\|_{L^n(M)},$$ uniformly in $z$. This follows from the spectral measure estimate , since $$\int_0^\infty \lambda \phi \bigg( \frac{\lambda^2}{z}\bigg) (\lambda^2 + z)^{-1} d\lambda$$ is bounded uniformly in $z$. Combining this with the result of Proposition \[negativez\], we see that $W_1 \big(1-\phi\big)\big(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\big)(\Delta_g + z)^{-1} W_2 $ is in $\mathcal{C}_{n-1}(L^2(M))$ and we have $$\label{eq_compl_est_0}
\bigg\| W_1 \bigg(1-\phi\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)(\Delta_g + z)^{-1} W_2\bigg\|_{\mathcal{C}_{n-1}}\le C\| W_1\|_{L^n(M)} \| W_2\|_{L^n(M)},$$ uniformly in $z$.
Now we write $$\label{eq_compl_est_1}
\begin{aligned}
W_1 \bigg(1-\phi\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)(\Delta_g - z)^{-1} W_2 = W_1 \bigg(1-\phi\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)(\Delta_g + z)^{-1} W_2 \\ + 2zW_1 \bigg(1-\phi\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)(\Delta_g + z)^{-1}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1} W_2 .
\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the right hand side of has already been shown to lie in $\mathcal{C}_{n-1}$ with the bound . We write the second term on the right hand side of in terms of the spectral measure and apply Minkowski’s integral inequality together with the spectral measure estimate , and find that the norm in $\mathcal{C}_{n-1}$ is bounded by $$C\bigg(z \int_0^\infty \bigg(1-\phi\bigg)\bigg( \frac{\lambda^2}{z}\bigg) (\lambda^2 + z)^{-1} (\lambda^2 - z)^{-1} \lambda d\lambda\bigg) \| W_1\|_{L^n(M)} \| W_2\|_{L^n(M)}$$ and a change of variable shows that this integral is convergent and independent of $z$, completing the proof.
Resolvent estimates on the spectrum. Completion of the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] {#sec_on_spectrum}
===============================================================================================================
The key difficulty in proving Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] is to obtain estimates on the limiting resolvent at the spectrum, $(\Delta_g - (z + i0))^{-1}$, for $z > 0$. Given Proposition \[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\] and Proposition \[prop:resolvent-near-spectrum-away-from-singularity1\_n/2\], we only need to do this localized near the singularity at $z$ of the spectral multiplier $(\lambda^2 - z)^{-1}$. In doing so, following [@GHS], [@GuHa] and [@HaZh], we shall use a microlocal partition of unity.
Operator partition of unity {#sec:partition of unity}
---------------------------
We begin by recalling some results of [@GuHa] and [@HaZh] on high and low frequency microlocal estimates on the spectral measure and resolvents of $\Delta_g$.
\[prop:partition of unity\] ***High frequency microlocal estimates.*** For all high energies $\eta \geq 1/2$, there exists a family of bounded operators $Q_i(\eta):L^2(M)\to L^2(M)$, $i=1,\dots,N_h$, with $N_h$ independent of $\eta$ and with the norm satisfying $$\|Q_i(\eta)\|_{L^2(M)\to L^2(M)}\leq C \text{ for some $C$ independent of $\eta$},
\label{norm-uniform}$$ so that the following properties hold:\
(1) The operators $Q_i(\eta)$ form an operator partition of unity: $$\sum_{i=1}^{N_h}Q_i(\eta)={\rm Id}.
\label{partition-of-identity}$$ (2) Let $\eta\geq 1/2$ and $(i,j) \in \{1,\dots, N_h\}^2$. There exists $\delta>0$ small such that for all $z>0$ such that $\sqrt{z} \in [(1-\delta)\eta, (1+\delta)\eta]$, one of the following three alternatives holds:\
(2.i) One has $$\label{1stcase}
\big(Q_i(\eta)^*(\Delta_g-(z + i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')\in
x(m)^\infty {x(m')}^\infty z^{-\infty}C^\infty({\overline}{M}{\times}{\overline}{M}),$$ for all $m,m'\in M$, where the $C^\infty({\overline}{M}{\times}{\overline}{M})$ part depends also on $z$ and is uniformly bounded in $z$ in the smooth topology.\
(2.ii) One has $$\big(Q_i(\eta)^*(\Delta_g-(z -i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')\in
x(m)^\infty {x(m')}^\infty z^{-\infty}C^\infty({\overline}{M}{\times}{\overline}{M}),
\label{2ndcase}$$ for all $m,m'\in M$.
(2.iii) The spectral measure satisfies, for $\lambda=\sqrt{z} \in [(1-\delta)\eta, (1+\delta)\eta]$, the following bounds: for all $k=0,1,2,\dots$, there is $C_k>0$ such that for all $m,m'\in M$ $$\label{eq_10_1_partition}
\Big|{\partial}_{{\lambda}}^k\big(Q_i(\eta)^*dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}({\lambda})Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')\Big|\leq C_k{\lambda}^{n-1-k}(1+{\lambda}d(m,m'))^{-\frac{(n-1)}{2}+k},$$ $$\label{eq_10_2_partition}
\big(Q_i(\eta)^*dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}({\lambda})Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')={\lambda}^{n-1}\bigg(\sum_{\pm}e^{\pm i{\lambda}d(m,m')}a_\pm({\lambda},m,m')+b({\lambda},m,m')\bigg),$$ with $a_\pm,b$ satisfying the estimates for all $k=0,1,2,\dots$, $$\label{eq_10_3_partition}
|{\partial}_{\lambda}^k a_\pm({\lambda},m,m')|\leq C_k{\lambda}^{-k}(1+{\lambda}d(m,m'))^{-\frac{(n-1)}{2}},$$ $$\label{eq_10_4_partition}
|{\partial}_{\lambda}^k b({\lambda},m,m')|\leq C_k{\lambda}^{-k}(1+{\lambda}d(m,m'))^{-K}, \quad \forall K>1.$$ Moreover the alternative (2.iii) always holds if $i=j$.
***Low frequency microlocal estimates.*** Similarly, for all low energies $\eta \leq 2$, there exists a family of bounded operators $Q_i(\eta):L^2(M)\to L^2(M)$, $i=0, *, 1,\dots,N_l$, with $N_l$ independent of $\eta$ satisfying and (with the sum in this case ranging over $i=0, *, 1,\dots,N_l$), satisfying the following:
\(3) Let $0<\eta\leq 2$ and $i,j$ range independently in $\{0,*, 1, \dots, N_l\}$. There exists $\delta>0$ small such that for all $z>0$ satisfying $\lambda := \sqrt{z} \in [(1-\delta)\eta, (1+\delta)\eta]$, one of the following three alternatives holds:\
(3.i) One has the pointwise kernel bound $$\label{1stcaselow}
|\big(Q_i(\eta)^*(\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')|\leq C\frac{(xx')^{\frac{n-1}{2}}(\chi(\tfrac{x}{{\lambda}})+\chi(\tfrac{x'}{{\lambda}}))}{x+x'+{\lambda}},$$ where $x=x(m), x'=x(m')$, and $\chi\in C_0^\infty((-\varepsilon,\varepsilon),[0,\infty))$ is such that $\chi=1$ in $[-\varepsilon/2,\varepsilon/2]$. Here $\varepsilon>0$ is small enough.\
(3.ii) One has the pointwise kernel bound $$\label{2ndcaselow}
\begin{aligned}
|\big(Q_i(\eta)^*(\Delta_g-(z-i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')|
\leq C\frac{(xx')^{\frac{n-1}{2}}(\chi(\tfrac{x}{{\lambda}})+\chi(\tfrac{x'}{{\lambda}}))}{x+x'+{\lambda}}.
\end{aligned}$$\
(3.iii) For all $k=0,1,2,\dots$, there is $C_k>0$ such that , , and hold.
Moreover if $i=j$, the alternative (3.iii) holds.\
The two partitions of the identity do not quite match up in the intermediate energy regime, $1/2 \leq \eta \leq 2$. Because of this, it would be more notationally accurate to label the partitions $Q_i^{high}$ and $Q_j^{low}$; to avoid cumbersome notation, we do not do this. We emphasize that in this intermediate regime, either partition can be used.
In the low energy case, $\eta \leq 2$, let us first point out the meaning of the RHS of and . In [@GuHaSi_III] it was shown that the resolvent kernel has some Legendrian and polyhomogeneous structure on the low energy space. In the low energy regime, there are 7 boundary hypersurfaces that play a role: ${\mathrm{zf}}$, ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$, ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$, ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$, ${\mathrm{lb}}$, ${\mathrm{rb}}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}}$ — see figure 1 of [@GuHaSi_III].
The resolvent was shown in particular to be polyhomogeneous and vanish to order $n-2$ at the boundary hypersurfaces labelled ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$, ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$, ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$, and order $(n-1)/2$ at ${\mathrm{lb}}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}}$. Cases (3.i) and (3.ii) will apply when there is no wavefront set at bf, meaning there is infinite order vanishing there. Moreover, the cutoff functions vanish in a neighbourhood of ${\mathrm{zf}}$. On the other hand, $x$ vanishes to first order at ${\mathrm{lb}}$, ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$, while $x'$ vanishes to first order at ${\mathrm{rb}}$, ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$ and $x+x'+\lambda$ vanishes to first order at ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$, so the product on the RHS of and precisely encodes the order of vanishing at these boundary hypersurfaces.
This is a combination of several results from [@GHS] and [@GuHa]. In the high energy case, $\eta \geq 1/2$, Lemma 5.3 of [@GuHa] tells us that the pairs $(i,j)$ split into four cases. In the first two cases, $Q_i(\eta)^*$ is either not-incoming or not-outgoing related to $Q_j(\eta)$, and then Proposition 6.7 of [@GuHa] applies; note that the estimates in (2.i) and (2.ii) above appear in the proof, rather than the statement, of Proposition 6.7. In the third and fourth cases, Theorem 1.12 of [@GHS] applies and shows that estimates hold, see also Proposition 6.4 of [@GuHa]. Also in the third and fourth cases, Proposition 1.5 of [@HaZh] holds and gives the estimates , and . Note that [@HaZh Proposition 1.5] is written in the case when $i=j$ but the proof of that proposition shows that it remains valid more generally when $i\ne j$ but the microsupports are close enough.
In the low energy case, as shown in Section 6 of [@GuHa], case (3.iii) applies to the pairs $(0,0)$, $(*, *)$, and $(i, j)$ where $i, j\geq 1$ and $|i-j| \leq 1$. Moreover, case (3.iii) also applies to any pair where either $i = *$ or $j=*$. That is because in these cases, the operator $Q_*(\eta)$ annihilates all the wavefront set of the spectral measure at bf, with the consequence that the spectral measure estimates $$\label{eq_10_1}
\Big|{\partial}_{{\lambda}}^k\big(Q_i(\eta)^*dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}({\lambda})Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')\Big|\leq C_k{\lambda}^{n-1-k}(1+{\lambda}d(m,m'))^{-\frac{(n-1)}{2}+k},$$ hold if either $i = *$ or $j=*$, and this leads to estimates as in the high energy case. For (3.iii) with $i,j\geq 1$, the estimates , and are proven in [@HaZh Proposition 1.5] in the case when $i=j$ but the proof shows that it remains valid more generally when $i\ne j$ but the microsupports are close enough. The case $i,j\in\{0,*\}$ in (3.iii) is also shown in [@HaZh Proposition 1.5].
The cases $i=0$ and $j \geq 1$, or $i\geq 1$ and $j=0$, fit any one of the cases (3.i), (3.ii), (3.iii) above. This is because here the wavefront set at bf is wiped out by $Q_0(\eta)$, while the wavefront set at fibre-infinity is wiped out by $Q_j(\eta)$ for $j \geq 1$.
The final case remaining, where $i, j \geq 1$ and $|i-j| \geq 2$, fit into cases (3.i) or (3.ii) according to whether $Q_i(\eta)^*$ is not incoming-related or not outgoing-related to $Q_j(\eta)$, as shown in Proposition 6.9 of [@GuHa].
Cases (3.i) and (3.ii) will be treated using the following lemma.
\[lem:K\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$. Then if an integral operator $K$ has kernel $K(m,m')$ bounded pointwise by $$C\frac{(xx')^{\frac{n-1}{2}}(\chi(\tfrac{x}{{\lambda}})+\chi(\tfrac{x'}{{\lambda}}))}{x+x'+{\lambda}},\quad 0<\lambda\le 3,$$ then for $W_1, W_2 \in L^{2p}(M)$, $p \in [\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n+1}{2}]$, the operator $W_1 K W_2$ is Hilbert Schmidt and we have $$\label{eq_lem_K}
\| W_1 K W_2 \|_{\mathcal{C}_2}\le C \lambda^{-2+\frac{n}{p}} \| W_1 \|_{L^{2p}(M)}\| W_2 \|_{L^{2p}(M)}.$$
Using Hölder’s inequality with $1/p'+1/p=1$ and $p'\in [\frac{n+1}{n-1},\frac{n}{n-2}]$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|W_1K W_2\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_2}& \le
\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}} \|W_2\|_{L^{2p}} \\
& \Big(\int_{M{\times}M}\frac{(x(m)x(m'))^{(n-1)p'}(\chi(\tfrac{x(m)}{{\lambda}})+\chi(\tfrac{x(m')}{{\lambda}}))^{2p'}}{(x(m)+x(m')+{\lambda})^{2p'}}dV_g(m)dV_g(m')\Big)^{1/2p'}.\end{aligned}$$ We use the coordinates $m=(x,y), m'=(x',y')$ near the boundary, where the measure $dV_g(m)$ is comparable to $\frac{dxdy}{x^{n+1}}$. Let us introduce the polar coordinates $(x,x')=(R\sin(\theta),R\cos(\theta))$ with $\theta\in[0,\pi/2]$, near $x=x'=0$. Using that $(n-1)p'-(n+1)\ge 0$ and $x+x'\sim R$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(&\int_{M{\times}M}\frac{(xx')^{(n-1)p'}\chi(\tfrac{x}{{\lambda}})}{(x+x'+{\lambda})^{2p'}}dV_{g}dV_{g'}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2p'}}
\le C \Big( \int_{0<x<2\lambda} \frac{(xx')^{(n-1)p'-(n+1)}}{(x+x'+{\lambda})^{2p'}}dxdx' \Big)^{\frac{1}{2p'}}\\
&\le C \Big( \int_0^\infty \int_{0<\sin\theta<2\lambda/R} \frac{R^{2(n-1)p'-2n-1}}{(R+\lambda)^{2p'}}dRd\theta \Big)^{\frac{1}{2p'}}\\
&\le C\frac{1}{\lambda} \Big( \int_0^{2\lambda} R^{2(n-1)p'-2n-1} dR\Big)^{\frac{1}{2p'}}
+ C \Big( \int_{2\lambda}^\infty \int_{0<\theta\le \tilde C\lambda/R} R^{2(n-1)p'-2p'-2n-1} dRd\theta\Big)^{\frac{1}{2p'}} \\
&\le C\lambda^{\frac{n}{p}-2}+ C\lambda^{\frac{1}{2p'}} \Big( \int_{2\lambda}^\infty R^{2(n-2)p'-2n-2} dR\Big)^{\frac{1}{2p'}} \le C\lambda^{\frac{n}{p}-2}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we used that $(n-1)p'>n$ and $2(n-2)p'-2n-1<0$. The same argument works with the term involving $\chi(x'/{\lambda})$ and the estimate follows.
Analytic family of operators
----------------------------
In this section we closely follow Section 4 of [@GuHa], especially Remark 4.2 (which is substantially due to Adam Sikora). Let $\phi\in C^\infty_0(((1-\delta/4)^2,(1+\delta/4)^2))$ be such that $\phi(t)=1$ in a neighborhood of $t=1$, where $\delta>0$ is small, and consider the analytic family of operators in ${\hbox{Re}\,}(s)\le 0$, $$H_{s,z,\varepsilon}(\Delta_g)=\phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g-(z+i\varepsilon))^s, \quad z>0,\quad \varepsilon>0.$$ By spectral theorem, we have $$\label{eq_def_H_s_z}
H_{s,z,\varepsilon}(\Delta_g)=z^{s+\frac{1}{2}}\int_0^\infty \bigg(\lambda-\bigg(1+i\frac{\varepsilon}{z}\bigg)\bigg)^s\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})d\lambda.$$ Let $\eta>0$ be such that $z^{1/2}\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta, (1+\delta/2)\eta]$ and let $Q_i(\eta)$ and $Q_j(\eta)$ be such that the condition (2.iii) or (3.iii) of Proposition \[prop:partition of unity\] holds, in the high energy, respectively, low energy case. Then using , we have on the level of Schwartz kernels, for $m,m'\in M$, $$\label{eq_def_H_s_z_with_Q}
\big(Q_i(\eta)^*H_{s,z,\varepsilon}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')=z^{s+\frac{1}{2}}\int_0^\infty \bigg(\lambda-\bigg(1+i\frac{\varepsilon}{z}\bigg)\bigg)^s\psi(\lambda)d\lambda,$$ where $$\psi(\lambda)=\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m').$$ Here, as $\delta>0$ is small, we have $z^{1/2}\lambda^{1/2}\in [(1-\delta)\eta,(1+\delta)\eta]$ when $z^{1/2}\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta, (1+\delta/2)\eta]$ and $\lambda\in \operatorname{supp}(\phi)$, and therefore, in view of , we have $\psi(\lambda) \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}})$.
Letting $\varepsilon\to 0$ in , we define the operators $Q_i(\eta)^*H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)$, when $z^{1/2}\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta, (1+\delta/2)\eta]$, as operators whose Schwartz kernels are given by $$\label{eq_def_H_s_z_with_Q_eps=0}
\begin{aligned}
\big(Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)\big)(m,m')&=z^{s+\frac{1}{2}}\int_0^\infty (\lambda-(1+i0))^s \psi(\lambda) d\lambda\\
&= z^{s+\frac{1}{2}} \bigg( (\lambda -i0)^s * \psi(\lambda) \bigg)(1).
\end{aligned}$$
We are interested in pointwise estimates for the kernel of $Q_i(\eta)^*H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)$ and to this end, we shall need the following result of [@GuHa Remark 4.2]. Even though the proof is almost the same as that of [@GHS Lemma 3.3], for completeness we provide a proof in the Appendix \[app\].
\[Guillarmou\_Hassell\_remark\] Let $a<b<c\le 0$ and let us write $b=\theta a +(1-\theta) c$, $0< \theta< 1$. Then there is $C>0$ such that for all $f\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}})$, all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, and all $0<\varepsilon\ll 1$, we have $$\label{eq_10_4_conv}
\|(\lambda\pm i \varepsilon)^{b+it}* f\|_{L^\infty_\lambda}\le C(1+|t|)e^{\frac{3\pi|t|}{2}}\|\chi_+^a*f\|_{L^\infty_\lambda}^\theta \|\chi_+^c*f\|_{L^\infty_\lambda}^{1-\theta}.$$
We have the following result.
\[prop:Hsz\] Suppose that $(i,j)$ are such that the condition (2.iii) or (3.iii) holds, in the high energy, respectively, low energy case. Then there is $C>0$ such that the kernel of the operator $Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)$ with $z>0$ and $z^{\frac{1}{2}}\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta,(1+\delta/2)\eta]$ has the following pointwise estimates,
\(i) For $\emph{\text{Re}}(s) = -\frac{(n+1)}{2}$, we have $$\Big| Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)(m,m') \Big| \leq C e^{C|\emph{\text{Im}}\,(s)|}z^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\label{Hs=-(n+1)/2}$$ for all $m,m'\in M$, uniformly in $z$ and $\eta$.
\(ii) For $\emph{\text{Re}} (s) = -\frac{(n-1)}{2}$, we have $$\Big| Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)(m,m') \Big| \leq C e^{C|\emph{\text{Im}}\,(s)|} d(m,m')^{-1}.
\label{Hs=-(n-1)/2}$$ for all $m,m'\in M$, uniformly in $z$ and $\eta$.
Estimate is proved in [@GuHa Remark 4.2]. Estimate is proved in the same way, except for the case $n=3$, relying on the estimates only. Indeed, in the case $n\ge 5$ is odd, we take $a = -\frac{(n+1)}{2}$ and $c = -\frac{(n-3)}{2}$ in Lemma \[Guillarmou\_Hassell\_remark\] and using that $$\chi_+^{-k}=\delta_0^{(k-1)}, \quad k=1,2,\dots,$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Big| Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)(m,m') \Big| &\leq Cz^{\frac{2-n}{2}}(1+|\text{Im}(s)|)e^{\frac{3\pi |\text{Im} (s)|}{2}}\\
& {\times}\bigg\|{\partial}_\lambda^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')\bigg)\bigg\|_{L^\infty}^{1/2} \\
&{\times}\bigg\|{\partial}_\lambda^{\frac{n-5}{2}}\bigg(\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')\bigg)\bigg\|_{L^\infty}^{1/2}, \end{aligned}$$ and therefore, using , we obtain that $$\label{eq_a_b_odd}
\begin{aligned}
\Big| Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)(m,m') \Big|&\le Ce^{C|\text{Im}(s)|}z^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+z^{\frac{1}{2}}d(m,m'))^{-1}\\
&\le C e^{C|\text{Im}\,(s)|} d(m,m')^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ For $n \geq 4$ even, taking $a = -\frac{n}{2}$, $c = -\frac{(n-2)}{2}$ in Lemma \[Guillarmou\_Hassell\_remark\] and using , we also get . We have therefore established for all $n\ge 4$.
When $n=3$, using Lemma \[Guillarmou\_Hassell\_remark\] with $a=-2$ and $c=0$, and the fact that $\chi_+^0(\lambda)=H(\lambda)$ is the Heaviside function, we obtain that $$\label{eq_n=3_pointwise_1}
\begin{aligned}
\Big| Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)(m,m') \Big| &\le Cz^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1+|\text{Im}(s)|)e^{\frac{3\pi |\text{Im} (s)|}{2}}\\
&{\times}\bigg\|{\partial}_\lambda \bigg(\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')\bigg)\bigg\|_{L^\infty}^{1/2} \\
&{\times}\bigg\|H*\bigg(\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')\bigg)\bigg\|_{L^\infty}^{1/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ By , we get $$\label{eq_n=3_pointwise_2}
\bigg\|{\partial}_\lambda \bigg(\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')\bigg)\bigg\|_{L^\infty}\le Cz.$$ Now if we show that $$\label{eq_n=3_pointwise_3}
\bigg\|H*\bigg(\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')\bigg)\bigg\|_{L^\infty}\le Cd(m,m')^{-2},$$ then the estimate will follow from , and . To prove , using , we write $$\label{eq_n=3_pointwise_4}
\begin{aligned}
H*\bigg(\frac{\phi(\lambda)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} &Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')\bigg)(\lambda)\\
&=\int_{0}^{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}} \phi(\mu^2) Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu ) Q_j(\eta)(m,m')d\mu\\
&=\int_{0}^{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}} \phi(\mu^2) z\mu^2 \bigg[\sum_{\pm} e^{\pm i z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu d(m,m')}a_\pm(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu,m,m')+b(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu,m,m')\bigg] d\mu.
\end{aligned}$$ The terms involving $a_\pm$ in can be treated similarly and in what follows we shall only consider the term involving $a_+$ and drop the sign $+$. To estimate this term, we integrate by parts and get $$\label{eq_n=3_pointwise_6}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}} \phi(\mu^2) z\mu^2 e^{i z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu d(m,m')}&a(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu,m,m')d\mu\\
&=\frac{1}{i z^{\frac{1}{2}}d(m,m')}\bigg[ \phi(\mu^2) z\mu^2 e^{i z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu d(m,m')}a(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu,m,m')|_{\mu=0}^{\mu=\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}} \\
&-\int_{0}^{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\partial}_{\mu} \big( \phi(\mu^2) z\mu^2 a(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu,m,m') \big) e^{i z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu d(m,m')} d\mu\bigg].
\end{aligned}$$ Estimating the terms in the left hand side of with the help of , we obtain that $$\label{eq_n=3_pointwise_7}
\bigg| \int_{0}^{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}} \phi(\mu^2) z\mu^2 e^{i z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu d(m,m')}a(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu,m,m')d\mu\bigg|\le C\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}d(m,m')^{-2},$$ uniformly in $z$. To estimate the term involving the remainder $b$ in , we use with $K=2$ and get $$\label{eq_n=3_pointwise_5}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}} \phi(\mu^2) z\mu^2|b(z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu,m,m')|d\mu&\le C\int_{0}^{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}} \phi(\mu^2) z\mu^2 (1+z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu d(m,m'))^{-2}d\mu\\
&\le Cd(m,m')^{-2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now follows from , and . This completes the proof of estimate .
When proving the Schatten bound on the resolvent on the spectrum in Section \[sec\_resolvent\_on\_spec\] below, the cases (2.iii) and (3.iii) of Proposition \[prop:partition of unity\] will be treated using the following result.
\[prop\_cases\_2\_iii\_3\_iii\] Suppose that $(i,j)$ are such that the condition (2.iii) or (3.iii) holds, in the high energy, respectively low energy case. Let $p\in [\frac{n}{2},\frac{n+1}{2}]$. Then there is $C>0$ such that for all $z\in (0,\infty)$, $z^{\frac{1}{2}}\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta,(1+\delta/2)\eta]$, and all $W_1, W_2\in L^{2p}(M)$, we have $W_1Q_i(\eta)^*H_{-1,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)W_2\in \mathcal{C}_q(L^2(M))$, $q=\frac{p(n-1)}{n-p}$, and $$\label{eq_prop_cases_2_iii_3_iii}
\|W_1Q_i(\eta)^*H_{-1,z,0}(\Delta_g)Q_j(\eta)W_2\|_{\mathcal{C}_q}\le C z^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}}\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}.$$
First thanks to Proposition \[prop:Hsz\], case (i), we know that for ${\hbox{Re}\,}s=-\frac{(n+1)}{2}$, $$\|Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)\|_{L^1(M)\to L^\infty(M)}\le Ce^{C|\text{Im}(s)|}z^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ By spectral theorem, we also know that for ${\hbox{Re}\,}s=0$, $$\|Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)\|_{L^2(M)\to L^2(M)}\le Ce^{\pi |\text{Im}(s)|}.$$ Hence, Proposition \[prop:Frank-Sabin\] implies that $W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* H_{-1, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)W_2\in \mathcal{C}_{n+1}(L^2(M))$ and moreover, $$\label{eq_zreel_res_2}
\|W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* H_{-1, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)W_2\|_{\mathcal{C}_{n+1}}\le C z^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}\|W_1\|_{L^{n+1}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{n+1}(M)}.$$ Now when ${\hbox{Re}\,}s = -\frac{(n-1)}{2}$, thanks to Proposition \[prop:Hsz\] (ii), the kernel of the operator $Q_i(\eta)^* H_{s, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)$ has the bound , which is the same as the bound in the proof of Proposition \[negativez\]. Proceeding exactly as in the proof of Proposition \[negativez\], we get $$\label{eq_zreel_res_3}
\|W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* H_{-1, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)W_2\|_{\mathcal{C}_{n-1}}\le C \|W_1\|_{L^{n}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{n}(M)}.$$
In view of and , the bound follows by a complex interpolation argument applied to the analytic family of operators $$\zeta\mapsto W_1^{\frac{2}{n+1}+\zeta\frac{2}{n(n+1)}} Q_i(\eta)^* H_{-1, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta) W_2^{\frac{2}{n+1}+\zeta\frac{2}{n(n+1)}}$$ in the strip $0\le {\hbox{Re}\,}\zeta\le 1$, with $W_j\ge 0$ being simple functions such that $\|W_j\|_{L^2(M)}=1$, $j=1,2$, see [@Simon_operator_theory p. 154].
Resolvent estimates on the spectrum {#sec_resolvent_on_spec}
-----------------------------------
The final ingredient in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] is the following result.
\[zreel\] Let $\phi\in C^\infty_0(((1-\delta/4)^2,(1+\delta/4)^2))$ be such that $\phi(t)=1$ in a neighborhood of $t=1$, where $\delta>0$ is small, and let $p\in [\frac{n}{2},\frac{n+1}{2}]$. Then there is $C>0$ such that for all $z\in (0,\infty)$ and all $W_1, W_2\in L^{2p}(M)$, then for $q=\frac{p(n-1)}{n-p}$ we have $W_1 \phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}) (\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}W_2\in \mathcal{C}_q(L^2(M))$ and $$\label{eq_zreel_res}
\bigg\|W_1 \phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)(\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}W_2\bigg\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_{q}}\leq Cz^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}}\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)} \|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}.$$
Let us first take the high energy case $z \geq 1$ and let $\eta\ge 1$ be such that $\sqrt{z}\in [(1-\delta/2)\eta,(1+\delta/2)\eta]$. We decompose the spectrally localized outgoing resolvent $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z})(\Delta_g - (z+i0))^{-1}$ into microlocalized pieces $$W_1 \phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}W_2= \sum_{i,j=1}^{N_h} W_1Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)W_2.$$ The bound will follow if we show that for all $(i,j)$, we have $$\label{eq_zreel_res_i_j}
\bigg\|W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1} Q_j(\eta)W_2\bigg\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_{q}}\leq Cz^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}}\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)} \|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)}.$$ To that end, the pairs $(i,j)$ will be divided into three cases as in Proposition \[prop:partition of unity\].
In the first case, (2.i), in view of and Corollary \[cor:spec-localized-est\], we know that the Schwartz kernel of the operator $Q_i(\eta)^* \phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}) (\Delta_g-z-i0)^{-1}Q_j(\eta)$ is ${\mathcal}{O}(z^{-N})$ in $L^{2p'}(M{\times}M)$ with $1/p'+1/p=1$. Using this together with the fact that $q\ge 2$ and Hölder’s inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg\|W_1Q_i(\eta)^*\phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)& (\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)W_2\bigg\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_q}\\
&\le
\bigg\|W_1Q_i(\eta)^*\phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg)(\Delta_g-(z+i0))^{-1}Q_j(\eta)W_2\bigg\|_{{\mathcal}{C}_2}\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(z^{-N})\|W_1\|_{L^{2p}(M)}\|W_2\|_{L^{2p}(M)},\end{aligned}$$ for any $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$, showing .
In the second case, (2.ii), using Stone’s formula, we write $$\label{eq_zreel_res_2_iii}
\begin{aligned}
W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g &- (z+i0))^{-1} Q_j(\eta) W_2 \\
&= W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g - (z-i0))^{-1} Q_j(\eta) W_2 \\
&+ \frac{\pi i}{\lambda} W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda) Q_j(\eta) W_2, \quad \lambda = \sqrt{z}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then the estimate for the term involving the incoming resolvent in follows exactly as in case (2.i). On the other hand, we have already proved the corresponding estimate for the spectral measure, which leads to the estimate in this case.
In the third case, (2.iii), we get $$\label{eq_zreel_res_1}
\begin{aligned}
W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* \phi\bigg(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}\bigg) (\Delta_g - (z+i0))^{-1} Q_j(\eta) W_2 =W_1 Q_i(\eta)^* H_{-1, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)W_2,
\end{aligned}$$ where the operator $Q_i(\eta)^* H_{-1, z,0}(\Delta_g) Q_j(\eta)$ is defined in . The required estimate for this term therefore is a consequence of Proposition \[prop\_cases\_2\_iii\_3\_iii\].
In the low energy case, $0 < z \leq 1$, the argument is similar. In cases (3.i) and (3.ii) we use Corollary \[cor:spec-localized-est\] together with Lemma \[lem:K\] and the bound for the spectral measure to deduce the Schatten norm estimate. In case (3.iii), the argument is the same as for case (2.iii). This concludes the proof of the proposition.
Bounds on individual eigenvalues. Proof of Theorem \[thm\_indiviual\_asymptotically conic\] {#sec_4_individual}
===========================================================================================
In this section we shall follow some of the arguments of [@Frank_2015] and [@Frank_Simon], making some necessary changes due to the fact that we are no longer in the Euclidean setting.
Let us recall that $n=\text{dim}(M)\ge 3$. We have the following result which is a generalization of [@Frank_2015 Lemma 4.2] to the case of the Laplace operator on asymptotically conic manifolds.
\[prop\_comp\_Frank\] Let $V\in L^p(M)$ with $\frac{n}{2}\le p<\infty$. The operator $\sqrt{|V|}(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ is compact on $L^2(M)$.
We follow [@Frank_2015 Lemma 4.2]. First we shall show that $$\label{eq_indiv_prop_1}
\|W(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))}\le C\| W\|_{L^{2p}(M)},\quad W\in L^{2p}(M).$$ Indeed, we have $$\label{eq_indiv_prop_1_0_1}
(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}: L^2(M)\to H^{1}(M),$$ is bounded, and therefore, by Sobolev’s embedding $H^{1}(M)\subset L^{\frac{2n}{n-2}}(M)$, which is valid on an asymptotically conic manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$, see [@GuHa Proposition 2.1], we get $$\label{eq_indiv_prop_1_0_2}
(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}: L^2(M)\to L^{\frac{2n}{n-2}}(M)$$ is also bounded. Using Hölder’s inequality, the logarithmic convexity of $L^p$ norms, and , , we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\|W& (\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}} f\|_{L^2(M)}\le \|W\|_{L^{2p}(M)} \|(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}} f\|_{L^{\frac{2p}{p -1}}(M)}\\
&\le \|W\|_{L^{2p}(M)} \|(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}} f\|_{L^2(M)}^{1-\frac{n}{2p}} \|(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}} f\|_{L^{\frac{2n}{n-2}}(M)}^{\frac{n}{2p}}\\
&\le
C \|W\|_{L^{2p}(M)}\|f\|_{L^2(M)},\end{aligned}$$ showing .
Let $W_j\in C_0^\infty(M)$ be such that $W_j\to \sqrt{|V|}$ in $L^{2p}(M)$. By Rellich’s compactness theorem, the operator $W_j(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ is compact on $L^2(M)$, and it follows from that $W_j(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\to \sqrt{|V|}(\Delta_g+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ in $\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))$. The proof is complete.
Setting $$\sqrt{V(x)}=\begin{cases}\frac{V(x)}{\sqrt{|V(x)|}}, & V(x)\ne 0,\\
0, & V(x)=0,
\end{cases}$$ and combining Proposition \[prop\_comp\_Frank\] with [@Frank_2015 Lemma B.1], we get that the quadratic form $$\| (\Delta_g)^{1/2}u\|^2_{L^2(M)}+(\sqrt{V}u, \sqrt{|V|}u)_{L^2(M)},$$ equipped with the domain $H^{1}(M)$, is closed and sectorial. Associated to the quadratic form is an $m$–sectorial operator with domain $\subset H^{1}(M)$, which we shall denote by $\Delta_g+V$. The spectrum of $\Delta_g+V$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$ consists of isolated eigenvalues of finite algebraic multiplicity, see [@Frank_2015 Proposition B. 2].
Now interpolating between the estimate, valid for $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$, $$\|(\Delta_g -z)^{-1}\|_{L^2(M)\to L^2(M)}=\frac{1}{d(z)},$$ and the uniform estimate , with $p=\frac{2(n+1)}{n+3}$, we obtain the following result.
\[cor\_Guillarmou\_Hassell\_2014\] Let $(M,g)$ be an asymptotically conic non-trapping manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$. Then for all $p\in [\frac{2(n+1)}{n+3},2]$, there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$, $$\label{eq_KRS_manifold_non-uniform}
\| (\Delta_g -z)^{-1}\|_{L^{p}(M)\to L^{p'}(M)}\le Cd(z)^{(n+1)(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2})-1}|z|^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}}.$$
We shall now proceed to prove Theorem \[thm\_indiviual\_asymptotically conic\]. In doing so we shall follow [@Frank_Simon Theorem 3.2]. Let $\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}$ be an eigenvalue and $\psi\in H^{1}(M)$ be the corresponding eigenfunction of $\Delta_g+V$, $$(\Delta_g+V)\psi=\lambda\psi.$$
**(i)** Let $0< \gamma\le \frac{1}{2}$. Assume first that $\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$. Let us choose $p>1$ such that $$\label{eq_8_1}
\gamma+\frac{n}{2}=\frac{p}{2-p},$$ and notice that then $\frac{2n}{n+2}< p\le \frac{2(n+1)}{n+3}$ and $\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1}\le p'< \frac{2n}{n-2}$.
By Sobolev’s embedding, we have $\psi\in L^{\frac{2n}{n-2}}(M)$, and thus, $\psi\in L^r(M)$ for $r\in [2,\frac{2n}{n-2}]$, by interpolation. In particular, $\psi\in L^{p'}(M)$, and by Hölder’s inequality, we get $$\|V\psi\|_{L^p(M)}\le \|V\|_{L^{\frac{p}{2-p}}(M)}\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}= \|V\|_{L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)}\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}.$$ We have $$\psi=(\Delta_g-\lambda)^{-1}(\Delta_g-\lambda)\psi=-(\Delta_g-\lambda)^{-1}(V\psi).$$ Hence, using , we get $$\label{eq_8_1_1}
\begin{aligned}
\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}&\le \|(\Delta_g-\lambda)^{-1} \|_{L^p(M)\to L^{p'}(M)}\|V\psi\|_{L^p({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\\
&\le C|\lambda|^{\frac{n}{2}(\frac{2}{p}-1)-1}\|V\|_{L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)}\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)},
\end{aligned}$$ which implies in view of $$\frac{n}{2}\bigg(\frac{2}{p}-1\bigg)-1=-\frac{\gamma}{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}.$$
Assume now that $\lambda\in (0,\infty)$. Then for $\varepsilon>0$, we set $$\psi_\varepsilon=(\Delta_g-\lambda-i\varepsilon)^{-1}(\Delta_g-\lambda)\psi=f_\varepsilon (\Delta_g)\psi,$$ where $$f_\varepsilon(t)=\frac{t-\lambda}{t-\lambda-i\varepsilon}, \quad t\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ By the spectral theorem, we have $$\|\psi_\varepsilon-\psi\|_{L^2(M)}^2=\|f_\varepsilon (\Delta_g)\psi-\psi\|_{L^2(M)}^2=\int |f_\varepsilon(t)-1|^2d (E_{\Delta_g}(t)\psi, \psi)_{L^2(M)},$$ where $d E_{\Delta_g}(t)$ is the spectral measure of $\Delta_g$. Using the dominated convergence theorem together with the fact that $f_\varepsilon(t)\to 1$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$ for all $t\ne \lambda$, and that $E_\lambda=0$ as $\lambda$ is not an eigenvalue of $\Delta_g$, we conclude that $\psi_\varepsilon\to \psi$ in $L^2(M)$.
On the other hand, we have $$\psi_\varepsilon=-(\Delta_g-\lambda-i\varepsilon)^{-1}(V\psi).$$ Choosing $p>1$ satisfying and using , we obtain that $$\label{eq_8_2}
\|\psi_\varepsilon\|_{L^{p'}(M)}\le C|\lambda|^{\frac{n}{2}(\frac{2}{p}-1)-1}\|V\|_{L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)}\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)},$$ i.e. $\psi_\varepsilon$ is uniformly bounded in $L^{p'}(M)$. Passing to a subsequence, we may assume that there exists $\tilde \psi\in L^{p'}(M)$ such that $\psi_{\varepsilon}\to \tilde \psi$ in the weak $*$ topology of $L^{p'}(M)$. It follows that $ \psi=\tilde \psi\in L^{p'}(M)$. By the lower semi-continuity of the norm and , we get $$\label{eq_8_2_1}
\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}\le \liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\|\psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p'}(M)} \le C|\lambda|^{\frac{n}{2}(\frac{2}{p}-1)-1}\|V\|_{L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)}\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)},$$ which shows when $\lambda\in (0,\infty)$.
**(ii)** Let $V\in L^{\frac{n}{2}}(M)$. Setting $p=\frac{2n}{n+2}$, and arguing as in the case (i) above, for $\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus\{0\}$, we obtain that $$\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}\le C \|V\|_{L^{\frac{n}{2}}(M)}\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}.$$ The case $\lambda=0$ is handled similarly using that $$\|(\Delta_g-i\varepsilon)^{-1}\|_{L^p(M)\to L^{p'}(M)}\le \mathcal{O}(1),$$ in view of . The claim (ii) follows.
**(iii)** Let $\gamma> \frac{1}{2}$, and let $\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$ be an eigenvalue of $\Delta_g+V$, and $\psi\in H^{1}(M)$ be the corresponding eigenfunction. Choosing $p>1$ satisfying , we have $\frac{2(n+1)}{n+3}<p<2$ and $2<p'<\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1}$. Using that $\psi\in L^{p'}(M)$ and , similarly to above, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}&\le \|(\Delta_g-\lambda)^{-1} \|_{L^p(M)\to L^{p'}(M)}\|V\psi\|_{L^p(M)}\\
&\le C\delta(\lambda)^{(n+1)(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2})-1} |\lambda|^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}}\|V\|_{L^{\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}(M)}\|\psi\|_{L^{p'}(M)}, \end{aligned}$$ which implies in view of the fact that $\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1+\gamma+\frac{n}{2}}{2(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm\_indiviual\_asymptotically conic\].
Bounds on sums of eigenvalues for Schrödinger operators with complex potentials {#sec_bounds_sum_higher}
===============================================================================
Short range potentials. Proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\_sums\_asymp\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $V\in L^p(M)$, $\frac{n}{2}\le p\le \frac{n+1}{2}$, and let $q=\frac{p(n-1)}{n-p}$. Then Theorem \[thm\_resolvent\_Schatten\_laplacian\] implies that for $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$, we have $ \sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|}\in \mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))$ and $$\label{eq_100_1}
\| \sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|}\|_{\mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))}\le C|z|^{-1+\frac{n}{2p}} \|V\|_{L^{p}(M)}.$$
We claim that the map $$\label{eq_100_10}
{\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty) \ni z\mapsto \sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|}$$ is holomorphic with values in $\mathcal{C}_{q}(L^2(M))$. First let us check that is holomorphic with values in $\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))$. Indeed, letting $z_0\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$, we write $$\label{eq_100_10_new_t}
\sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1} \sqrt{|V|} =\sqrt{V}\sum_{j=0}^\infty (z-z_0)^j(\Delta_g-z_0)^{-j-1} \sqrt{|V|}$$ and notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z_0)^{-j-1} \sqrt{|V|}\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))}\le \|\sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z_0)^{-1}\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))}\\
\| (-\Delta-z_0)^{-1} \sqrt{|V|}\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))}\|(\Delta_g-z_0)^{-1}\|^{j-1}_{\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))}\le C^{j+1},\end{aligned}$$ for some $C>0$. Here we have used that the operators $\sqrt{V}(-\Delta-z_0)^{-1}$, $ (\Delta_g-z_0)^{-1} \sqrt{|V|}$ are bounded on $L^2(M)$ as seen by arguing as in the proof of . This shows that the series converges in $\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))$ for $|z-z_0|$ small, and therefore, the map is holomorphic with values in $\mathcal{L}(L^2(M), L^2(M))$. In particular, if $T\in \mathcal{C}_1(L^2(M))$, i.e. of trace class, the map $$\label{eq_100_10_new_t_2}
{\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty) \ni z\mapsto \langle \sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|}, T\rangle$$ is holomorphic. Using the density of $\mathcal{C}_1(L^2(M))$ in $\mathcal{C}_{q'}(L^2(M))$, the bound , and Hölder’s inequality in Schatten classes, we conclude that the map is holomorphic for all $T\in \mathcal{C}_{q'}(L^2(M))$, establishing the claim.
Consider the holomorphic function $$h(z):=\text{det}_{ \ceil{q}}(1+ \sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|}), \quad z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty),$$ where $ \ceil{q}$ is the smallest integer $\ge q$, and $\text{det}_{ \ceil {q}}$ is the regularized determinant, see [@Simon_trace Chapter 9]. As explained in [@Frank_Sabin proof of Theorem 16], using , we get $$\label{eq_11_1}
\log|h(z)|\le C\big\| \sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|}\big\|_{\mathcal{C}_{q}}^{q}\le C|z|^{(-1+\frac{n}{2p})q} \|V\|^{q}_{L^{p}(M)},$$ uniformly in $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$.
Combining Proposition \[prop\_comp\_Frank\] and Lemma B.1 of [@Frank_2015], we conclude that the following version of the Birman–Schwinger principle holds: $z\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus [0,\infty)$ is an eigenvalue of $\Delta_g+V$ if and only if $$\label{eq_11_1_B_Schwinger}
\text{Ker}\, (1+\sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|})\ne \{0\}.$$ An application of Lemma 3.2 of [@Frank_2015] gives that is equivalent to the fact that $h(z)=0$ and that the order of vanishing of $h$ at $z$ agrees with the algebraic multiplicity of $z$ as an eigenvalue of $\Delta_g+V$.
At this point we are exactly in the same situation as in [@Frank_Sabin Theorem 16]. Here we may remark that the proof of Theorem 16 in [@Frank_Sabin] is based on a result of Borichev, Golinskii and Kupin [@Borichev_Golinskii_Kupin], concerning the distribution of zeros of a holomorphic function in the unit disc, growing rapidly at a boundary point. The proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\_sums\_asymp\] is therefore complete.
Long range potentials. Proof of Theorem \[thm\_sums\_long\_range\_asym\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First we have the following result: let $\gamma\ge 1/2$. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $W\in L^{2(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}(M)$ and all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\setminus[0,\infty)$, $$\label{eq_long_Scatt}
\|W(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}W\|_{\mathcal{C}_{2(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}}\le C d(z)^{-1+\frac{n+1}{2(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}}|z|^{-\frac{1}{2(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}}\|W\|^2_{L^{2(\gamma+\frac{n}{2})}(M)}.$$ Indeed this follows as in [@Frank_2015 Proposition 2.1] by interpolation between with $p=\frac{n+1}{2}$ and the standard bound $$\|W(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}W\|_{L^2(M)\to L^2(M)}\le d(z)^{-1}\|W\|^2_{L^\infty(M)}.$$ Now an application of [@Frank_2015 Theorem 3.1] to the holomorphic family $K(z)= \sqrt{V}(\Delta_g-z)^{-1}\sqrt{|V|}$ completes the proof of Theorem \[thm\_sums\_long\_range\_asym\] exactly in the same way as in [@Frank_2015 Theorem 1.2].
Proof of Lemma \[Guillarmou\_Hassell\_remark\] {#app}
==============================================
We shall follow the proof of Lemma 3.3 in [@GHS] closely. Let $a<b<c\le 0$ and let $\alpha:=a-c-1<-1$ and $\beta:=b-c-1<-1$. We shall show the estimate for $\|(\lambda- i \varepsilon)^{b+it}* f\|_{L^\infty_\lambda}$, as the bound for $\|(\lambda+ i \varepsilon)^{b+it}* f\|_{L^\infty_\lambda}$ can be proved similarly.
To that end, let $\chi_-^z$ be the family of distributions on ${\mathbb{R}}$ holomorphic in $z\in {\mathbb{C}}$ given by $$\chi_-^z(\lambda)=\frac{\lambda_-^z}{\Gamma(z+1)}, \quad {\hbox{Re}\,}\, z>-1,$$ where $$\lambda_-^z=\begin{cases} 0 & \text{if}\quad \lambda>0,\\
|\lambda|^z & \text{if}\quad \lambda< 0.
\end{cases}$$ We have $\chi_-^z(-\lambda)=\chi_+^z(\lambda)$. Recall from [@Hormander_books_1 Section 3.2)] that when ${\hbox{Re}\,}\, z>-1$, we have $$\label{(x-i0)^z}
(\lambda-i0)^{z}=\lambda_+^z+e^{-i\pi z}\lambda_-^z,$$ and from [@Hormander_books_1 Example 7.1.17] that for ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$, we have $$\label{fourierx-i0}
{\mathcal}{F}((\lambda-i{\varepsilon})^{-z})(\xi)=2\pi e^{iz\pi/2}e^{{\varepsilon}\xi}\chi_-^{z-1}(\xi),$$ and $$\label{fourier_chi}
{\mathcal}{F}(\chi_+^z)(\xi)= e^{-i(z+1)\pi/2}(\xi-i0)^{-z-1}.$$
Consider the family of operators $A_t$ for $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ given by $$\label{eq_def_A_t}
A_t: C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})\to {\mathcal}{D}'({\mathbb{R}}), \quad A_tf:=\eta_t* f,$$ where $$\label{eq_def_A_t_eta_t_c<0}
\hat{\eta}_t(\xi)= \frac{2\pi e^{i(-\beta-it)\pi/2-i\pi(c+1)}e^{{\varepsilon}\xi}\xi_-^{-\beta-1-it}}{\Gamma(-b-it)(\sigma+e^{-i(\alpha+1)\pi/2}(\xi-i0)^{-\alpha-1})},$$ when $c<0$, and $$\label{eq_def_A_t_eta_t_c=0}
\hat{\eta}_t(\xi)=\frac{2\pi e^{-i(b-1+it)\pi/2}e^{{\varepsilon}\xi}\xi_-^{-b-it}}{\Gamma(-b-it)(\sigma-e^{-i\pi a/2}(\xi-i0)^{-a})},$$ when $c=0$, and $\sigma\in {\mathbb{C}}$, $|\sigma|=1$ and $\sigma\notin\{ ie^{-i\alpha\pi/2},-ie^{i\alpha\pi/2}, e^{ia\pi/2}\}$. In view of , we see that $\hat{\eta}_t\in {\mathcal}{S}'({\mathbb{R}})$.
We notice that for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\hat{\eta_t}\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb{R}})$. Furthermore, using that $|\frac{1}{\Gamma(-b-it)}|\le Ce^{\pi |t|}$, we have, for $|\xi|\ge 1$, $$\label{eq_eta_l_1_-3}
|{\partial}_{\xi}\hat{\eta_t}(\xi)|\le Ce^{\frac{3\pi|t|}{2} }(1+|t|)|\xi|^{-\beta+\alpha-1},$$ and for $|\xi|\le 1$, we get $$\label{eq_eta_l_1_-2}
|{\partial}_{\xi}\hat{\eta_t}(\xi)|\le Ce^{\frac{3\pi|t|}{2}}(1+|t|)|\xi|^{-\beta-2},$$ and therefore, $${\partial}_\xi \hat{\eta_t}\in L^p({\mathbb{R}})\cap L^1({\mathbb{R}},{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{\delta}d\xi) \textrm{ for some } p\in(1,2), \, \delta>0.$$ By Hausdorff–Young’s inequality, we see that $u(\lambda):=\lambda \eta_t(\lambda)\in L^{p'}({\mathbb{R}})$ with $p'\in (2,\infty)$ being the dual exponent to $p$. We also have $$\label{eq_eta_l_1_-1}
\begin{aligned}
|u(\lambda)-u(\lambda')|&\le (2\pi)^{-1}\int |e^{i\xi \lambda}-e^{i\xi\lambda'}||\hat u(\xi)|d\xi\le C \int |\xi|^{\delta}|\lambda-\lambda'|^{\delta}|\hat u(\xi)|d\xi\\
&\le C|\lambda-\lambda'|^{\delta}\|\hat u\|_{L^1({\mathbb{R}},{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{\delta}d\xi)},
\end{aligned}$$ showing that $u=\lambda \eta_t\in C^{\delta}({\mathbb{R}})$. Thus, by Hölder inequality, we get $$\label{eq_eta_l_1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}|\eta_t(\lambda)|d\lambda\leq C\Big(\int_{|\lambda|>1}|\lambda\eta_t|^{p'}d\lambda\Big)^{\frac{1}{p'}}+||\lambda\eta_t||_{C^{\delta}}
\int_{|\lambda|<1}|\lambda|^{-1+\delta}d\lambda<\infty.$$ It follows from combined with Hausdorff–Young’s inequality, , and that $$\|\eta_t\|_{L^1({\mathbb{R}})}\leq C(1+|t|)e^{\frac{3\pi|t|}{2}},$$ and therefore, $A_t$ extends as a bounded operator on $L^\infty$ with norm $$\|A_t\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}})\to L^\infty({\mathbb{R}})}\leq C(1+|t|)e^{\frac{3\pi|t|}{2}},$$ where the constant $C>0$ is independent of ${\varepsilon}$ and $t$.
Next let $B$ be the operator $$\begin{gathered}
B: C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})\to C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}), \quad Bf:= (\sigma\chi^{c}_++\chi_+^a)* f
\end{gathered}$$ which is also equal to $$\label{eq_def_B_mult}
B={\mathcal}{F}^{-1}\mu{\mathcal}{F}$$ with $$\label{eq_def_B_mult_1}
\mu(\xi) :=\sigma e^{-i(c+1)\pi/2}(\xi-i0)^{-c-1}+e^{-i(a+1)\pi/2}(\xi-i0)^{-a-1},$$ in view of .
If $c<0$ then $\mu\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb{R}})\cap C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\})$. Using also the fact that the distribution $(\xi-i0)^z$ is of polynomial growth when ${\hbox{Re}\,}\, z>-1$, we have $\mu\hat f\in L^1({\mathbb{R}})$ for any $f\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}})$. Thus, the operator $B:C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})\to L^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ is bounded.
Now if $c=0$ then $Bf:= \sigma H*f+\chi_+^a* f$, where $H$ is the Heaviside function. The fact that the convolution with the Heaviside function maps $C^\infty_0$ functions into $L^\infty$ functions implies that the operator $B:C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})\to L^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ is bounded also in the case $c=0$.
Thus, the composition $A_tB: C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})\to L^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ is bounded in all cases $c\le 0$. We claim that $$\label{eq_prod_A_tB}
A_tBf=(\lambda-i{\varepsilon})^{b+it}* f, \quad f\in C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}).$$ Indeed, follows from , , and the equality $$\hat{\eta_t}\mu={\mathcal}{F}((\lambda-i{\varepsilon})^{b+it})$$ obtained from , , and . In the case $c=0$, we also use that $$\xi_-^{-b-it}(\xi-i0)^{-1}=\xi^{-b-1-it}, \quad b<0.$$
We thus get for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ $$\label{eq_non_resc_1}
\|(\lambda-i{\varepsilon})^{b+it}* f\|_{L^\infty} \leq C(1+|t|)e^{\frac{3\pi|t|}{2}}(\|\chi^{c}_+*f\|_{L^\infty}+\|\chi^{a}*f\|_{L^\infty}).$$ Now a scaling argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.3 of [@GHS] finishes the proof. Indeed, letting $f_\tau(\lambda)=f(\tau\lambda)$, we have $$\label{eq_non_resc_2}
\chi^z_+*f_\tau(\lambda)=\tau^{-z-1}(\chi_+^z*f)(\tau\lambda), \quad
(\lambda-i{\varepsilon})^z*f_\tau (\lambda)=\tau^{-z-1}((\lambda-i\tau{\varepsilon})^z*f)(\tau\lambda)$$ for all $\tau>0$ and $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$. It follows from and that for each $\tau>0$ $$\tau^{-b}||(\lambda-i\tau{\varepsilon})^{b+it}* f||_{L^\infty} \leq C(1+|t|)e^{\frac{3\pi|t|}{2}}(\tau^{-c}||\chi^{c}_+*f||_{L^\infty}+\tau^{-a}||\chi_+^{a}*f||_{L^\infty})$$ and choosing $\tau:=||\chi_+^{a}*f||^{1/(a-c)}_{L^\infty}||\chi_+^{c}*f||^{-1/(a-c)}_{L^\infty}$, we obtain the desired estimate . The proof of Lemma \[Guillarmou\_Hassell\_remark\] is complete.
Microlocal structure of the spectrally localized resolvent {#app_2}
==========================================================
In this appendix, we analyze the microlocal structure of the spectrally localized resolvent $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z})(\Delta_g-(z\pm i0))^{-1}$, where $z>0$ and $\phi\in C^\infty_0(((1-\delta/4)^2,(1+\delta/4)^2))$ is such that $\phi(t)=1$ for $t\in ((1-\delta/8)^2,(1+\delta/8)^2)$, for $\delta>0$ small. In doing so, we use the notation and results established in the works [@GHS], [@GuHaSi_III], and [@HaWu2008].
\[prop\_B\_1\] Let $\phi$ be as above. For all $\mu > 0$, the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})$ is a pseudodifferential operator in the following senses:
\(i) *High energy case*. For $h = \mu^{-1} \leq 2$, the operator $\phi(h^2 \Delta_g)$ is a semiclassical scattering pseudodifferential operator with microsupport in $\{ (z, \zeta) \mid |\zeta|_g \in ((1-\delta/4)^2,(1+\delta/4)^2) \}$ where $\zeta$ is the semiclassically-rescaled cotangent variable, i.e. $\zeta_i$ is the symbol of $-i h \partial_{z_i}$.
\(ii) *Low energy case*. For $\mu \in (0, 2)$, the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})$ is a pseudodifferential operator in the class $\Psi^0_k(M, \Omega_{k,b}^{1/2}) + \mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{E}}(M^2_{k,b}, \Omega_{k,b}^{1/2})$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is an index family for the boundary hypersurfaces of $M^2_{k,b}$, satisfying $\mathcal{E}_{{\mathrm{bf}_0}} = 0$, $\mathcal{E}_{{\mathrm{zf}}} = n$, $\mathcal{E}_{{\mathrm{lb}_0}} = \mathcal{E}_{{\mathrm{rb}_0}} = n/2$, $\mathcal{E}_{{\mathrm{lb}}} = \mathcal{E}_{{\mathrm{rb}}} = \mathcal{E}_{{\mathrm{bf}}} = \infty$. That is, it is the sum of a pseudodifferential operator in the class defined in [@GuHaSi_III Section 5] and a conormal function which is smooth across the diagonal, but has nontrivial behaviour at the boundary hypersurfaces ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$.
\(i) This follows by expressing the operator $\phi(h^2 \Delta_g)$ using the Helffer-Sjöstrand formula for the self-adjoint functional calculus, $$\phi(h^2\Delta_g)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\mathbb{C}}} \bar{{\partial}}\tilde \phi(z) (h^2\Delta_g-z)^{-1}d\overline{z}\wedge dz,$$ where $\tilde \phi$ is an almost holomorphic extension of $\phi$, see [@DiSj Theorem 8.1]. In terms of the notation for the spaces of semiclassical scattering pseudodifferential operators used in [@Vasy_Zworski_2000], we have $\phi(h^2\Delta_g)\in \Psi^{-\infty,0,0}_{\text{sc},h}(M)$.
\(ii) The same argument applies to show that the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})$ is pseudodifferential in a neighbourhood of the diagonal on the space $M^2_{k,sc}$. We also need to understand the behaviour of the kernel of this operator away from the diagonal. Here, we recall from [@GuHaSi_III] that the spectral measure is conormal and vanishes to order $n-1$ at ${\mathrm{zf}}$, order $n/2 - 1$ at ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$ and order $-1$ at ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$ as a b-half-density on ${M^2_{k, b}}$, while it is Legendrian (oscillatory) at ${\mathrm{lb}}$, ${\mathrm{rb}}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}}$. As a result, the integral $$\phi \big(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2} \big) = \int \phi \big(\frac{\lambda^2}{\mu^2}\big) dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda)d\lambda
\label{phi-Delta}$$ is conormal on ${M^2_{k, b}}$ and vanishes to order $n$ at ${\mathrm{zf}}$, order $n/2$ at ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$, order $0$ at ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$ and to order $\infty$ at ${\mathrm{lb}}$, ${\mathrm{rb}}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}}$.
The pseudodifferential nature of $\phi(h^2\Delta_g)$ can also be proved via the spectral measure using the results of [@GuHaSi_III]. Recall from this article that the spectral measure $dE_{\sqrt{\Delta_g}}(\lambda)$ for $\lambda \geq 1$ is a Legendre distribution associated to a pair of Legendre submanifolds $(L, L_2^\#)$, where $L$ is the flowout by (left) bicharacteristic flow starting from $N^* {\text{Diag}_b}\cap \Sigma_l$ where $N^* {\text{Diag}_b}$ is the conormal bundle to the diagonal in $M^2_b$. Here $\Sigma_l$ denotes the ‘left’ characteristic variety of the operator $h^2 \Delta_g - 1$, that is, the set $\{ (z, \zeta, z', \zeta') \mid |\zeta|_g = 1 \}$ where the semiclassical symbol of $h^2 \Delta_g - 1$, acting in the left variable $z$, vanishes. Being a Legendre distribution, the spectral measure may be expressed (up to a trivial kernel, that is, one that is smooth and rapidly vanishing both as $h \to 0$ and as one approaches the boundary of $M^2_b$) as a finite sum of oscillatory integrals associated to neighbourhoods of the submanifold $L$. The phase function for this oscillatory integral takes the form $\lambda \Phi$, where $\Phi$ is independent of $\lambda$. If we then integrate in the $\lambda$ variable as in (with $h = \mu^{-1}$ in the high-energy case), then it is straightforward to check that the phase function $\lambda \Phi$ parametrizes the conormal bundle to the diagonal, and the result is a semiclassical scattering pseudodifferential operator of order $0$.
It is not hard to see that the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})$ is microlocally equal to the identity for $|\zeta|_g \in ((1-\delta/8)^2,(1+\delta/8)^2)$, where $\zeta$ is the rescaled cotangent variable. First, the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})$ is elliptic in this region. Next, choose a function $\phi_1$ supported in the interior of the region where $\phi = 1$. Then by functional calculus, $\phi_1(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2}) = \phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})\phi_1(\frac{\Delta}{\mu^2})$, from which it follows that $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})$ is microlocally equal to the identity on the elliptic set of $\phi_1(\frac{\Delta_g}{\mu^2})$, which is an arbitrary subset of $\{ (z, \zeta) \mid |\zeta|_g\in ((1-\delta/8)^2,(1+\delta/8)^2)\}$.
We next consider the microlocal structure of the spectrally localized resolvent.
\[prop\_app\_B\_2\] The microlocal structure of the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}) ( \Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1}$, $z>0$, is as follows:
\(i) High energy case. Here we use semiclassical notation and write $z = h^{-2}$. The operator $\phi(h^2 \Delta_g) (h^2 \Delta_g - (1 \pm i0))^{-1}$, acting on half-densities, lies in the same microlocal space as the semiclassical resolvent as detailed in [@HaWu2008 Theorem 1.1], indeed in a ‘better’ space as the differential order is $-\infty$ rather than $-2$. That is, the spectrally localized resolvent is a sum of three terms $S_1 + S_2 + S_3$, where
- $S_1$ is a semiclassical pseudodifferential operator of differential order $-\infty$ and semiclassical order $0$,
- $S_2$ is an intersecting Legendre distribution associated to the conormal bundle $N^* {\text{Diag}_b}$ and to the propagating Legendrian $L$, and
- $S_3$ is a conic Legendre pair associated to $L$ and to the outgoing Legendrian $L_2^\#$.
Moreover, $S_2 + S_3$ are microlocally identical to the full resolvent in a neighbourhood of the characteristic variety $\Sigma_l$ of $h^2 \Delta_g - 1$.
\(ii) Low energy case. Let $z \in (0, 2)$. The operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}) (\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1}$, acting on half-densities, lies in the same microlocal space as the resolvent as detailed in [@GuHaSi_III Theorem 3.9], indeed in a better space as the differential order is $-\infty$ rather than $-2$. In detail, the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}) (\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1}$ can be decomposed as $S_1 + S_2 + S_3 + S_4$ (with $\sqrt{z}$ playing the role of the spectral parameter on $M^2_{k,b}$) where
- $S_1 \in \Psi^{-\infty}(M, \Omega_{k,b}^{1/2})$ is a pseudodifferential operator of order $-\infty$ in the calculus of operators defined in [@GHS];
- $S_2 \in I^{-1/2,{\mathcal{B}}}({M^2_{k, b}}, ({{^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{sc}}}}N^*_{\mbox{}}}}{\text{Diag}_b}, L^{{\mathrm{bf}}}_+); {\Omega_{k,b}^{1/2}})$ is an intersecting Legendre distribution on ${M^2_{k, b}}$, microsupported close to ${{^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{sc}}}}N^*_{\mbox{}}}}{\text{Diag}_b}$;
- $S_3 \in I^{-1/2,(n-2)/2; (n-1)/2, (n-1)/2; {\mathcal{B}}}({M^2_{k, b}}, (L^{{\mathrm{bf}}}_+, {L^\#}_+); {\Omega_{k,b}^{1/2}})$ is a Legendre distribution on ${M^2_{k, b}}$ associated to the intersecting pair of Legendre submanifolds with conic points $(L^{{\mathrm{bf}}}_+, {L^\#}_+)$, microsupported away from ${{^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{sc}}}}N^*_{\mbox{}}}}{\text{Diag}_b}$;
- $S_4$ is supported away from ${\mathrm{bf}}$ and is such that $e^{\pm i \lambda r} e^{\pm i \lambda r'} R_4$ is polyhomogeneous conormal on ${M^2_{k, b}}$.
Here ${\mathcal{B}}= ({\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{bf}_0}}, {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{lb}_0}}, {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{rb}_0}}, {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{zf}}})$ is an index family with minimal exponents (i.e. order of vanishing) $\min {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{bf}_0}} = -2$, $\min {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{lb}_0}} = \min {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{rb}_0}} = n/2 - 2$, $\min {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathrm{zf}}} = 0$. In addition $S_4$ vanishes to order $\infty$ at ${\mathrm{lb}}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}}$ and to order $(n-1)/2$ at ${\mathrm{rb}}$.
\[cor:spec-localized-est\] The estimates , , and hold if the resolvent $(\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1}$ is replaced by the spectrally localized resolvent $\phi(\Delta_g/z) (\Delta_g - (z \pm i0))^{-1}$.
The proofs of these estimates only used the location of the wavefront set of the resolvent kernel, together with the vanishing orders of the resolvent on the boundary hypersurfaces of $M^2_{k,b}$ at $z = 0$. In view of Proposition \[prop\_app\_B\_2\], the same proof applies verbatim to the spectrally localized resolvent.
\(i) We study the composition of the operator $\phi(h^2 \Delta_g)$ with the incoming or outgoing resolvent, $(h^2 \Delta_g - (1 \pm i0))^{-1}$. We know from [@HaWu2008 Theorem 1.1] that the actual resolvent can be decomposed into a sum of three terms $R_1 + R_2 + R_3$ as in the proposition (except that $R_1$ will have differential order $-2$). We may assume that $R_2$ and $R_3$ are microsupported in the region where $|\zeta|_g \in ((1-\delta/8)^2,(1+\delta/8)^2)$, and $R_1$ is microsupported in the region where $|\zeta|_g \notin ((1-\delta/16)^2,(1+\delta/16)^2)$. The composition $S_1 := \phi(h^2 \Delta_g) R_1$ is another semiclassical pseudodifferential operator, of semiclassical order $0$ and differential order $-\infty$. On the other hand, the operator $\phi(h^2 \Delta_g)$ is microlocally equal to the identity on the microsupport of $R_2$ and $R_3$, so using [@GHS Section 7], we find that the composition of $\phi(h^2 \Delta_g)$ with $R_2 + R_3$ is equal to $R_2 + R_3$ up to an operator that is residual in all senses, that is, a smooth kernel that vanishes rapidly as $h \to 0$ or upon approach to the boundary of $M^2_b$. So we can take $S_2 = R_2$ and $S_3 = R_3$ up to a residual kernel.
\(ii) Similarly, in the low energy case the actual resolvent has a decomposition into $R_1 + R_2 + R_3 + R_4$ having properties as in the proposition (with $R_1$ of differential order $-2$). We also need to decompose the operator $\phi(\frac{\Delta_g}{z}) = B_1 + B_2$ into two parts, where $B_1$ is supported close to the diagonal on the space $M^2_{k,b}$, and $B_2$ has empty wavefront set. This second piece $B_2$ can be taken to vanish to infinite order at ${\mathrm{bf}}$, ${\mathrm{lb}}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}}$, and to be polyhomogeneous conormal to ${\mathrm{bf}_0}, {\mathrm{lb}_0}, {\mathrm{rb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{zf}}$ vanishing to order $0$ at ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$, $n/2$ at ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$ and order $n$ at ${\mathrm{zf}}$. When we apply $B_1$ to the resolvent, the argument is just as in the high energy case, using [@GHS Section 5] instead of [@GHS Section 7].
To understand what happens when we apply $B_2$ to the resolvent, we view the composition of operators as pushforward of the product of the Schwartz kernels on a ‘triple space’ $M^3_{k,b}$ down to $M^2_{k,b}$, as was done in the appendix of [@GuHa2008]. As a multiple of a nonvanishing b-half-density on $M^2_{k,b}$ we find that $B_2$ (multiplied by $|dk/k|^{1/2}$, $k=\sqrt{z}$, which is a purely formal factor) is polyhomogeneous conormal, with no log terms at leading order, and vanishes to order $n$ at zf, $0$ at ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$ and $n/2$ at ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$. On the other hand, we can decompose the resolvent kernel as the sum of $R_1 + R_2$, supported near the diagonal, and $R_3 + R_4$, which is microsupported in the set where $|\zeta|_g \in ((1-\delta/8)^2,(1+\delta/8)^2)$, where $\zeta$ is the cotangent variable rescaled by a factor $\sqrt{z}$.
The composition of $B_2$ with $R_1+R_2$ can be treated by lifting both kernels to the space $M^3_{k,b}$ and pushing forward. Since $B_2$ has no wavefront set, the composition has no wavefront set, so it is polyhomogeneous conormal, and the order of vanishing can be read off as $n$ at ${\mathrm{zf}}$, $n/2$ at ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$, $n/2 - 2$ at ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$, $-2$ at ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$, and $\infty$ at ${\mathrm{lb}}, {\mathrm{rb}}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}}$. This lies in a better space than claimed in the proposition.
The composition of $B_2$ with $R_3 + R_4$ can also be analyzed by lifting both kernels to $M^3_{k,b}$ and then pushing forward. Although $R_3 + R_4$ is not polyhomogeneous conormal at the boundary hypersurfaces ${\mathrm{bf}}$, ${\mathrm{lb}}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}}$, when lifted to $M^3_{k,b}$ and multiplied by the lift of $B_2$, the rapid vanishing of $B_2$ at ${\mathrm{bf}}$ and ${\mathrm{rb}}$ means that the product of the two kernels is rapidly decreasing as the ‘middle variable’ (the right variable of $B_2$ and the left variable of $R_3 + R_4$) tends to the boundary. As for the right variable of $R_3 + R_4$, after multiplying the kernel of $R_3 + R_4$ by $e^{\mp i\lambda r'}$ (where $r' = 1/x'$ is the right radial variable) it becomes polyhomogeneous conormal also at ${\mathrm{rb}}$. So the product of the kernels $B_2$ (in the left and middle variables) and $(R_3 + R_4) e^{\mp i\lambda r'}$ (in the middle and right variables) on $M^3_{k,b}$ *is* polyhomogeneous conormal. After pushing forward to $M^2_{k,b}$ a calculation similar to that done in [@GuHa2008 Appendix] shows that the result is $e^{\mp i\lambda r'}$ times a polyhomogeneous kernel which vanishes to order $n-2$ at ${\mathrm{zf}}$, $-2$ at ${\mathrm{bf}_0}$, $\min(n/2, n-2)$ at ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$, $n/2 - 2$ at ${\mathrm{rb}_0}$, $(n-1)/2$ at ${\mathrm{rb}}$ and $\infty$ at ${\mathrm{lb}}$ and ${\mathrm{bf}}$, with no log terms to leading order except possibly at ${\mathrm{lb}_0}$ in the case $n=4$. Again this is in a better space than is claimed in the proposition. This completes the proof.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The research of C.G. is partially supported by ANR grants 13-BS01-0007-01, ERC consolidator grant IPFLOW no 725967. A.H. acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council through Discovery Grants DP150102419 and DP160100941. The research of K.K. is partially supported by the National Science Foundation (DMS 1500703). C.G. thanks the hospitality of the Mathematical Sciences Institute at ANU where part of this work was done, and ARC grant DP160100941 for supporting the visit. We finally thank Julien Sabin and Adam Sikora for useful discussions.
[0]{}
Abramov, A., Aslanyan, A., Davies, E. B., *Bounds on complex eigenvalues and resonances*, J. Phys. A **34** (2001), no. 1, 57–72.
Borichev, A., Golinskii, L., Kupin, S., *A Blaschke-type condition and its application to complex Jacobi matrices*, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. **41** (2009), no. 1, 117–123.
Bögli, S., *Schrödinger operator with non-zero accumulation points of complex eigenvalues*, Comm. Math. Phys. **352** (2017), no. 2, 629–639.
Chen, X., *Stein-Tomas restriction theorem via spectral measure on metric measure spaces*, arXiv:1506.00696.
Cuenin, J. C., *Eigenvalue bounds for Dirac and fractional Schrödinger operators with complex potentials*, J. Funct. Anal. **272** (2017), no. 7, 2987–3018.
Cuenin, J. C., Kenig, C., *$L^p$ resolvent estimates for magnetic Schrödinger operators with unbounded background fields*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations **42** (2017), no. 2, 235–260.
Demuth, M., Hansmann, M., Katriel, G., *On the discrete spectrum of non–selfadjoint operators*, J. Funct. Anal. **257** (2009), no. 9, 2742–2759.
Demuth, M., Hansmann, M., Katriel, G., *Lieb–Thirring type inequalities for Schrödinger operators with a complex-valued potential*, Integral Equations Operator Theory **75** (2013), no. 1, 1–5.
Demuth, M., Hansmann, M., Katriel, G., *Eigenvalues of non–selfadjoint operators: a comparison of two approaches*, Mathematical physics, spectral theory and stochastic analysis, 107–163, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 232, Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2013.
Dimassi, M., Sjöstrand, J., *Spectral asymptotics in the semi-classical limit*, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 268. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
Enblom, A., *Estimates for eigenvalues of Schrödinger operators with complex-valued potentials*, Lett. Math. Phys. **106** (2016), no. 2, 197–220.
Fanelli, L., Krejcirik, D., Vega, L., *Spectral stability of Schrödinger operators with subordinated complex potentials*, J. Spectr. Theory., to appear.
Frank, R., *Eigenvalue bounds for Schrödinger operators with complex potentials*, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. **43** (2011), no. 4, 745–750.
Frank, R., *Eigenvalue bounds for Schrödinger operators with complex potentials. III.*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear.
Frank, R., Laptev, A., Lieb, E., Seiringer, R., *Lieb–Thirring inequalities for Schrödinger operators with complex-valued potentials*, Lett. Math. Phys. **77** (2006), no. 3, 309–316.
Frank, R., Sabin, J., *Restriction theorems for orthonormal functions, Strichartz inequalities, and uniform Sobolev estimates*, Amer. J. of Math., to appear.
Frank, R., Simon, B., *Eigenvalue bounds for Schrödinger operators with complex potentials. II*, J. Spectr. Theory., to appear.
Garcia-Cuerva, J., Gatto, A. E., *Boundedness properties of fractional integral operators associated to n-doubling measures*, Studia Mathematica **162** (2004), 245–261.
Gohberg, I., Krein, M., *Introduction to the theory of linear nonselfadjoint operators*, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 18 American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I. 1969
Grigor’yan, A., *Gaussian upper bounds for the heat kernel on arbitrary manifolds*, J. Diff. Geom. **45** (1997), 33–52.
Guillarmou, C., Hassell, A., *Resolvent at low energy and Riesz transform for Schrödinger operators on asymptotically conic manifolds. I.*, Math. Ann. **341** (2008), no. 4, 859–896.
Guillarmou, C., Hassell, A., *Uniform Sobolev estimates for non-trapping metrics*, Journal Inst. Math. Jussieu, **13**, Issue 3, (2014), 599-632.
Guillarmou, C. Hassell, A., Sikora, A., *Restriction and spectral multiplier theorems on asymptotically conic manifolds.* Analysis and PDE 6 (2013), no 4, 893-950.
Guillarmou, C., Hassell, A., Sikora, A., *Resolvent at low energy III: The spectral measure*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **365** (2013), no. 11, 6103–6148.
Hassell, A., Tao, T., Wunsch, J., *Sharp Strichartz estimates on nontrapping asymptotically conic manifolds*, Amer. J. Math. **128** (2006), no. 4, 963–1024.
Hassell, A., Vasy, A., *The resolvent for Laplace-type operators on asymptotically conic spaces*, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) **51** (2001) no.5, 1299–1346.
Hassell, A., Wunsch, J., *The semiclassical resolvent and the propagator for non-trapping scattering metrics*, Adv. Math. **217** (2008), no. 2, 586–682.
Hassell, A., Zhang, J., *Global-in-time Strichartz estimates on non-trapping asymptotically conic manifolds*, Anal. PDE **9** (2016) 151–192.
Hörmander, L., *The analysis of linear partial differential operators. I. Distribution theory and Fourier analysis*, Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
Keller, J., *Lower bounds and isoperimetric inequalities for eigenvalues of the Schrödinger equation*, J. Mathematical Phys. **2** (1961), 262–266.
Kenig, C., Ruiz, A., Sogge, C., *Uniform Sobolev inequalities and unique continuation for second order constant coefficient differential operators*, Duke Math. J. **55** (1987), no. 2, 329–347.
Laptev, A., Safronov, O., *Eigenvalue estimates for Schrödinger operators with complex potentials*, Comm. Math. Phys. **292** (2009), no. 1, 29–54.
Lieb, E. H., Thirring, W., *Inequalities for the moments of the eigenvalues of the Schrödinger Hamiltonian and their relation to Sobolev inequalities*, Studies in Mathematical Physics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1976, 269–303.
Melrose, R., *Spectral and scattering theory for the Laplacian on asymptotically Euclidian spaces*, Spectral and Scattering Theory (Sanda 1992), Dekker, New York, 1994, pp. 85–130.
Mizutani, H., *Uniform Sobolev estimates for Schrödinger operators with scaling-critical potentials and applications*, preprint 2016, .
Mizutani, H., *Eigenvalue bounds for non-self-adjoint Schrödinger operators with the inverse-square potential*, preprint 2016, .
I. Rodnianski, T. Tao, *Effective limiting absorption principles, and applications*, Comm. Math. Phys. **333** (2015), no. 1, 1–95.
Sambou, D., *Lieb–Thirring type inequalities for non-self-adjoint perturbations of magnetic Schrödinger operators*, J. Funct. Anal. **266** (8) (2014), 5016–5044.
Simon, B., *Trace ideals and their applications*, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 35. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York, 1979.
Simon, B., *Operator theory. A Comprehensive Course in Analysis, Part 4.*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015.
Varopoulos, N., *Hardy-Littlewood Sobolev for semigroups,* J. Funct. Anal. **63** (1985) no 2, 240–260.
Vasy, A., Zworski, M., *Semiclassical estimates in asymptotically Euclidean scattering*, Comm. Math. Phys. **212** (2000), no. 1, 205–217.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Yoshifumi Tsuchimoto
bibliography:
- 'tsuchimoto.bib'
title: Auslander regularity of norm based extensions of Weyl algebras
---
[^1]
[^1]: 2000 *Mathematics Subject Classification*. Primary 14R15; Secondary 14A22.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We compute the amplitude of the non-Gaussianities in inflationary models with multiple, uncoupled scalar fields. This calculation thus applies to all models of assisted inflation, including N-flation, where inflation is driven by multiple axion fields arising from shift symmetries in a flux stabilized string vacuum. The non-Gaussianities are associated with nonlinear evolution of the field (and density) perturbations, characterized by the parameter $f_{NL}$. We derive a general expression for the nonlinear parameter, incorporating the evolution of perturbations after horizon-crossing. This is valid for arbitrary separable potentials during slow roll. To develop an intuitive understanding of this system and to demonstrate the applicability of the formalism we examine several cases with quadratic potentials: two-field models with a wide range of mass ratios, and a general $\mathcal{N}$-field model with a narrow mass spectrum. We uncover that $f_{NL}$ is suppressed as the number of e-foldings grows, and that this suppression is increased in models with a broad spectrum of masses. On the other hand, we find no enhancement to $f_{NL}$ that increases with the number of fields. We thus conclude that the production of a large non-Gaussian signal in multi-field models of inflation is very unlikely as long as fields are slowly rolling and potentials are of simple, quadratic form. Finally, we compute a spectrum for the scalar spectral index that incorporates the nonlinear corrections to the fields’ evolution.'
author:
- 'Thorsten Battefeld$^{1)}$'
- 'Richard Easther $^{2)}$'
title: 'Non-Gaussianities in Multi-field Inflation'
---
Introduction
============
Multi-field models of inflation have been considered ever since the introduction of hybrid inflation [@Linde:1991km; @Linde:1993cn; @Copeland:1994vg]. In these models, only one field typically evolves during inflation. The role of the second field is to add a potentially tachyonic direction to the potential which ends inflation by creating an instability in a direction orthogonal to the classical inflationary trajectory. Conversely, assisted inflation [@Liddle:1998jc] relies on ${\cal N}$ uncoupled fields. The fields are each unable to generate a workable period of inflation on their own, but can evolve coherently to provide a cosmologically acceptable inflationary epoch.
The analysis here applies to any model where inflation is driven by multiple scalar fields that do not interact directly with one another. This restriction is less onerous than it might appear, since assisted inflation typically only works to the model builder’s advantage when the individual fields are very weakly coupled to one another [@Kanti:1999vt]. Our treatment of this problem is motivated by N-flation [@Dimopoulos:2005ac; @Easther:2005zr] [^1]. This is a proposal to implement assisted inflation in the context of string theory, and the ${\cal N}$ fields arise from axion potentials associated with shift symmetries in the compact manifold. From the model-building perspective, this provides a mechanism for generating inflation without invoking field(s) whose VEVs become trans-Planckian at some point during their evolution – a point at which perturbative descriptions of any string or supergravity derived model will generically break down. Moreover, the shift symmetries of the axions suppress couplings between the fields, a prerequisite for successful assisted inflation. It is not yet known whether the microscopic physics of string theory will permit N-flation to naturally arise in a realistic scenario, but it certainly represents a novel and interesting approach to string inflation. Originally, the axion fields that drive N-flation were assumed to have identical masses [@Dimopoulos:2005ac]. Moreover, the sinusoidal axion potentials were approximated by Taylor expansions about their minima, retaining only the quadratic term. Subsequently, Easther and McAllister showed that the mass spectrum could be derived via random matrix arguments [@Easther:2005zr], avoiding the intractable calculation required by a direct assault on the problem. The resulting distribution of masses conforms to the Marčhenko-Pastur distribution, and is controlled by a single parameter $\beta$ – the ratio between the number of axions ${\cal N}$ and the total dimension of the moduli space.
In the limiting case where all the masses and initial field values are identical[^2] the spectrum of scalar and tensor perturbations from N-flation is identical to that generated by a single massive field. Since multi-field models of inflation generically have a richer phenomenology than single-field examples, we might hope to break this degeneracy by looking for specific signatures of multi-field evolution within N-flation. In particular, the non-Gaussianities in single field models are typically tiny [@Maldacena:2002vr; @Acquaviva:2002ud; @Creminelli:2003iq; @Babich:2004gb; @Seery:2005wm], but they can be larger in general multi-field models, so computing them is an important step towards developing a full understanding of N-flation [^3]. Several studies have argued that the non-Gaussianities from assisted inflation are small [@Vernizzi:2006ve; @Seery:2005gb; @Kim:2006te], but these calculations contain significant simplifying assumptions. For example, only two fields are considered in [@Vernizzi:2006ve], and [@Seery:2005gb; @Kim:2006te] use the horizon crossing approximation. As a result, a general expression for the non-Gaussianities, described by $f_{NL}$, is lacking. To be more precise, terms are usually neglected that incorporate the evolution of perturbations once they cross the horizon and the effects of isocurvature modes (both of which are always possible in multi-field models) – see for example [@Kim:2006te].
We derive this desired general expression within the $\delta N$-formalism, first proposed by Starobinsky [@Starobinski] and extended by Sasaki and Stewart [@Sasaki:1995aw] among others [@Lyth:2005fi; @Vernizzi:2006ve]. The only assumptions we make are that the potential is separable and that the slow roll approximation is valid. Since the general expression contains a part that is not immediately slow roll suppressed, we will focus our efforts on this term. To illustrate the application of the formalism and to build up intuition we consider several specific cases with quadratic potentials: first, an exactly solvable two-field model where the ratio of the squared masses is two; second, generic two-field models where the ratio of the squared masses is less than five; third, the generic multi-field case with a narrow mass spectrum.
In the two-field cases, we find an unexpected suppression of $f_{NL}$ by the volume expansion rate, expressed in terms of the number of e-foldings. The exponent of the rate is given by twice the square of the ratio of the heavier mass to the lighter one. Based on this result, we focus our attention on narrow mass spectra, for which we compute the nonlinear parameter up to second order in the width of the spectrum (properly defined in Sec. \[case3\]). As expected, we encounter a suppression factor that scales as the square of the number of e-foldings. However, we do not find any enhancement that scales with the total number of fields. Possible exceptions to this argument include models where one or more fields violate slow roll, or where there are significant couplings between the fields. We intend to address these issues in future work. However, at present we find no evidence that the non-Gaussianities generated by assisted inflation modes – including N-flation – are enhanced relative to those of their single field analogs.
The article is structured as follows: first, we derive the general expression for $f_{NL}$ in Sec. \[nongaussianities\], followed by a discussion where we reduce this general result to recover the specific cases already encountered in the literature. Thereafter, we discuss three specific cases, two-field models in Sec. \[case1\] and \[case2\] and the multi-field model in Sec. \[case3\], again followed by a discussion. Last but not least, we derive the general expression of the scalar spectral index incorporation the evolution of perturbations once they cross the horizon in Sec. \[scind\], but we postpone specific case studies to a follow-up publication. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:con\].
Non-Gaussianities in Multi-field Inflation \[sec1\]
===================================================
We are interested in evaluating non-Gaussianities in models of inflation with multiple scalar fields, in the hope of finding possible experimental signals that will break the degeneracy between multi-field models and common single field models.[^4] We shall use the $\delta N$-formalism to compute $f_{NL}$, which characterizes non-Gaussianities. This formalism was proposed by Starobinsky [@Starobinski] and further developed by Sasaki and Stewart in [@Sasaki:1995aw], and others in [@Seery:2005gb; @Lyth:2005fi; @Vernizzi:2006ve]. In this approach one relates the perturbation of the volume expansion rate $\delta N$ to the curvature perturbation $\zeta$ on large scales, which is possible if the initial hypersurface is flat and the final one is a uniform density hypersurface [@Sasaki:1995aw]. Note that $\zeta$ is conserved on large scales in simple models, even beyond linear order [@Lyth:2003im; @Rigopoulos:2003ak] [^5]. Given this relationship between the curvature perturbation and the volume expansion rate, one can evaluate the momentum independent pieces of non-linear parameters, which are related to higher order correlation functions, in terms of the change in $N$ during the evolution of the Universe, see e.g. [@Byrnes:2006vq].
Our treatment will parallel that of Vernizzi and Wands [@Vernizzi:2006ve], who computed the general expression for $f_{NL}$, but restricted themselves to two-field models when they came to compute the non-Gaussianities.
To begin, consider the action for $\mathcal{N}$ scalar fields, $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&\frac{m_p^2}{2}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\partial^\mu\varphi_i\partial_\mu\varphi_i+W(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,...)\right) \end{aligned}$$ which we assume to be responsible for driving an inflationary phase. The unperturbed volume expansion rate from an initial flat hypersurface at $t^*$ to a final uniform density hypersurface at $t^c$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
N(t_c,t_*)\equiv\int_*^c H dt \,,\label{nofh}\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the Hubble parameter. The nonlinear parameter $f_{NL}$ can be related to the derivatives of the expansion rate $N$ with respect to the field values $\varphi_i(t^*)\equiv\varphi_i^*$. This computation, starting from the three point correlation function, was performed in [@Seery:2005gb; @Vernizzi:2006ve] resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{6}{5}f_{NL}&=&\frac{r}{16}(1+f)+\frac{\sum_{i,j=1}^{\mathcal N} N_{,i}N_{,j}N_{,ij}}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N} N^2_{,i}\right)^2}\,, \label{fnl}\\
&\equiv&\frac{r}{16}(1+f)-\frac{6}{5}f_{NL}^{(4)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the short hand notation $$\begin{aligned}
N_{,i}&\equiv& \frac{\partial N}{\partial \varphi_i^*}\,,\\
N_{,ij}&\equiv& \frac{\partial^2 N}{\partial \varphi_i^*\partial \varphi_j^*}\,,\end{aligned}$$ was used (we refer the reader to [@Seery:2005gb; @Vernizzi:2006ve] for details). The first term in (\[fnl\]) is small. On geometrical grounds, we know $0\leq f\leq 5/6$ [@Maldacena:2002vr; @Vernizzi:2006ve], while $r$ is the usual tensor:scalar ratio.[^6] The observational upper limit on this quantity depends on the priors used in the fitting process, but we can reliably conclude that $r/16 < 0.1$ [@Spergel:2006hy]. Observationally, it is very unlikely we will ever detect non-Gaussianities unless $f_{NL} > 1$. Henceforth, we focus on the second term in (\[fnl\]), to determine under what conditions non-Gaussianities could become large. Currently, the best observational bound on $f_{NL}$ is drawn from the WMAP3 data [@Spergel:2006hy]: $-54 < f_{NL} < 114$. Recently, [@Kim:2006te] Kim and Liddle derived the estimate $(6/5)f_{NL}^{(4)}\leq r/16$ by ignoring the evolution of perturbations once they cross the horizon, and constraining the potential $W$ to be the sum of monomials in $\varphi_i$. Conversely, [@Vernizzi:2006ve] is restricted to the two-field case but includes effects from evolution that occurs after horizon crossing, and arrives at a similar conclusion. Since scalar perturbations need not freeze out after horizon crossing in multi-field models, we extend [@Vernizzi:2006ve; @Kim:2006te] to compute $f_{NL}^{(4)}$ for ${\cal N}$ fields without assuming any freeze-out. Our principal assumption is that the slow roll approximation is valid for all fields – in practice, individual fields can cease to be critically damped well before inflation comes to an end, depending on their masses and initial values. Since we retain any possible super-horizon evolution, our analysis follows a similar path to [@Vernizzi:2006ve].
Slow Roll Dynamics
------------------
In the following, we will set the reduced Planck mass $m_p=(8\pi G)^{-1/2}\equiv 1$ for notational simplicity. Since we are interested in assisted inflation, we can ignore cross coupling terms between the scalar fields. That is, we assume $$\begin{aligned}
W(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,...)=\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}V_i(\varphi_i)\,,\end{aligned}$$ but we keep the form of the potentials $V_i(\varphi_i)$ general. The equations of motion for the fields are $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{\varphi}_i+3H\dot{\varphi}_i+V_i^\prime=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we set $V_{i}^\prime=W_{,i}\equiv\partial V_i/\partial\varphi_i$. The Friedman equations read $$\begin{aligned}
H^2&=&\frac{1}{3}\left(W+\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi}_i^2\right)\,,\\
\dot{H}&=&-\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi}_i^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Slow roll inflation occurs if the slow roll parameters, defined as[^7] $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_i\equiv\frac{1}{2}\frac{V_{i}^{\prime 2}}{W^2}\hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm}\eta_i\equiv\frac{V_{i}^{\prime\prime}}{W}\,, \label{srparameters}\end{aligned}$$ are small ($\varepsilon_i\ll 1$, $\eta_i\ll 1$), and $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\equiv\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}\varepsilon_i\ll1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ In this case the dynamics is governed by $$\begin{aligned}
3H\dot{\varphi}_i&\approx&-V_i^\prime\,,\label{dyn1}\\
3H^2&\approx& W\,.\label{dyn2}\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we assume $V_i^\prime>0$ from here on, so that we can replace the derivatives by the slow roll parameters, $V_i^\prime=W\sqrt{2\varepsilon_i}$.
During slow roll inflation we can write the number of e-foldings (\[nofh\]) as [@Lyth:1998xn] $$\begin{aligned}
N(t_c,t_*)=-\int_*^c \sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{V_i}{V_i^\prime}d\varphi_i \,.\label{defN}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, there are ${\mathcal N}-1$ integrals of motion, for example the set $$\begin{aligned}
C_i\equiv-\int\frac{d\varphi_i}{V_i^\prime}+\int\frac{d\varphi_{i+1}}{V_{i+1}^\prime}\,,\label{IntOM}\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1\,...\,{\mathcal N}-1$. These $C_i$ can be used to discriminate between different trajectories in field space and they will become quite handy in the next subsection when we evaluate $N_{,i}$ and $N_{,ij}$.
Non-Gaussianities \[nongaussianities\]
--------------------------------------
We will now evaluate the derivatives of the volume expansion rate with respect to the fields, which are needed in order to evaluate the nonlinear parameter. First, write down the total differential of $N$ by using its definition (\[defN\]), $$\begin{aligned}
dN=\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal N}\left[\left(\frac{V_j}{V_j^\prime}\right)_*-\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{\partial \varphi_i^c}{\partial \varphi_j^*}\left(\frac{V_i}{V_i^\prime}\right)_c\right]d\varphi_j^*\,.\label{dN}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, using the integrals of motion $C_i$ from (\[IntOM\]), we can relate $d\varphi_i^c$ and $d\varphi_i^*$ via $$\begin{aligned}
d\varphi_j^c=\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N-1}\frac{\partial \varphi_j^c}{\partial C_i}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial \varphi_k^*}d\varphi_k^*\right)\,, \label{dvarphi}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{\partial C_i}{\partial\varphi_k^*}&=&\frac{1}{(V_k^\prime)^*}(\delta_{ik-1}-\delta_{ik})\\
&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon_k^*}W^*}(\delta_{ik-1}-\delta_{ik})\,. \label{diffC}\end{aligned}$$
Next, we would like to make use of the $\mathcal{N}-1$ integrals of motion to eliminate $\partial \varphi_j^c/\partial C_i$ in favor of $\partial \varphi_1^c/\partial C_i$, which can then be used in the condition $\rho=\mbox{const}$ at $t_c$, the time at which we want to evaluate the non-Gaussianities. To accomplish this, consider $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{C_i}&\equiv&\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}C_j\\
&=&-\int\frac{d\varphi_1}{V_1^\prime}+\int\frac{d\varphi_i}{V_i^\prime}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Differentiating this with respect to $C_k$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \tilde{C}_i}{\partial C_k}=-\frac{\partial\varphi_1^c}{\partial C_k}\frac{1}{(V_1^\prime)_c}+\frac{\partial \varphi_i^c}{\partial C_k}\frac{1}{(V_i^\prime)_c}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which can be solved to give $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \varphi_i^c}{\partial C_k}=\left(\frac{V_i^\prime}{V_1^\prime}\right)_c\frac{\partial \varphi_1^c}{\partial C_k}+(V_i^\prime)_c\Theta_{ki} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{ki}\equiv\Bigg\{\begin{array}{l}
1, \mbox{ if } k\leq i-1\\
0, \mbox{ if } k> i-1\,.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ If we plug this into the derivative (with respect to $C_l$) of the $\rho=\mbox{const}$ condition, $$\begin{aligned}
0= \sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}(V_i^\prime)_c\frac{\partial\varphi_i^c}{\partial C_k}\,,\end{aligned}$$ after some algebra we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \varphi_i^c}{\partial C_k}&=&-\left(V_i^\prime\frac{\sum_{j=k+1}^{\mathcal N} V_j^{\prime^2}}{\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal N}V_j^{\prime 2}}\right)_c+\Theta_{ki}(V_i^\prime)_c\\
&=&-W_c\frac{\sqrt{2\varepsilon_i^c}}{\varepsilon^c}\left(\sum_{j=k+1}^{\mathcal N}\varepsilon_j^c-\Theta_{ki}\varepsilon^c\right)\,, \label{whatever}\end{aligned}$$ where we used the definition of the slow roll parameters (\[srparameters\]) in the last step. Using (\[whatever\]) and (\[diffC\]) in (\[dvarphi\]) we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\varphi_j^c}{\partial\varphi_k^*}=-\frac{W_c}{W_*}\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_j^c}{\varepsilon_k^*}}\left(\frac{\varepsilon_k^c}{\varepsilon^c}-\delta_{kj}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ We are now ready to compute the derivatives of the expansion rate from (\[dN\]), which reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial N}{\partial \varphi_k^*}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon_k^*}}\frac{V_k^*+Z_k^c}{W_*}\,, \label{N,k}\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced $$\begin{aligned}
Z_k^c&\equiv&\frac{1}{\varepsilon^c}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}V_i^c(\varepsilon_k^c-\varepsilon^c \delta_{ki})\\
&=&W^c\frac{\varepsilon_k^c}{\varepsilon^c}-V_k^c\,.\end{aligned}$$ After some algebra, the second derivative becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 N}{\partial \varphi_k^*\partial \varphi_l^*}=\delta_{k,l}\left(1-\frac{\eta_l^*}{2\varepsilon_l^*}\frac{V_l^*+Z_l^c}{W_*}\right)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon_l^*}W_*}\frac{\partial Z_l^c}{\partial\varphi_k^*}\,,\label{N,kl}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial Z_l^c}{\partial\varphi_k^*}&=&-\frac{W^2_c}{W_*}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\varepsilon_k^*}}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal N}\varepsilon_j\left(\frac{\varepsilon_l}{\varepsilon}-\delta_{lj}\right)\left(\frac{\varepsilon_k}{\varepsilon}-\delta_{kj}\right)\left(1-\frac{\eta_j}{\varepsilon}\right)\right]_c \label{finalZ}\\
&\equiv&\sqrt{\frac{2}{\varepsilon_k^*}}W_*\mathcal{A}_{lk}\,. \label{defA}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\mathcal{A}_{lk}$ is a symmetric matrix. Given that, we can now write down the general expression for $f_{NL}^{(4)}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{6}{5}f_{NL}^{(4)}=2\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{u_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^*}\left(1-\eta_k^*\frac{u_k}{2\epsilon_k^*}\right)+\sum_{k,l=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{u_ku_l}{\varepsilon_k^*\varepsilon_l^*}\mathcal{A}_{lk}}{\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{u_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^*}\right)^2}\,, \label{f_NL}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_k$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
u_k&\equiv&\frac{V_k^*+Z_k^c}{W_*}\\
&=&\frac{\Delta V_k}{W^*}+\frac{W^c}{W^*}\frac{\varepsilon_k^c}{\varepsilon^c}\,,\label{defuk}\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta V_k\equiv V_k^*-V_k^c>0$.
Equation (\[f\_NL\]) is the desired nonlinear parameter characterizing non-Gaussianities and our first main result. The factor $Z_c$ incorporates the evolution of perturbations after they cross the horizon until the time $t_c$ – it is this factor that was neglected in [@Kim:2006te]. Before we discuss (\[f\_NL\]) in the next subsection, it is worthwhile to reiterate our assumptions. First of all, we assume slow roll inflation throughout. This is a tricky assumption in inflationary multi-field models, since the heavier fields can leave slow roll while inflation still continues, see e.g. [@Easther:2005zr]. In this case, computing the contribution of these fields onto $f_{NL}$ would require us to go beyond the formalism used here. Next, we assumed a separable potential, neglecting cross coupling terms between the fields, but otherwise we kept the form of the potential general. Neglecting cross couplings is reasonable when examining assisted inflation models like N-flation, since these models require that fields do not interact to any significant degree. Last but not least, some minor technical assumptions are introduced via our use of the $\delta N$-formalism, such as the reduction of four-point functions to a product of two-point functions by means of Wick’s theorem – we refer the reader to [@Starobinski; @Sasaki:1995aw; @Lyth:2005fi; @Vernizzi:2006ve] for the derivation of the $\delta N$-formalism.
Discussion
----------
Our main result is the nonlinear parameter given by (\[f\_NL\]) together with (\[defA\]). In the case of two fields, this reduces to the case examined by Vernizzi and Wands [@Vernizzi:2006ve]. To be specific, with $\mathcal{N}=2$ equation (\[defA\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{11}=\mathcal{A}_{22}=-\mathcal{A}_{12}=-\mathcal{A}_{21}=\mathcal{A}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\equiv-\frac{W_c^2}{W_*^2}\frac{\varepsilon_1^c\varepsilon_2^c}{\varepsilon_c}\left(1-\frac{\eta_1^c\varepsilon_2^c+\eta_2^c\varepsilon_1^c}{\varepsilon^c}\right)\,.\label{defA2field}\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, (\[f\_NL\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{6}{5}f_{NL}^{(4)}=2\frac{\frac{u_1^2}{\varepsilon_1^*}\left(1-\frac{\eta_1^*}{2\varepsilon_1^*}u_1\right)+\frac{u_2^2}{\varepsilon_2^*}\left(1-\frac{\eta_2^*}{2\varepsilon_2^*}u_2\right)+\left(\frac{u_1}{\varepsilon_1^*}-\frac{u_2}{\varepsilon_2^*}\right)^2\mathcal{A}}{\left(\frac{u_1^2}{\varepsilon_1^*}+\frac{u_2^2}{\varepsilon_2^*}\right)^2}\,, \label{twofieldf}\end{aligned}$$ which is identical to (68) of [@Vernizzi:2006ve].
On the other hand, if $Z_k^c \approx 0$ we recover the simple expression of [@Kim:2006te] for $\mathcal{N}$ scalar fields, which resulted in a small contribution of $f_{NL}^{(4)}$ to the total nonlinear parameter.
Consequently, a large non Gaussian signal could only arise if $Z_k^c$ becomes large. A closer look at (\[f\_NL\]) reveals that only the last term in the numerator is not immediately slow roll suppressed, that is the term proportional to the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix elements defined in (\[defA\]). Therefore, let us look at this matrix and ask under what conditions its contribution could become large.
First, note that the sum over a column or a row of the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix vanishes, since $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \sum_{l=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\mathcal{A}_{kl}&=&-\frac{W_c^2}{W_*^2}\left[\sum_{l,j=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\varepsilon_j\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{l}}{\varepsilon}-\delta_{lj}\right)\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{k}}{\varepsilon}-\delta_{kj}\right)\left(1-\frac{\eta_j}{\varepsilon}\right)\right]_c\\
\nonumber &=&-\frac{W_c^2}{W_*^2}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\varepsilon_j\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{k}}{\varepsilon}-\delta_{kj}\right)\left(1-\frac{\eta_j}{\varepsilon}\right)\sum_{l=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{l}}{\varepsilon}-\delta_{lj}\right)\right]_c\\
&=& 0\,,\label{rowA}\end{aligned}$$ because $\sum \varepsilon_l=\varepsilon$ so that the last sum is identical to zero. Based on this fact one can immediately see that the contribution to the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix vanishes if we deal with $\mathcal {N}$ identical fields (as expected). But even in the generic case, we should expect some cancellation.
Next, let us go back to the definition of $u_k$ in (\[defuk\]): if $\Delta V_k \ll W^c\varepsilon^c_k/\varepsilon^c$, we can approximate $$\begin{aligned}
u_k\approx \frac{W^c}{W^*}\frac{\varepsilon_k^c}{\varepsilon^c}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Using this in (\[defA\]), we can write the last term in (\[f\_NL\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sum_{k,l=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{u_ku_l}{\varepsilon_k^*\varepsilon_l^*}\mathcal{A}_{lk}}{\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{u_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^*}\right)^2}
\approx-\left(\frac{\varepsilon^c}{\tilde{\varepsilon}_{1}}\right)^2\left[\tilde{\varepsilon}_2-\frac{\tilde{\varepsilon}_1^2}{\varepsilon^c}\left(1+\frac{\tilde{\eta}_0}{\varepsilon^c}\right)+2\tilde{\varepsilon}_1\frac{\tilde{\eta}_1}{\varepsilon^c}-\tilde{\eta}_2\right]\,, \label{approxsums}\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\varepsilon}_1\equiv\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{(\varepsilon_k^c)^2}{\varepsilon_k^*}\,\,\, , \,\,\,
\tilde{\varepsilon}_2\equiv\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{(\varepsilon_k^c)^3}{(\varepsilon_k^*)^2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\eta}_0\equiv\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{\varepsilon_k^c}{\varepsilon^c}\eta_k^c\,\,\, , \,\,\,
\tilde{\eta}_1\equiv\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{(\varepsilon_k^c)^2}{\varepsilon^c\varepsilon_k^*}\eta_k^c\,\,\, , \,\,\,
\tilde{\eta}_2\equiv\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{(\varepsilon_k^c)^3}{\varepsilon^c(\varepsilon_k^*)^2}\eta_k^c\,.\end{aligned}$$
As an application, let us have a look at the “horizon crossing limit” $t_c\rightarrow t_*$, which corresponds to purely adiabatic perturbations. In this limit $\tilde{\varepsilon}_i=\varepsilon^*=\varepsilon^c$ and $\tilde{\eta}_i=\sum\varepsilon_k^*\eta_k^*/\varepsilon^*$, so that (\[approxsums\]) vanishes identically. One can see this from (\[f\_NL\]), since the prefactor in front of the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix elements becomes independent of $k$, so that a sum over the matrix elements is identically zero due to (\[rowA\]). The second term in (\[f\_NL\]) is sensitive to the evolution of modes after horizon crossing. This evolution and thus the non-Gaussianity is closely correlated with the presence of isocurvature perturbations. These modes generically occur in multi-field inflationary models whenever light degrees of freedom transverse to the adiabatic direction are present, but it is difficult to transfer them to the adiabatic mode during *slow roll inflation*: in order to transfer isocurvature modes effectively, the trajectory in field space should be sharply curved, which might occur when a field leaves slow roll.[^8] However, this process can not be described properly with the formalism at hand, since the slow roll conditions are necessarily violated. In addition, we can generate isocurvature modes at the end of inflation if the different fields decay into different particle species.
We now look at another interesting case for which our formalism is valid, and which might still permit non-Gaussianities, even though we do not expect them to be large. Assume the time $t_c$ lies towards the end of inflation, just before slow roll ends. Even if $\tilde{\varepsilon}_1\,,\,\tilde{\varepsilon}_2\,,\,\varepsilon^c \ll1$ we could still get a non-Gaussianity of order one if the $\eta_i$ are reasonably large. First of all, it seems possible to cancel the suppression due to $\varepsilon^c_k/\varepsilon^c$ in $\tilde{\eta}_i$, which is of order $\mathcal{O}(1/\mathcal{N})$: since we have $\mathcal{N}$ summands, we can naively expect an enhancement of order $\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{N})$ that cancels out the previous suppression. Next, if we are near the end of inflation, we have $\varepsilon_k^c\gg\varepsilon^*_k$, so that the ratio $\varepsilon_k^c/\varepsilon^*_k$ becomes large. However, this enhancement factor in $\tilde{\eta}_1$ and $\tilde{\eta}_2$ gets compensated by the prefactor. Thus, we might naively expect $f_{NL}^{(4)}=\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\eta}_0)$ towards the end of inflation, which can be of order one.
However, we have to be more careful here: we already saw in the case of $\mathcal{N}$ identical fields that cancellations occur in the sum, due to the symmetries of the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix. In the next section we will examine a few specific models in order to develop intuition as to whether non-Gaussianities can become large. It will turn out that the naive argument above is misleading, since the sum over the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix generically leads to terms that are slow roll suppressed. Hence, it seems very hard to produce a significant non-Gaussian signal in assisted inflation models which are well-described by slow-roll.
Case Studies
============
In section \[nongaussianities\] we derived the general expression for the nonlinear parameter, (\[f\_NL\]). The only term which was not obviously small during slow roll is $$\begin{aligned}
F\equiv\frac{\sum_{k,l=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{u_ku_l}{\varepsilon_k^*\varepsilon_l^*}\mathcal{A}_{kl}}{\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal N}\frac{u_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^*}\right)^2}\,. \label{sum}\end{aligned}$$ Consider this expression for a few specific models: first, an “exact” solvable two-field model with $m_2^2=2m_1^2$; second, approximate two-field models with $m_2^2=\alpha m_1^2$ and $1\leq\alpha\leq5$; third, $\mathcal{N}$-field models with $m_1^2/m_i^2 \equiv \mu_i^2 \equiv 1-\delta_i$ where $\delta_i\ll 1$.
The first step consists always of evaluating the field values at $t_*$ and $t_c$, which we denote by $\varphi^{*}_i$ and $\varphi^c_i$. To do so, we need $2\mathcal{N}$ conditions, which are given by: $\mathcal{N}-1$ dynamical relations between the fields, $\mathcal{N}-1$ initial conditions, one condition from the requirement that $t_*$ be $N$ e-foldings before $t_c$, and one condition from the requirement that slow roll ends for at least one field at $t_c$. Thereafter, we need to evaluate the slow roll parameters at $t_*$ and $t_c$, which in turn enable us to compute $F$.
Consequently, let us first look at the dynamics of multi-field inflationary models with $$\begin{aligned}
W&=&\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}V_i\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}m_i^2\varphi_i^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we ordered the fields such that $m_i>m_j$ if $i>j$. The field equations (\[dyn1\]) during slow roll yield $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\varphi}_i=-\frac{m_i^2\varphi_i}{\sqrt{3}W}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we also used the Friedman equation (\[dyn2\]). Dividing equations such that $W$ drops out and integrating yields the $\mathcal{N}-1$ conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\varphi_1^c}{\varphi_1^*}=\left(\frac{\varphi_i^c}{\varphi_i^*}\right)^{\mu_i^2}\,.\label{cond4}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that this is not an attractor: initial conditions for the fields influence the dynamics at all times. As a consequence, a thorough study of initial conditions should be performed whenever a multi-field model with separable quadratic potentials is proposed as a serious scenario of the early universe. However, we are not interested in testing a particular model right now, but in developing intuition by studying a few concrete examples. Naturally these models are chosen such that they are easy to treat. Therefore, we restrict ourselves in most cases to equal energy initial conditions, that is we impose $V_i^*=V_j^*$, which will simplify matters considerably. Of course this results in the $\mathcal{N}-1$ initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i^*=\mu_i\varphi_1^*\,.\label{cond3}\end{aligned}$$ Next, consider the number of e-foldings defined in (\[defN\]): this expression integrates to $$\begin{aligned}
4N=\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\left[ (\varphi_i^{*})^2-(\varphi_i^{c})^2\right]\,.\label{cond2}\end{aligned}$$ The last missing equation is due to the fact that slow roll ends for one of the fields at $t_c$, that is either one of the slow roll parameters $\eta_i$, $\varepsilon_i$ defined in (\[srparameters\]) or $\varepsilon$ becomes of order one. We can easily compute the ratio of the $\eta_i$’s, yielding $\eta_i>\eta_j$ if $i>j$. Similarly, the ratio of $\eta_i$ to $\varepsilon_i$ becomes $W/V_i$, which is larger than one so that $\eta_i>\varepsilon_i$. Consequently, the field with the largest mass, that is the $\mathcal{N}$’th field, will leave slow roll first when $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{\mathcal{N}}^c=1\,, \label{cond1}\end{aligned}$$ given that $\varepsilon^c<1$, which will be satisfied in all cases we study.
Equations (\[cond4\])-(\[cond1\]) are the $2\mathcal{N}$ conditions which are needed in order to evaluate all fields at $t_*$ and $t_c$. For any concrete models we can solve the above conditions and evaluate $F$. For simplicity, we suppress the superscript $c$ in the following.
Two fields: $m_1^2/m_2^2=1/2$ \[case1\]
---------------------------------------
We start with this case, since it is possible to solve (\[cond4\])-(\[cond1\]) without any approximations. Equation (\[cond1\]) immediately yields $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^2=2(2-\varphi_2^2)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and (\[cond3\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^{*2}=2\varphi_2^{*2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Using these in (\[cond2\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^{*2}=2\frac{4(N+1)-\varphi_2^2}{3}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which in turn can be plugged into (\[cond4\]) with the result $$\begin{aligned}
9\frac{(2-\varphi_2^2)^2}{4(N+1)-\varphi_2^2} = 3\varphi_2^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ This quadratic equation in $\varphi_2^2$ can be solved to $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_2^2&=&2+\frac{N}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4+8N+N^2}\\
&\approx&\frac{3}{N}-\frac{12}{N^2}+\frac{57}{N^3}+\mathcal{O}(N^{-4})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we expanded in terms of $1/N$ in the last step – we need to keep terms up to order $N^{-3}$, to recapture properly the leading order contribution to $F$. The remaining fields become $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^2=4-\frac{6}{N}+\frac{24}{N^2}-\frac{114}{N^3}+\mathcal{O}(N^{-4})\,,\\
\varphi_1^{*2}=\frac{8}{3}(N+1)-\frac{2}{N}+\frac{8}{N^2}-\frac{38}{N^3}+\mathcal{O}(N^{-4})\,,\\
\varphi_2^{*2}=\frac{4}{3}(N+1)-\frac{1}{N}+\frac{4}{N^2}-\frac{19}{N^3}+\mathcal{O}(N^{-4})\,.\end{aligned}$$ It is now straightforward but somewhat tedious to evaluate all slow roll parameters as well as $u_1$ and $u_2$. In the end, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
F=-\frac{9}{16 N^4}+\mathcal{O}(N^{-5})\,.\end{aligned}$$
The important feature is the obvious slow roll suppression $F\sim N^{-2\cdot 2}$. This suppression is due to the cancellations that occur within the summation over the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix. As a result, $\mathcal A$ defined in (\[defA2field\]) becomes proportional to $N^{-4}$, so that even though the prefactor in (\[twofieldf\]) is of order one, the final result is heavily slow roll suppressed.
Two fields: $m_1^2/m_2^2=1/\alpha $ \[case2\]
---------------------------------------------
This case can still be solved approximately and we will be able to see how $F$, and with that the non-Gaussianity, depends on the ratio of the masses. Taking analogous steps to the discussion in the previous section we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^2&=&\alpha(2-\varphi_2^2)\,,\\
\varphi_1^{*2}&=&\alpha\varphi_2^{*2}\,, \label{eqeninco}\\
\varphi_1^{*2}&=&\frac{4N+2\alpha+\varphi_2^2(1-\alpha)}{1+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Using these, and writing $x=\varphi_2^2$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(2-x)^\alpha(1+\alpha)^\alpha}{\left(4N+2\alpha+x(1-\alpha)\right)^{\alpha-1}}=x(1+\alpha)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which could be solved numerically. However, we refrain from doing so since we are primarily interested in the analytic form of the slow roll suppression of $F$, which can be computed if we make some minor approximations. First, assume that $\varphi_i\ll\varphi_j^*$ with the consequence that (\[cond3\]) and (\[cond2\]) immediately yield $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^{*2}&\approx&\alpha\frac{4N}{1+\alpha}\,,\\
\varphi_2^{*2}&\approx&\frac{4N}{1+\alpha}\,.\\\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[cond1\]) still leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^2&=&\alpha(2-\varphi_2^2)\,,\\\end{aligned}$$ and (\[cond4\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(2-x)^\alpha}{x}\approx\left(\frac{4N}{\alpha+1}\right)^{\alpha-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ If we now Taylor expand the left hand side for $x\ll1$, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
2^\alpha\left(\frac{1}{x}-\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{\alpha(\alpha-1)}{8}x\right)\approx\left(\frac{4N}{\alpha+1}\right)^{\alpha-1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we truncated the expansion such that a quadratic equation for $x$ results. Note that the above expression yields the exact result in case of $\alpha=2$. Solving this equation results in $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_2^2\approx\frac{2^{\alpha-1} \alpha+\left[\frac{4N}{\alpha+1}\right]^{\alpha-1}-\sqrt{4^{\alpha-1}\alpha(2-\alpha)+\left[\frac{4N}{\alpha+1}\right]^{\alpha-1}2^{\alpha}\alpha+\left[\frac{4N}{\alpha+1}\right]^{2\alpha-2}}}{2^{\alpha-2}\alpha(\alpha-1)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ As in the previous section, we can now expand the field values to any desired order in $1/N$, compute the slow roll parameters, evaluate $u_1$ and $u_2$ and in the end compute the non-Gaussianity due to $F$. Doing so we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
F\sim\frac{1}{N^{2\alpha}}\,,\label{sclaingalp}\end{aligned}$$ for $\alpha=2,3,4,...$, and $F=0$ for $\alpha=1$. The suppression is again due to cancellations within the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix. Even though the proportionality factor increases with $\alpha$, it is easily dominated by the additional suppression due to $N^{-2\alpha}$. One should note that our assumption $\varphi_i\ll\varphi_j^*$ breaks down for $\alpha\approx 5$, since $\varphi_1^2 \approx \varphi_2^{*2}/4$ already, if we use $N=60$.
We conclude that non-Gaussianities become more increasingly suppressed as the mass difference increases. If the masses are similar ($\alpha\approx 1$), we should still have a suppression of $1/N^2$. Of course the non-Gaussianity due to the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix vanishes identically if $\alpha=1$, that is if the masses are equal. Hence, we predict the largest non-Gaussianity to occur for nearly equal masses. To be specific, if we write $m_1^2/m_2^2=1-\delta$ with $\delta\ll1$, we expect $F\sim \delta^\beta/N^2$ with some exponent $\beta$. As soon as $\delta$ becomes of order one, the additional slow roll suppression kicks in and suppresses the signal.
One assumption we made was the equal energy initial condition (\[eqeninco\]), and one might wonder how a different choice effects $F$: it turns out that only the numerical prefactor in (\[sclaingalp\]) changes if we choose different initial values for the fields (e.g. for $\alpha=2$ it changes from $-9/16$ to $-4$ if $\varphi_1^*=\varphi_2^*$ is used), but the important suppression factor $N^{-2\alpha}$ remains unaltered. As a consequence, we will restrain ourselves to the equal energy initial condition in the next section, where we will be able to derive the exponent $\beta$ and the proportionality factor in general for multi-field models.
$\mathcal{N}$ fields: $m_1^2/m_i^2=1-\delta_i$ \[case3\]
--------------------------------------------------------
Let us now consider the case of $\mathcal{N}$ fields and focus on a narrow mass spectrum, since a broad distribution is expected to result in heavily suppressed non-Gaussianities, based on the analysis in the previous section. Another reason to focus on narrow mass spectra is that broad distributions are not well suited for assisted inflation, since the heavy fields would roll quickly to their minimum without contributing much to inflation.
Therefore consider $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{m_1^2}{m_i^2}&\equiv&1-\delta_i\,, \end{aligned}$$ with $\delta_i\ll1$ and $\delta_i>\delta_j$ if $i>j$, that is we order the fields according to their masses. We characterize the width of the mass distribution by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\equiv\frac{1}{\mathcal N}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}\delta_i\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\delta}^2\equiv\frac{1}{\mathcal N}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N}\delta_i^2\,.\end{aligned}$$
Our first task is again to find the field values at $t_*$ and $t_c$ via (\[cond4\])-(\[cond1\]). What simplifies matters is that we can expand in terms of the $\delta_i$. However, as we shall see later on, terms linear in $\delta_i$ cancel out exactly in the expression for $F$. Therefore we keep all terms up to $\delta_i^2$ right from the start.
By using (\[cond4\]) and (\[cond3\]) in (\[cond1\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{1-\delta_{\mathcal{N}}}=\varphi_1^{*2}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\delta_i}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and (\[cond2\]) turns into $$\begin{aligned}
4N=\varphi_1^{*2}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}(1-\delta_i)-\varphi_1^{*2}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}(1-\delta_i)\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\delta_i}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ without expanding anything so far. Next, noting that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\delta_i}}\approx \frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}
\left(1+(\delta_i+\delta_i^2)\ln\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)+\delta_i^2\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)+\mathcal{O}(\delta_i^3)\right)\end{aligned}$$ and using the definitions of $\delta$ and $\tilde{\delta}^2$, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\varphi_1^{*2}&\approx&(2N+1)+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+\delta\left(2N+1-\varphi_1^2\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\right)\\
&&+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}^2-\varphi_1^2\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\left(\delta^2+\tilde{\delta}^2\ln\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)\right)+\delta\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+\delta^2(2N+1)\,,\\
\nonumber \frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\varphi_1^{2}&\approx&1+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}-\delta\ln\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)
\\
&&+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}^2-(\tilde{\delta}^2+\delta_{\mathcal N}\delta)\ln\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)+\left(\delta^2-\frac{\tilde{\delta}^2}{2}\right)\ln^2\left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_1^{*2}}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we kept all terms up to second order. To solve these coupled equations, we iteratively insert them into each other until we have all terms up to second order. The solution reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\varphi_1^{*2}&\approx&2N+1+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+2N \delta+(\tilde{\delta}^2-\delta^2)\gamma+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}^2+2N\delta^2 \,,\\
\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\varphi_1^{2}&\approx&1+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+\gamma\delta+\frac{2N}{2N+1}\delta(\delta-\delta_{\mathcal{N}})\nonumber\\
&&+\delta_{\mathcal{N}}^2+(\tilde{\delta}^2-\delta^2+\delta\delta_{\mathcal{N}})\gamma+\frac{2\delta^2-\tilde{\delta}^2}{2}\gamma^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma\equiv\ln(2N+1)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is of order one. All other fields follow directly from (\[cond4\]) and (\[cond3\]), which have to be properly expanded too.
Now that we have the field values, we are ready to compute the slow roll parameters. The easiest one is $\eta_i=m_i^2/m_{\mathcal{N}}^2$, which becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_i&=&\frac{1-\delta_{\mathcal{N}}}{1-\delta_i}\\
&\approx&1-\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+\delta_i-\delta_{\mathcal{N}}\delta_i+\delta_i^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we would like to compute $\varepsilon=\sum\varepsilon_i$ since the ratio of $\eta_i$ and $\varepsilon$ appears in the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix. Noting that $\varepsilon_i=\eta_iV_i/W$ as well as $W=m_{\mathcal{N}}^2$, and plugging in $\varphi_i^2$ by using (\[cond4\]) and (\[cond3\]) with $\varphi_1^2$ and $\varphi_1^{*2}$ from above we arrive after some tedious but straightforward algebra at $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\approx1-\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+\delta-\delta\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+\tilde{\delta}^2(\gamma+1)+\delta^2\gamma\,.\label{toteps}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\varepsilon<1$ since $\delta_N>\delta$, so that $\eta_{\mathcal{N}}$ is indeed the largest slow roll parameter. The ratio we are interested in becomes $$\begin{aligned}
1-\frac{\eta_i}{\varepsilon}\approx\delta-\delta_i-\delta_i^2+\delta_i\delta+\tilde{\delta}^2(\gamma+1)-\delta^2(1-\gamma)\,.\label{etaexp}\end{aligned}$$
At this point we should step back for a second and have a look at the expression for $F$: first, note that $\sum_i(\delta-\delta_i)=0$. Because of this and since the leading order contribution of $1-\eta_i/\varepsilon$ is already first order in delta, we know that $F$ is identical to zero up to first order in delta. This is the reason why we computed $1-\eta_i/\varepsilon$ up to second order. Next, since $1-\eta_i/\varepsilon$ has no zeroth order contribution, we only need to evaluate the remaining constituents of $F$ up to first order in delta, which simplifies matters quite a bit.
Doing so leads after a lot more straightforward but tedious algebra to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber F&\approx&\frac{\tilde{\delta}^2-\delta^2}{(2N+1)^2}\left(1-\frac{2}{\mathcal{N}(2N+1)}-\frac{1}{\mathcal{N}^2}\left(1-\frac{2}{2N+1}\right)\right)\\
&&-\frac{2\tilde{\delta}^2\ln(2N+1)}{(2N+1)^2}\left(1-\frac{2}{\mathcal{N}}+\frac{1}{\mathcal{N}^2}\right) \label{Fresult}\end{aligned}$$ This is our final result, but before we discuss its implications, it might be instructive to see how at least the leading order contribution in the number of fields comes about. By looking at the general expression for $F$ in (\[sum\]) as well as the definition of the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix in (\[defA\]), one can convince oneself that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber F\big|_{\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{N}^0)}&=&
-\frac{W^2}{W^{2}_*}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}\left(\sum_{k,l=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{u_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^*}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}\right)^{-2}
\sum_{k,l=1}^{\mathcal{N}}
\frac{u_k u_l}{\varepsilon_k^*\varepsilon_l^*}
\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}\\
\nonumber &&\times\Bigg( \sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\left(\varepsilon_j\big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta)}-\varepsilon_j\big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}\right) \frac{\varepsilon_k\varepsilon_l}{\varepsilon^2}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}\left(1-\frac{\eta_j}{\varepsilon}\right)\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta)} \\
&&+\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\left(\varepsilon_j\frac{\varepsilon_k\varepsilon_l}{\varepsilon^2}\right)\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}\left(-\frac{\eta_j}{\varepsilon}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^2)}+\frac{\eta_j}{\varepsilon}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta)}\right) \Bigg)+\mathcal{O}(\delta^3)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^{\beta})}$ means that the adjacent quantity has to be expanded up to order $\beta$ in all deltas. To evaluate this expression we use $1-\eta_j/\varepsilon$ from (\[etaexp\]), $\varepsilon$ from (\[toteps\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_k\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^1)}&=&\frac{1}{\mathcal{N}}\left(1-\delta_k(\gamma-1)-\delta_{\mathcal{N}}+\gamma\delta\right)\,,\\
\frac{u_k}{\varepsilon_k^*}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}&=&2N+1\,,\\
\frac{u_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^*}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}&=&\frac{2N+1}{\mathcal{N}}\,,\\
\frac{W^2}{W^{2}_*}\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(\delta^0)}&=&\frac{1}{(2N+1)^2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which leads to the $\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{N}^0)$ contribution to $F$ from above.
There are two interesting features to our result (\[Fresult\]): first, the expression is again suppressed by the number of e-foldings ($\propto N^{-2}$), just as expected from our experience with the two-field cases. Next, the leading order contribution is not enhanced by the number of fields, as one might naively expect, but is of order $\mathcal{O}(\delta^2)$. As a consequence, the contribution to the non-Gaussianity due to the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix is negligible, even for multiple fields.
We restricted ourselves to a narrow mass spectrum here – however, for a broader mass spectrum we expect an even stronger suppression by inverse powers of the number of e-foldings, based on our experience with two-field models.
Discussion
----------
We saw in the previous three subsections that there is little hope for a considerable amount of non-Gaussianity due to the evolution of modes once they cross the horizon in multi-field models of inflation. We restricted ourselves to separable potentials when we derive the expression for the nonlinear parameter in (\[f\_NL\]), and looked at a few specific models with potentials of the $m^2\varphi^2$ type: in the case of two fields, the contribution due to the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix is suppressed by the number of e-foldings, with an exponent given by twice the ratio of the heavier square mass to the lighter one.
Extrapolating this result to the multi-field case, we concluded that a narrow spectrum would be the most promising candidate for a large non-Gaussian signal. This, and the fact that the most useful multi-field models have a narrow spectrum, eg. in the case of assisted inflation, lead us to evaluate the non-Gaussianity in a general multi-field scenario with a narrow mass distribution. As expected, we arrived at an expression that is suppressed by the number of e-foldings, in agreement with our experience from the two-field case. What is more, no enhancement due to the potentially large number of fields was found. Finally, the expression scaled like $\delta^2$, where $\delta$ is a measure of the mass distributions width (the larger $\delta$, the broader the spectrum).
For the $\mathcal{N}$-field case, we used equal energy initial conditions only, for reasons of simplicity and since we saw in the two field model that only the numerical prefactor gets altered by a different choice. Consequently, we expect the general scaling behavior and the suppression by the number of e-foldings to be generic features, independent of the chosen initial field values. Nevertheless, one should perform a more careful analysis of initial conditions for any concrete model of the early universe, if the model is based on multiple fields with quadratic potentials (like N-flation). The machinery for evaluating a non-Gaussian signal developed in this paper can of course be used.
We did not consider more intricate potentials in our case studies, like $\lambda\varphi^4$ potentials, or broad mass spectra, such as in N-flation, since our main aim here was to develop the general formalism and to demonstrate its applicability. We do not expect drastic new features for different potentials, but a thorough analysis of models in the literature should be performed, including the computation of the first term in (\[f\_NL\]) [@inprep].
It should be noted that we have restricted ourselves to slowly rolling fields throughout. However, if the mass spectrum is broad, fields will leave slow roll early on, while inflation still commences. These fields will lead to an additional production of non-Gaussianities, due to the conversion of isocurvature modes to adiabatic ones [@Rigopoulos:2005us]; based on the simple models studied in the literature we expect these signals to be transient [@Rigopoulos:2005us], but more intricate models should be examined carefully before drawing general conclusions. We also neglected any cross coupling terms between fields, which might be yet another source of non-Gaussianity, see e.g. [@Bernardeau:2006tf].
Before we conclude, we quickly derive the general expression for the scalar spectral index in case of a separable potential, that includes the evolution of modes once they cross the horizon. Since this expression incorporates the effect of isocurvature modes, it might be quite useful whenever these modes are present, e.g. in models incorporating compactifications of higher dimensions.
Scalar Spectral Index \[scind\]
===============================
With our knowledge of $N_{,k}$ and ${N_{,kl}}$ from section \[nongaussianities\] we can easily evaluate the scalar spectral index in the $\delta N$ formalism. In [@Vernizzi:2006ve] the general expression for $n_\zeta$ was derived as $$\begin{aligned}
n_\zeta-1=-2\varepsilon^*+\frac{2}{H_*}\frac{\sum_{k,l=1}^{\mathcal{N}} \dot{\varphi}_k^*N_{,kl}N_{,l}}{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}N_{,k}^2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which can be shown to be equivalent with the result of Sasaki and Stewart [@Sasaki:1995aw] within the slow roll regime. If we insert our expressions for the derivatives of the expansion rate from (\[N,k\]) and (\[N,kl\]) we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
n_\zeta-1=-2\varepsilon^*-4\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}u_k\left(1-\frac{\eta_k^*}{2\varepsilon_k^*}u_k\right)+\sum_{k,l=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{u_k}{\varepsilon_k^*}\mathcal{A}_{kl}}{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{u_k^{2}}{\varepsilon_k^*}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we made use of the definition $\sqrt{2\varepsilon_k^*}=W_*3H_*\dot{\varphi}^*$ and the Friedman equation $3H^{2}_*=W_*$. It is easy to see that the last sum in the numerator vanishes, since we established already in (\[rowA\]) that the sum over a row or column of the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix vanishes. Henceforth, the scalar spectral index simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
n_\zeta-1=-2\varepsilon^*-4\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}u_k\left(1-\frac{\eta_k^*}{2\varepsilon_k^*}u_k\right)}{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N}}\frac{u_k^{2}}{\varepsilon_k^*}}\,.\label{scalind}\end{aligned}$$ This result reduces to the one of [@Vernizzi:2006ve] in the case of two fields. It is interesting to note that the $\mathcal{A}$-matrix, which was due to $\partial Z_k^c/\partial\varphi^*_l$, cancels out of the expression for $n_\zeta-1$. Obviously, this matrix is not constrained by observations of a nearly scale invariant spectral index.
This expression includes the effect of possible isocurvature modes and might be quite useful for models where such modes arise. We postpone a detailed study of ([\[scalind\]]{})’s application to concrete models of the early universe to a forthcoming publication.
Conclusions \[sec:con\]
=======================
In this article, we derived the general expression of the nonlinear parameter for separable potentials, within the slow roll approximation and including the evolution of perturbations once they cross the horizon.
This formalism was then applied to several specific models with quadratic potentials. We find that non-Gaussianities are suppressed by the volume expansion rate. The power of the rate is twice the ratio of the heavier mass squared to the lighter one squared in two-field models.
Extrapolating this result to multiple fields, we expect the suppression to be stronger for broad spectra than for narrow spectra. As a consequence, we focused on narrow spectra only for the general multi-field case. We recover the expected quadratic suppression with respect to the volume expansion rate, but we are also able to derive the explicit expression for the nonlinear parameter in terms of the width of the spectrum.
Based on these case studies, we expect that multi-field models of inflation which are well described by the slow roll approximation cannot generate a large non-Gaussian signal. Consequently, we cannot use $f_{NL}$ to discriminate between multi-field models of assisted inflation and their single field analogs. Nevertheless, given a concrete multi-field model one should compute its non-Gaussianity, to verify that the general expectation is indeed true for the model at hand, since a dependence on the mass spectrum and, in case of quadratic potentials, the initial field values is present. Furthermore, we did not examine more intricate potentials, such as quartic or exponential ones, which clearly warrant further study [@inprep].
As a bonus, we also computed the general expression of the scalar spectral index, again including the evolution of perturbations once they cross the horizon. This result should be applicable to computations of the effects of isocurvature modes. We postpone an application of this result to a forthcoming publication.
We would like to thank Diana Battefeld, Robert Brandenberger and Eugene Lim for comments on the draft. T.B. would like to acknowledge the hospitality of Yale University where this work was initiated and completed. We are also thankful for useful conversations on this topic with Daniel Baumann, Andrew Liddle and Liam McAllister. RE is supported in part by the United States Department of Energy, grant DE-FG02-92ER-40704.
A. D. Linde, “Axions in inflationary cosmology,” Phys. Lett. B [**259**]{}, 38 (1991). A. D. Linde, “Hybrid inflation,” Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 748 (1994) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9307002\].
E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, D. H. Lyth, E. D. Stewart and D. Wands, “False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 6410 (1994) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9401011\]. A. R. Liddle, A. Mazumdar and F. E. Schunck, “Assisted inflation,” Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 061301 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9804177\]. P. Kanti and K. A. Olive, “On the realization of assisted inflation,” Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 043502 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9903524\]. S. Dimopoulos, S. Kachru, J. McGreevy and J. G. Wacker, “N-flation,” arXiv:hep-th/0507205. R. Easther and L. McAllister, “Random matrices and the spectrum of N-flation,” JCAP [**0605**]{}, 018 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0512102\]. K. Becker, M. Becker and A. Krause, Nucl. Phys. B [**715**]{}, 349 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0501130\]. J. M. Maldacena, “Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,” JHEP [**0305**]{}, 013 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0210603\]. V. Acquaviva, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto, “Second-order cosmological perturbations from inflation,” Nucl. Phys. B [**667**]{}, 119 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0209156\]. P. Creminelli, “On non-gaussianities in single-field inflation,” JCAP [**0310**]{}, 003 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0306122\]. D. Babich, P. Creminelli and M. Zaldarriaga, “The shape of non-Gaussianities,” JCAP [**0408**]{}, 009 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405356\].
D. Seery and J. E. Lidsey, “Primordial non-gaussianities in single field inflation,” JCAP [**0506**]{}, 003 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0503692\]. N. Barnaby and J. M. Cline, arXiv:astro-ph/0611750. K. Enqvist, A. Jokinen, A. Mazumdar, T. Multamaki and A. Vaihkonen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 161301 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0411394\]. F. Vernizzi and D. Wands, “Non-Gaussianities in two-field inflation,” JCAP [**0605**]{}, 019 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0603799\]. D. Seery and J. E. Lidsey, “Primordial non-gaussianities from multiple-field inflation,” JCAP [**0509**]{}, 011 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0506056\]. S. A. Kim and A. R. Liddle, “Nflation: Non-gaussianity in the horizon-crossing approximation,” arXiv:astro-ph/0608186. A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. [**42**]{}, 152 (1985) \[Pis. Hz. Esp. Tor. Fizz. [42]{}, 124 (1985)\].
M. Sasaki and E. D. Stewart, “A General Analytic Formula For The Spectral Index Of The Density Perturbations Produced During Inflation,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [**95**]{}, 71 (1996) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9507001\]. D. H. Lyth and Y. Rodriguez, “The inflationary prediction for primordial non-gaussianity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 121302 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0504045\]. L. Alabidi and D. H. Lyth, “Inflation models and observation,” JCAP [**0605**]{}, 016 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0510441\]. G. I. Rigopoulos, E. P. S. Shellard and B. W. van Tent, “Non-Gaussianity as a new observable in multifield inflation?,” arXiv:astro-ph/0511041. X. Chen, M. x. Huang, S. Kachru and G. Shiu, “Observational signatures and non-Gaussianities of general single field inflation,” arXiv:hep-th/0605045. D. H. Lyth and D. Wands, “Conserved cosmological perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 103515 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0306498\]. G. I. Rigopoulos and E. P. S. Shellard, “The separate universe approach and the evolution of nonlinear superhorizon cosmological perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 123518 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0306620\]. C. T. Byrnes, M. Sasaki and D. Wands, “The primordial trispectrum from inflation,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 123519 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0611075\].
D. N. Spergel [*et al.*]{}, “Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: Implications for cosmology,” arXiv:astro-ph/0603449. R. Easther and J. T. Giblin, “The Hubble slow roll expansion for multi field inflation,” Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 103505 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0505033\]. D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, “Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density perturbation,” Phys. Rept. [**314**]{}, 1 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9807278\].
D. Battefeld and T. Battefeld, “Non-Gaussianities in N-flation,” arXiv:hep-th/0703012. F. Bernardeau, T. Brunier and J. P. Uzan, AIP Conf. Proc. [**861**]{}, 821 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0604200\].
[^1]: See also [@Becker:2005sg] for the derivation of a closely related assisted inflation model based on multiple branes, to which our study also applies.
[^2]: When assisted inflation is driven by $m^2 \phi^2$ potentials the inflationary dynamics have some “memory” of the initial field values, whereas other widely studied implementations of assisted inflation have an attractor solution in field space.
[^3]: An additional source of Non-Gaussianity is the era of reheating, which we do not consider in the following; see eg. [@Barnaby:2006km; @Enqvist:2004ey] and references therein for relevant literature.
[^4]: See [@Seery:2005gb; @Lyth:2005fi; @Alabidi:2005qi; @Rigopoulos:2005us] for a sample of the recent literature on multiple field models and e.g. [@Maldacena:2002vr; @Acquaviva:2002ud; @Chen:2006nt] for a discussion of single field models.
[^5]: The separate Universe formalism put forward by Rigopoulos and Shellard in e.g. [@Rigopoulos:2003ak] is equivalent to the $\delta N$-formalism.
[^6]: The quantity $f$ incorporates the dependence of the three point correlation function on the shape of the momentum triangle; the maximal value results for an equilateral triangle and the minimal one if two sides are much longer than the third [@Maldacena:2002vr].
[^7]: We are using the potential slow roll formalism here. For a more general treatment of the slow roll expansion with multiple fields, see [@Easther:2005nh].
[^8]: In N-flation, this happens frequently during inflation, since the heavier a field is the earlier it will leave slow roll [@Easther:2005zr].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct two classes of infinitely many commuting operators associated with the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$. We call one of them the integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$, $(m \in {\mathbb N})$ and the other the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$, $(z \in {\mathbb C})$. The integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$ is related to elliptic deformation of the $N$-th KdV theory. The boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ is related to the boundary $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ face model. We diagonalize the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ by using the free field realization of the elliptic quantum group, however diagonalization of the integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$ is open problem even for the simplest case $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_2})$.'
title: ' **** '
---
=eufm10 =eufm7 =eufm5 ===\#1[[\#1]{}]{} addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
\[section\] \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Conjecture]{} \[thm\][Fact]{} \[section\] \[thm\][Definition]{}
[Takeo KOJIMA]{}\
\
[*Department of Mathematics and Physics, Graduate School of Science and Engineering,\
Yamagata University, Jonan 4-3-16, Yonezawa 992-8510, Japan*]{}
\
\
Introduction
============
The free field approach provides a powerful method to study exactly solvable model [@JM]. The basic idea in this approach is to realize the commutation relations for the symmetry algebra and the vertex operators in terms of free fields acting on the Fock space. We introduce the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ [@JKOS; @KojimaKonno], and give its free field realization. Using the free field realizations, we introduce two extended currents $F_N(z)$ [@KojimaShiraishi1] and $U(z)$ [@AJMP] associated with the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$. We construct two classes of infinitely many commuting operators for the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$. We call one of them the integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$, $(m \in {\mathbb N})$ [@KojimaShiraishi1] and the other the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$, $(z \in {\mathbb C})$ [@Kojima3]. Our constructions are based on the free field realizations of the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$, the extended currents and the vertex operator $\Phi^{(a,b)}(z)$. Commutativity of the integral of motion is ensured by Feigin-Odesskii algebra [@FO], and those of the boundary transfer matrix is ensured by Yang-Baxter equation and boundary Yang-Baxter equation [@S]. Two classes of infinitely many commuting operators have physical meanings. The integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$ is two parameter deformation of the monodromy of the $N$-th KdV theory [@BLZ; @Kojima2]. The boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ is related to the boundary $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ face model that is lattice deformation of the conformal field theory. We diagonalize the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ by using the free field realization of the elliptic quantum group and the vertex operators. Diagonalization of the boundary transfer matrix allows us calculate correlation functions of the boundary $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ face model [@LP; @MW; @Kojima3].
The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we introduce the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ [@JKOS; @KojimaKonno], and give its free field realization. In section 3 we introduce two extended currents $F_N(z),E_N(z)$ [@KojimaShiraishi1] and $U(z),V(z)$ [@AJMP; @FKQ] associated with the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$. We give the free field realization of the vertex operators $\Phi^{(a,b)}(z)$, using the extended current $U(z)$. We construct two classes of infinitely many commuting operators associated with the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$. The one is the integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$ [@KojimaShiraishi1] and the other is the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ [@Kojima3]. In section 4 we diagonalize the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ by using the free field realization of the vertex operators [@AJMP; @FKQ; @Kojima3].
Elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$
================================================
In this section we introduce the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ and its free field realization.
Quantum group
-------------
In this section we recall Drinfeld realization of the quantum group [@Drinfeld]. We fix a complex number $q$ such that $0<|q|<1$. Let us fix the integer $N=3,4,5,\cdots$. We use q-integer $[n]_q=\frac{q^a-q^{-a}}{q-q^{-1}}$. We use the abbreviation, $$\begin{aligned}
(z;p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_M)_\infty
=\prod_{k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_M=0}^\infty
(1-p_1^{k_1}p_2^{k_2}\cdots p_M^{k_M}z).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The quantum group $U_q(\widehat{sl_N})$ is generated by $h_j, a_{j,m}, x_{j,n}$, $(1\leqq j \leqq N-1:m\in {\mathbb Z}_{\neq 0},n \in
{\mathbb Z})$, $c,d$. Let us set the generating functions $x_j^\pm(z), \psi_j(z), \varphi_j(z)$, $(1\leqq j \leqq N-1)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
x_j^\pm(z)&=&
\sum_{n \in {\mathbb Z}}x_{j,n}^\pm z^{-n},\nonumber
\\
\psi_j(q^{\frac{c}{2}}z)&=&q^{h_j}
\exp\left((q-q^{-1})\sum_{m>0}a_{j,m}z^{-m}\right),
\nonumber
\\
\varphi_j(q^{-\frac{c}{2}}z)&=&
q^{-h_j}
\exp\left(-(q-q^{-1})\sum_{m>0}a_{j,-m}z^{m}\right).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The defining relations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&~[d,x_{j,n}^\pm]=n x_{j,n}^\pm,
~[h_j,d]=[h_j,a_{k,m}]=[d,a_{k,m}]=0,
c : {\rm central},
\nonumber\\
&&
~[a_{j,m},a_{k,n}]=\frac{[A_{j,k}m]_q [cm]_q}{m}
q^{-c|m|}\delta_{m+n,0},
~[h_j,x_k^\pm(z)]=\pm A_{j,k} x_k^\pm(z),\nonumber\\
&&
~[a_{j,m},x_k^+(z)]=\frac{[A_{j,k}m]_q}{m}q^{-c|m|}z^m
x_k^+(z),
~[a_{j,m},x_k^-(z)]=-\frac{[A_{j,k}m]_q}{m}z^m x_k^-(z),
\nonumber\\
&&
(z_1-q^{\pm A_{j,k}}z_2)x_j^\pm(z_1)x_k^\pm(z_2)=
(q^{\pm A_{j,k}}z_1-z_2)x_k^\pm(z_2)x_j^\pm(z_1),\nonumber\\
&&~[x_j^+(z_1),x_k^-(z_2)]=\frac{\delta_{j,k}}{q-q^{-1}}
(\delta(q^{-c}z_1/z_2)\psi_j(q^{\frac{c}{2}}z_2)-
\delta(q^cz_1/z_2)\varphi_j(q^{-\frac{c}{2}}z_2)),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and Serre relation for $|j-k|=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&(x_j^\pm(z_1)x_j^\pm(z_2)x_k^\pm(z)-
[2]_q
x_j^\pm(z_1)x_k^\pm(z)x_j^\pm(z_2)
+x_k^\pm(z)x_j^\pm(z_1)x_j^\pm(z_2))\nonumber\\
&&+
(x_j^\pm(z_2)x_j^\pm(z_1)x_k^\pm(z)-
[2]_q
x_j^\pm(z_2)x_k^\pm(z)x_j^\pm(z_1)
+x_k^\pm(z)x_j^\pm(z_2)x_j^\pm(z_1))=0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $(A_{j,k})_{1\leqq j,k \leqq N-1}$ is Cartan matrix of $sl_N$ type. Here we used the delta function $\delta(z)=\sum_{m \in {\mathbb Z}}z^m$.
Elliptic quantum group
----------------------
In this section we introduce the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ [@JKOS; @KojimaKonno], which is elliptic deformation of the quantum group $U_q(\widehat{sl_N})$. We fix complex numbers $r, s$ such that ${\rm Re}(r)>1$ and ${\rm Re}(s)>0$. When we change the polynomial $(z_1-q^{-2}z_2)$ in the defining relation of the quantum group $U_q(\widehat{sl_N})$, $$\begin{aligned}
(z_1-q^{-2}z_2)x_j^-(z_1)x_j^-(z_2)=
(q^{-2}z_1-z_2)x_j^-(z_2)x_j^-(z_1),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ to the elliptic theta function $[u]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
~\left[u_1-u_2+1\right] F_j(z_1)F_j(z_2)
=\left[u_1-u_2-1\right] F_j(z_2)F_j(z_1).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is one of the defining relations of the elliptic quantum group $U_{q.p}(\widehat{sl_N})$. We set the elliptic theta function $[u], [u]^*$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&&[u]=q^{\frac{u^2}{r}-u}\Theta_{q^{2r}}(q^{2u}),
~~[u]^*=q^{\frac{u^2}{r^*}-u}\Theta_{q^{2r^*}}(q^{2u}),
\nonumber
\\
&&\Theta_p(z)=(p;p)_\infty (z;p)_\infty (pz^{-1};p)_\infty,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we set $z=x^{2u}$ and $r^*=r-c$. The elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ is generated by the currents $E_j(z), F_j(z)$, $H_j^+(q^{\frac{c}{2}-r}z)=H_j^-(q^{-\frac{c}{2}+r}z)$, $(1\leqq j \leqq N-1)$. The defining relations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_j(z_1){E}_{j+1}(z_2)
&=&
\frac{
\left[u_2-u_1+\frac{s}{N}\right]^*}
{\left[u_1-u_2+1-\frac{s}{N}\right]^*}
{E}_{j+1}(z_2){E}_j(z_1),\\
{E}_j(z_1)
{E}_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2+1]^*}
{[u_1-u_2-1]^*}
{E}_j(z_2){E}_j(z_1),\\
{E}_j(z_1){E}_k(z_2)&=&{E}_k(z_2){E}_j(z_1),~~
otherwise ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{F}_j(z_1){F}_{j+1}(z_2)
&=&\frac{\left[u_2-u_1+\frac{s}{N}-1\right]}{
\left[u_1-u_2-\frac{s}{N}\right]
}{F}_{j+1}(z_2){F}_j(z_1),\\
{F}_j(z_1){F}_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2-1]}{[u_1-u_2+1]
}{F}_j(z_2){F}_j(z_1),\\
{F}_j(z_1){F}_k(z_2)&=&
{F}_k(z_2){F}_j(z_1),~~
otherwise ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_j^+(z_1)H_j^+(z_2)
&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2-1]
[u_1-u_2+1]^*}{
[u_1-u_2+1]
[u_1-u_2-1]^*}
H_j^+(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),\\
H_j^+(z_1)H_{j+1}^+(z_2)
&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2+1-\frac{s}{N}]
[u_1-u_2-\frac{s}{N}]^*}{
[u_1-u_2-\frac{s}{N}]
[u_1-u_2+1-\frac{s}{N}]^*}
H_{j+1}^+(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),\\
H_j^+(z_1)H_k^+(z_2)
&=&H_k^+(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),~
otherwise,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_j^+(z_1)E_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2+1+\frac{c}{4}]^*}
{[u_1-u_2-1-\frac{c}{4}]^*}
E_j(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),\\
H_j^+(z_1)E_{j+1}(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_2-u_1+\frac{s}{N}+\frac{c}{4}]^*}
{[u_1-u_2+1-\frac{s}{N}-\frac{c}{4}]^*}
E_{j+1}(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),\\
H_{j+1}^+(z_1)E_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_2-u_1+1-\frac{s}{N}+\frac{c}{4}]^*}
{[u_1-u_2-\frac{s}{N}-\frac{c}{4}]^*}
E_j(z_2)H_{j+1}^+(z_1),\\
H_{j}^+(z_1)E_k(z_2)&=&
E_k(z_2)H_{j}^+(z_1),~otherwise,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_j^+(z_1)F_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2-1-\frac{c}{4}]}
{[u_1-u_2+1+\frac{c}{4}]}
F_j(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),\\
H_j^+(z_1)F_{j+1}(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_2-u_1+\frac{s}{N}-1-\frac{c}{4}]}
{[u_1-u_2-\frac{s}{N}+\frac{c}{4}]}
F_{j+1}(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),\\
H_{j+1}^+(z_1)F_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_2-u_1-\frac{s}{N}-\frac{c}{4}]}
{[u_1-u_2+\frac{s}{N}-1+\frac{c}{4}]}
F_j(z_2)H_{j+1}^+(z_1),\\
H_j^+(z_1)F_k(z_2)&=&F_k(z_2)H_j^+(z_1),~otherwise,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
~[E_i(z_1),F_j(z_2)]&=&\frac{\delta_{i,j}}{q-q^{-1}}
\left(\delta(q^{-c}z_1/z_2)
H_j^+\left(q^{\frac{c}{2}}z_2\right)
-\delta(q^{c}z_1/z_2)
H_j^-\left(q^{-\frac{c}{2}}z_2\right)\right),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ and the Serre relations for $|j-k|=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\{
(z_2/z)^{\frac{1}{r^*}}
\frac{
(q^{2r^*-1}z/z_1;q^{2r^*})_\infty
(q^{2r^*-1}z/z_2;q^{2r^*})_\infty}{
(q^{2r^*+1}z/z_1;q^{2r^*})_\infty
(q^{2r^*+1}z/z_2;q^{2r^*})_\infty}
E_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_1)
E_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_2)
E_k(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z)
\right.\nonumber
\\
&&-[2]_q
\frac{(q^{2r^*-1}z/z_1;q^{2r^*})_\infty
(q^{2r^*-1}z_2/z;q^{2r^*})_\infty}{
(q^{2r^*+1}z/z_1;q^{2r^*})_\infty
(q^{2r^*+1}z_2/z;q^{2r^*})_\infty}
E_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_1)
E_k(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z)
E_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_2)\nonumber
\\
&&\left.
+(z/z_1)^{\frac{1}{r^*}}
\frac{(q^{2r^*-1}z_1/z;q^{2r^*})_\infty
(q^{2r^*-1}z_2/z;q^{2r^*})_\infty}{
(q^{2r^*+1}z_1/z;q^{2r^*})_\infty
(q^{2r^*+1}z_2/z;q^{2r^*})_\infty}
E_k(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z)
E_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_1)
E_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_2)
\right\}\nonumber\\
&\times&
z_1^{-\frac{1}{r^*}}
\frac{(q^{2r^*+2}z_2/z_1;q^{2r^*})_\infty}
{(q^{2r^*-2}z_2/z_1;q^{2r^*})_\infty}
+(z_1\leftrightarrow z_2)=0,\\
&&\left\{
(z_2/z)^{-\frac{1}{r}}
\frac{
(q^{2r+1}z/z_1;q^{2r})_\infty
(q^{2r+1}z/z_2;q^{2r})_\infty}{
(q^{2r-1}z/z_1;q^{2r})_\infty
(q^{2r-1}z/z_2;q^{2r})_\infty}
F_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_1)
F_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_2)
F_k(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z)
\right.\nonumber
\\
&&-[2]_q
\frac{(q^{2r+1}z/z_1;q^{2r})_\infty
(q^{2r+1}z_2/z;q^{2r})_\infty}{
(q^{2r-1}z/z_1;q^{2r})_\infty
(q^{2r-1}z_2/z;q^{2r})_\infty}
F_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_1)
F_k(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z)
F_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_2)\nonumber
\\
&&\left.
+(z/z_1)^{-\frac{1}{r}}
\frac{(q^{2r+1}z_1/z;q^{2r})_\infty
(q^{2r+1}z_2/z;q^{2r})_\infty}{
(q^{2r-1}z_1/z;q^{2r})_\infty
(q^{2r-1}z_2/z;q^{2r})_\infty}
F_k(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z)
F_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_1)
F_j(q^{1-\frac{2s}{N}}z_2)
\right\}\nonumber\\
&\times&
z_1^{\frac{1}{r}}
\frac{(q^{2r-2}z_2/z_1;q^{2r})_\infty}
{(q^{2r+2}z_2/z_1;q^{2r})_\infty}
+(z_1\leftrightarrow z_2)=0.\end{aligned}$$
Free field realization
----------------------
In this section we give the free field realization of the elliptic quantum group $U_{q.p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ [@JKOS; @KojimaKonno; @AJMP]. In what follows we restrict our interest to level $c=1$. Let us introduce the bosons $\beta_m^j, (1\leqq j \leqq N;m \in {\mathbb Z})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
~[\beta_m^j,\beta_n^k]=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle
m \frac{[(r-1)m]_q }{[rm]_q}
\frac{[(s-1)m]_q}{[sm]_q}\delta_{m+n,0}
&(1\leqq j=k \leqq N)\\
\displaystyle
-m q^{s m~{\rm sgn}(j-k)}
\frac{[(r-1)m]_q}{[rm]_q}
\frac{[m]_q}{[sm]_q}\delta_{m+n,0}
&(1\leqq j \neq k \leqq N).
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ We set the bosons $B_m^j$, $(1\leqq j \leqq N; m \in {\mathbb Z}_{\neq 0})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
B_m^j&=&(\beta_m^j-\beta_m^{j+1})q^{-jm},
~(1\leqq j \leqq N-1).$$ They satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
~[B_m^j,B_n^k]=m\frac{[(r-1)m]_q}{[rm]_q}
\frac{[{A}_{j,k}m]_q}{[m]_q}\delta_{m+n,0},~~
(1\leqq j,k \leqq N-1),\end{aligned}$$ where $({A}_{j,k})_{1\leqq j,k \leqq N-1}$ is Cartan matrix of ${sl_N}$ type. Let $\epsilon_\mu (1\leqq \mu \leqq N)$ be the orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb R}^N$ with the inner product $(\epsilon_\mu |\epsilon_\nu)=\delta_{\mu,\nu}$. Let us set $\bar{\epsilon}_\mu=\epsilon_\mu-\epsilon$ where $\epsilon=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\nu=1}^N \epsilon_\nu$. Let $\alpha_\mu~(1\leqq \mu \leqq N-1)$ the simple root : $\alpha_\mu=\bar{\epsilon}_\mu-\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu+1}$. The type $sl_N$ weight lattice is the linear span of $\bar{\epsilon}_\mu$, $P=\sum_{\mu=1}^{N-1} {\mathbb Z}\bar{\epsilon}_\mu$. Let us set $P_\alpha, Q_\alpha$ $(\alpha \in P)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
~[i P_\alpha,Q_\beta]=(\alpha|\beta),~~(\alpha,\beta \in P).\end{aligned}$$ In what follows we deal with the bosonic Fock space ${\cal F}_{l,k}$, generated by $\beta_{-m}^j (m>0)$ over the vacuum vector $|l,k \rangle$, where $l,k \in P$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal F}_{l,k}={\mathbb C}[\{\beta_{-1}^j,
\beta_{-2}^j,\cdots\}_{1\leqq j \leqq N}]|l,k\rangle,~~
|l,k\rangle=
e^{i \sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}Q_l-
i \sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}Q_k}|0,0\rangle,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\beta_m^j |l,k\rangle=0,~(m>0),~~~
P_\alpha |l,k\rangle=\left(\alpha\left|
\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}l-\sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}k
\right.\right)|l,k\rangle.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Free field realizations of $E_j(z), F_j(z), H_j^\pm(z)$ $(1\leqq j \leqq N-1)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_j(z)&=&
e^{-i\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}Q_{\alpha_j}}
(q^{(\frac{2s}{N}-1)j}z)
^{-\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}P_{\alpha_j}+\frac{r}{r-1}}
\nonumber\\
&\times&
:\exp\left(
-\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}\frac{[rm]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q}
B_m^j (q^{(\frac{2s}{N}-1)j}z)^{-m}
\right):,\\
F_j(z)&=&
e^{i \sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}Q_{\alpha_j}}
(q^{(\frac{2s}{N}-1)j}z)^{\sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}P_{\alpha_j}
+\frac{r-1}{r}}\nonumber\\
&\times&
:\exp\left(\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}B_m^j
(q^{(\frac{2s}{N}-1)j}z)^{-m}
\right):,\\
H_j^+(q^{\frac{1}{2}-r}z)&=&
q^{(1-\frac{2s}{N})2j}
e^{-\frac{i}{\sqrt{r (r-1)}}Q_{\alpha_j}}
(q^{(\frac{2s}{N}-1)j}z)^{-\frac{1}{\sqrt{r (r-1)}}P_{\alpha_j}
+\frac{1}{r (r-1)}}\nonumber\\
&\times&:\exp\left(
-\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}\frac{[m]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q}
B_m^j (q^{(\frac{2s}{N}-1)j}z)^{-m}\right):.\end{aligned}$$ The free field realization for general level $c$ [@Kojima1] is completely different from those for level $c=1$.
Commuting operators
===================
In this section we construct two classes of infinitely many commuting operators ${\cal G}_m$ [@KojimaShiraishi1] and $T_B(z)$ [@Kojima3].
Extended currents $E_N(z), F_N(z)$
----------------------------------
In this section we introduce the extended currents ${E}_N(z),{F}_N(z)$ [@KojimaShiraishi1]. Let us set the extended current ${E}_N(z),{F}_N(z)$ by the similar commutation relations as the elliptic quantum group. The extended currents $E_N(z),F_N(z)$ satisfy the following commutation relations. $$\begin{aligned}
E_j(z_1){E}_{j+1}(z_2)
&=&
\frac{
\left[u_2-u_1+\frac{s}{N}\right]^*}
{\left[u_1-u_2+1-\frac{s}{N}\right]^*}
{E}_{j+1}(z_2){E}_j(z_1),~(j \in {\mathbb Z}/N {\mathbb Z}),
\nonumber\\
{E}_j(z_1)
{E}_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2+1]^*}
{[u_1-u_2-1]^*}
{E}_j(z_2){E}_j(z_1),
~(j \in {\mathbb Z}/N {\mathbb Z}),
\nonumber\\
{F}_j(z_1){F}_{j+1}(z_2)
&=&\frac{\left[u_2-u_1+\frac{s}{N}-1\right]}{
\left[u_1-u_2-\frac{s}{N}\right]
}{F}_{j+1}(z_2){F}_j(z_1),~(j \in {\mathbb Z}/N {\mathbb Z}),
\nonumber\\
{F}_j(z_1){F}_j(z_2)&=&
\frac{[u_1-u_2-1]}{[u_1-u_2+1]
}{F}_j(z_2){F}_j(z_1),~(j \in {\mathbb Z}/N {\mathbb Z}),
\nonumber\\
~[{E}_j(z_1),{F}_k(z_2)]
&=&
\frac{\delta_{j,k}}{q-q^{-1}}
\left(\delta(q^{-1}z_1/z_2)
{H}_j^+\left(q^{\frac{1}{2}}z_2\right)
-
\delta(qz_1/z_2)
{H}_j^-\left(q^{-\frac{1}{2}}z_2\right)\right),\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(j,k \in {\mathbb Z}/N{\mathbb Z}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and other defining relations of the elliptic quantum group, in which the suffix $j,k$ should be understood as $mod.~N$. Free field realizations of the extended currents ${E}_N(z), {F}_N(z)$ and ${H}_N^+(q^{\frac{1}{2}-r}z)={H}_N^-(q^{\frac{1}{2}-r}z)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{E}_N(z)&=&
e^{-i\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}Q_{\alpha_N}}
(q^{2s-N}z)^{-\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_N}+\frac{r}{2(r-1)}}
z^{\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_1}+\frac{r}{2(r-1)}}
\nonumber\\
&\times&
:\exp\left(
-\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}\frac{[rm]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q}
B_m^N (q^{2s-N}z)^{-m}\right):,\\
{F}_N(z)&=&
e^{i\sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}Q_{\alpha_N}}
(q^{2s-N}z)^{\sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_N}+\frac{r-1}{2r}}
z^{-\sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_1}+\frac{r-1}{2r}}\nonumber\\
&\times&
:\exp\left(
-\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}
B_m^N (q^{2s-N}z)^{-m}\right):,\\
{H}_N^+(q^{\frac{1}{2}-r}z)&=&
q^{2(N-2s)}e^{-\frac{i}{\sqrt{r r^*}}Q_{\alpha_N}}
(q^{2s-N}z)^{-\frac{1}{\sqrt{r r^*}}
P_{\bar{\epsilon}_N}+\frac{1}{2r r^*}}
z^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{r r^*}}
P_{\bar{\epsilon}_1}+\frac{1}{2r r^*}}
\nonumber\\
&\times&
:\exp\left(
-\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}\frac{[m]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q}
B_m^N (q^{2s-N}z)^{-m}\right):.\end{aligned}$$
Extended currents $V(z), U(z)$
------------------------------
In this section we introduce the extended currents $V(z), U(z)$ [@AJMP; @FKQ]. In this section we consider the case $s=N$. For our purpose it is convenient to introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E_j}(z)=E_j(q^{-j}z),~~\overline{F}_j(z)=
F_j(q^{-j}z),~~(1\leqq j \leqq N-1).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The extended currents $U(z), V(z)$ are given by the following commutation relations. $$\begin{aligned}
~\left[u_1-u_2+\frac{1}{2}\right]^*
V(z_1)\overline{E}_1(z_2)
&=&\left[u_2-u_1+\frac{1}{2}\right]^*
\overline{E}_1(z_2)V(z_1),\\
\overline{E}_{j}(z_1)V(z_2)&=&V(z_2)
\overline{E}_{j}(z_1)~~(2\leqq j \leqq N),
\\
~\left[u_1-u_2-\frac{1}{2}\right]
U(z_1)\overline{F}_1(z_2)
&=&\left[u_2-u_1-\frac{1}{2}\right]
\overline{F}_1(z_2)U(z_1),\\
\overline{F}_{j}(z_1)U(z_2)&=&
U(z_2)\overline{F}_{j}(z_1)~~(2\leqq j \leqq N).\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
U(z_1)U(z_2)&=&
(z_1/z_2)^{\frac{r-1}{r}\frac{N-1}{N}}
\frac{\rho(z_2/z_1)}{\rho(z_1/z_2)}
U(z_2)U(z_1),\\
V(z_1)V(z_2)&=&
(z_1/z_2)^{-\frac{r}{r-1}\frac{N-1}{N}}
\frac{\rho^*(z_2/z_1)}{\rho^*(z_1/z_2)}
V(z_2)V(z_1),\\
U(z_1)V(z_2)&=&
z^{-\frac{N-1}{N}}
\frac{\Theta_{q^{2N}}(-qz)}{
\Theta_{q^{2N}}(-qz^{-1})}V(z_2)U(z_1),\end{aligned}$$ where we set $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(z)&=&
\frac{
(q^2z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2N+2r-2}z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty}{
(q^{2r}z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2N}z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty},
\\
\rho^*(z)&=&
\frac{
(z;q^{2r^*},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2N+2r-2}z;q^{2r^*},q^{2N})_\infty}{
(q^{2r}z;q^{2r^*},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2N-2}z;q^{2r^*},q^{2N})_\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ The free field realizations of $U(z), V(z)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
U(z)&=&
z^{\frac{r-1}{2r}\frac{N-1}{N}}
e^{-i\sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}Q_{\bar{\epsilon}_1}}
z^{-\sqrt{\frac{r-1}{r}}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_1}}
:\exp\left(-\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}\beta_m^1 z^{-m}
\right):,
\\
V(z)&=&
z^{\frac{r}{2(r-1)}\frac{N-1}{N}}
e^{i\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}Q_{\bar{\epsilon}_1}}
z^{\sqrt{\frac{r}{r-1}}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_1}}
\nonumber\\
&\times&
:\exp\left(\sum_{m \neq 0}\frac{1}{m}\frac{[rm]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q}
\beta_m^1 (-z)^{-m}
\right):.\end{aligned}$$
Integral of motion
------------------
In this section we give a class of infinitely many commuting operators ${\cal G}_m$, $(m \in {\mathbb N})$ that we call the integral of motion [@KojimaShiraishi1]. In this section we consider the case $0<{\rm Re}(s)<N$. Let us set the integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$, $(m \in {\mathbb N})$ by integral of the currents. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_m
&=&\int \cdots \int
\prod_{t=1}^N \prod_{j=1}^m
\frac{dz_j^{(t)}}{z_j^{(t)}}
{F}_1(z_1^{(1)})
{F}_1(z_2^{(1)})
\cdots
{F}_1(z_m^{(1)})\nonumber\\
&\times&
{F}_2(z_1^{(2)})
{F}_2(z_2^{(2)})\cdots
{F}_2(z_m^{(2)})
\cdots
{F}_N(z_1^{(N)})
{F}_N(z_2^{(N)})\cdots
{F}_N(z_m^{(N)})
\nonumber\\
&\times&
\frac{
\displaystyle
\prod_{t=1}^N
\prod_{1\leqq j<k \leqq m}
\left[u_j^{(t)}-u_k^{(t)}\right]
\left[u_k^{(t)}-u_j^{(t)}-1\right]
}{
\displaystyle
\prod_{t=1}^{N-1}
\prod_{j,k=1}^m
\left[u_j^{(t)}-u_k^{(t+1)}+1-\frac{s}{N}\right]
\prod_{j,k=1}^m
\left[u_j^{(1)}-u_k^{(N)}+\frac{s}{N}\right]}
\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{t=1}^N
\left[\sum_{j=1}^m(u_j^{(t)}-u_j^{(t+1)})-
\sqrt{r r^*}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_{t+1}}
\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here we set $z_j^{(t)}=q^{2u_j^{(t)}}$. Here the integral contour encircles $z_j^{(t)}=0$, $(1\leqq t\leqq N; 1\leqq j \leqq m)$ in such a way that $$\begin{aligned}
&&|q^{\frac{2s}{N}+2lr}z_k^{(t+1)}|
<|z_j^{(t)}|<
|q^{-2+\frac{2s}{N}-2lr}z_k^{(t+1)}|,~(1\leqq t \leqq N-1),
\nonumber\\
&&|q^{2-\frac{2s}{N}+2lr}z_k^{(1)}|
<|z_j^{(N)}|<
|q^{-\frac{2s}{N}-2lr}z_k^{(1)}|,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leqq j, k \leqq m$ and $l \in {\mathbb N}$. Let us set the integral of motion ${\cal G}_m^*$, $(m \in {\mathbb N})$ as similar way. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_m^*
&=&\int \cdots \int
\prod_{t=1}^N \prod_{j=1}^m
\frac{dz_j^{(t)}}{z_j^{(t)}}
E_1(z_1^{(1)})E_1(z_2^{(1)})
\cdots E_1(z_m^{(1)})\nonumber\\
&\times&
E_2(z_1^{(2)})E_2(z_2^{(2)})\cdots E_2(z_m^{(2)})
\cdots
E_N(z_1^{(N)})E_N(z_2^{(N)})\cdots E_N(z_m^{(N)})
\nonumber\\
&\times&
\frac{
\displaystyle
\prod_{t=1}^N
\prod_{1\leqq j<k \leqq m}
\left[u_j^{(t)}-u_k^{(t)}\right]^*
\left[u_k^{(t)}-u_j^{(t)}+1\right]^*
}{
\displaystyle
\prod_{t=1}^{N-1}
\prod_{j,k=1}^m
\left[u_j^{(t)}-u_k^{(t+1)}-\frac{s}{N}\right]^*
\prod_{j,k=1}^m
\left[u_j^{(1)}-u_k^{(N)}-1+\frac{s}{N}\right]^*
}\nonumber
\\
&\times&\prod_{t=1}^N
\left[\sum_{j=1}^m(u_j^{(t)}-u_j^{(t+1)})-
\sqrt{r r^*}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_{t+1}}
\right]^*.\end{aligned}$$ Here the integral contour encircles $z_j^{(t)}=0$, $(1\leqq t\leqq N; 1\leqq j \leqq m)$ in such a way that $$\begin{aligned}
&&|q^{-2+\frac{2s}{N}+2lr^*}z_k^{(t+1)}|
<|z_j^{(t)}|<
|q^{\frac{2s}{N}-2lr^*}z_k^{(t+1)}|,~(1\leqq t \leqq N-1),
\nonumber\\
&&|q^{-\frac{2s}{N}+2lr^*}z_k^{(1)}|
<|z_j^{(N)}|<
|q^{2-\frac{2s}{N}-2lr^*}z_k^{(1)}|,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leqq j, k \leqq m$ and $l \in {\mathbb N}$.
\
The integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$ and ${\cal G}_m^*$ commute with each other. $$\begin{aligned}
~[{\cal G}_m,{\cal G}_n]=0,~~
~[{\cal G}_m^*,{\cal G}_n^*]=0,~~
~[{\cal G}_m,{\cal G}_n^*]=0,~~(m,n \in {\mathbb N}).\end{aligned}$$ These commutation relations are shown by considering the Feigin-Odesskii algebra [@FO]. When we take the limit $r \to \infty$, our integral of motion ${\cal G}_m$ becomes those of conformal field theory [@BLZ; @Kojima2]. In the limit $r \to \infty$, the theta functions in integrand disappear, hence we know that elliptic deformation is nontrivial. The integral of motion of $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_2})$ in general level $c$ is constructed in [@KojimaShiraishi2].
Vertex operator
---------------
In this section we introduce the vertex operator $\Phi^{(a,b)}(z)$ that plays an essential role in construction of the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$. In this section we consider the case $r \geqq N+2,
(r \in {\mathbb N})$ and $s=N$. Let’s recall $sl_N$ weight lattice $P=\sum_{\mu=1}^{N-1} {\mathbb Z}\bar{\epsilon}_\mu$ introduced in previous section. Let $\omega_\mu~(1\leqq \mu \leqq N-1)$ be the fundamental weights, which satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha_\mu|\omega_\nu)=\delta_{\mu,\nu},
~~(1\leqq \mu,\nu \leqq N-1).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Explicitly we set $\omega_\mu=\sum_{\nu=1}^\mu \bar{\epsilon}_\nu.$ For $a \in P$ we set $a_\mu$ and $a_{\mu,\nu}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\mu,\nu}=a_{\mu}-a_{\nu},~~~
a_{\mu}=(a+\rho|\bar{\epsilon}_\mu),~~~(\mu, \nu \in P).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here we set $\rho=\sum_{\mu=1}^{N-1}\omega_\mu$. Let us set the restricted path $P_{r-N}^+$ by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{r-N}^+=\{a=\sum_{\mu=1}^{N-1}c_\mu \omega_\mu \in P|
c_\mu \in {\mathbb Z}, c_\mu \geqq 0,
\sum_{\mu=1}^{N-1}c_\mu \leqq r-N \}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $a \in P_{r-N}^+$, condition $0<a_{\mu,\nu}<r,~(1\leqq \mu<\nu\leqq N-1)$ holds. We recall elliptic solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation of face type. An ordered pair $(b,a)\in P^2$ is called admissible if and only if there exists $\mu~(1\leq \mu \leq N)$ such that $b-a=\bar{\epsilon}_\mu$. An ordered set of four weights $(a,b,c,d)\in P^4$ is called an admissible configuration around a face if and only if the ordered pairs $(b,a)$, $(c,b)$, $(d,a)$ and $(c,d)$ are admissible. Let us set the Boltzmann weight functions $W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
c&d\\
b&a
\end{array}\right|u\right)$ associated with admissible configuration $(a,b,c,d)\in P^4$ [@JMO]. For $a \in P_{r-N}^+$ and $\mu \neq \nu$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
&&W\left(\left.
\begin{array}{cc}
a+2\bar{\epsilon}_\mu & a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu\\
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu & a
\end{array}\right|u\right)=R(u),\label{def:B1}\\
&&W\left(\left.
\begin{array}{cc}
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu+\bar{\epsilon}_\nu &
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu\\
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\nu & a
\end{array}\right|u\right)=R(u)\frac{[u][a_{\mu,\nu}-1]}
{[u-1][a_{\mu,\nu}]},
\label{def:B2}\\
&&W\left(\left.
\begin{array}{cc}
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu+\bar{\epsilon}_\nu
& a+\bar{\epsilon}_\nu\\
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\nu & a
\end{array}\right|u\right)=
R(u)\frac{[u-a_{\mu,\nu}][1]}{
[u-1][a_{\mu,\nu}]}.
\label{def:B3}\end{aligned}$$ The normalizing function $R(u)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
R(u)&=&z^{\frac{r-1}{r}\frac{N-1}{N}}
\frac{\varphi(z^{-1})}{\varphi(z)},~~~
\varphi(z)=\frac{
(q^{2}z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2r+2N-2}z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty}{
(q^{2r}z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2N}z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty}.
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Because $0<a_{\mu,\nu}<r~(1\leqq \mu<\nu \leqq N-1)$ holds for $a \in P_{r-N}^+$, the Boltzmann weight functions are well defined. The Boltzmann weight functions satisfy the Yang-Baxter equation of the face type. $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{g}
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
d&e\\
c&g
\end{array}
\right|u_1\right)
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
c&g\\
b&a
\end{array}
\right|u_2\right)
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
e&f\\
g&a
\end{array}
\right|u_1-u_2\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\sum_{g}
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
g&f\\
b&a
\end{array}
\right|u_1\right)
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
d&e\\
g&f
\end{array}
\right|u_2\right)
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
d&g\\
c&b
\end{array}
\right|u_1-u_2\right).
\label{eqn:Boltzmann1}\end{aligned}$$ We set the normalization function $\varphi(z)$ such that the minimal eigenvalue of the corner transfer matrix becomes 1 [@Baxter]. The vertex operator $\Phi^{(b,a)}(z)$ and the dual vertex operator $\Phi^{*(a,b)}(z)$ associated with the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$, are the operators which satisfy the following commutation relations, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{(a,b)}(z_1)
\Phi^{(b,c)}(z_2)
&=&\sum_{g}
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
a&g\\
b&c
\end{array}
\right|u_2-u_1\right)
\Phi^{(a,g)}(z_2)
\Phi^{(g,c)}(z_1),\label{eqn:VO1}\\
\Phi^{(a,b)}(z_1)
\Phi^{*(b,c)}(z_2)
&=&
\sum_{g}
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
g&c\\
a&b
\end{array}
\right|u_1-u_2\right)
\Phi^{*(a,g)}(z_2)
\Phi^{(g,c)}(z_1),\label{eqn:VO2}\\
\Phi^{*(a,b)}(z_1)
\Phi^{*(b,c)}(z_2)
&=&
\sum_{g}
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
c&b\\
g&a
\end{array}
\right|u_2-u_1\right)
\Phi^{*(a,g)}(z_2)
\Phi^{*(g,c)}(z_1).\nonumber\\
\label{eqn:VO3}\end{aligned}$$ and the inversion relation, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{(a,g)}(z)\Phi^{*(g,b)}(z)=\delta_{a,b}.
\label{eqn:inversion1}\end{aligned}$$ We give free field realization of the vertex operator. In what follows we set $l=b+\rho, k=a+\rho$, $(a \in P_{r-N}^+, b \in P_{r-N-1}^+)$ and $\pi_\mu=\sqrt{r(r-1)}P_{\bar{\epsilon}_\mu},~
\pi_{\mu, \nu}=\pi_\mu-\pi_\nu$. We give the free field realization of the vertex operators $\Phi^{(a+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu},a)}(z)$, $(1\leqq \mu \leqq N-1)$ [@AJMP] by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{(a+\bar{\epsilon}_1,a)}
(z_0^{-1})&=&
U(z_0),\nonumber
\\
\Phi^{(a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,a)}(z_0^{-1})
&=&
\oint
\cdots \oint
\prod_{j=1}^{\mu-1}
\frac{dz_j}{2\pi i z_j} U(z_0)
\overline{F}_1(z_1)
\overline{F}_2(z_2)
\cdots
\overline{F}_{\mu-1}(z_{\mu-1})\nonumber\\
&\times&
\prod_{j=1}^{\mu-1}
\frac{[u_j-u_{j-1}+\frac{1}{2}-\pi_{j,\mu}]}
{[u_j-u_{j-1}-\frac{1}{2}]}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we set $z_j=q^{2u_j}$. We take the integration contour to be simple closed curve that encircles $z_j=0, q^{1+2rs}z_{j-1}, (s \in {\mathbb N})$ but not $z_j=q^{-1-2rs}z_{j-1}, (s \in {\mathbb N})$ for $1\leq j \leq \mu-1$. The $\Phi^{(a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,a)}(z)$ is an operator such that $\Phi^{(a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,a)}(z):
{\cal F}_{l,k}\to {\cal F}_{l,k+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu}$. The free field realization of the dual vertex operator $\Phi^{*(a,b)}(z)$ is given by similar way [@AJMP]. The vertex operator $\Phi^{(a,b)}(z)$ plays an important role in construction of the correlation functions of the $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ face model [@AJMP; @LP].
Boundary transfer matrix
------------------------
In this section we introduce the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ [@Kojima3], following theory of boundary Yang-Baxter equation [@S; @JKKKM]. In this section we consider the case $r \geqq N+2,
(r \in {\mathbb N})$ and $s=N$. An order set of three weights $(a,b,g)
\in P^3$ is called an admissible configuration at a boundary if and only if the ordered pairs $(g,a)$ and $(g,b)$ are admissible. Let us set the boundary Boltzmann weight functions $
K\left(
\left.\begin{array}{cc}
&a\\
g&\\
&b
\end{array}
\right|u\right)
$ for admissible weights $(a,b,g)$ as following [@BFKZ]. $$\begin{aligned}
K\left(
\left.\begin{array}{cc}
&a\\
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu&\\
&b
\end{array}
\right|u\right)=
z^{\frac{r-1}{r}\frac{N-1}{N}-\frac{2}{r}
a_1}\frac{h(z)}{h(z^{-1})}
\frac{[c-u][a_{1,\mu}+c+u]}
{[c+u][a_{1,\mu}+c-u]}
\delta_{a,b}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we consider the case of continuous parameter $0<c<1$. The normalization function $h(z)$ is given by following [@Kojima3]. $$\begin{aligned}
h(z)&=&
\frac{
(q^{2r+2N-2}/z^2;q^{2r},q^{4N})_\infty
(q^{2N+2}/z^2;q^{2r},q^{4N})_\infty}{
(q^{2r}/z^2;q^{2r},q^{4N})_\infty
(q^{4N}/z^2;q^{2r},q^{4N})_\infty}\nonumber\\
&\times&
\frac{
(q^{2N+2c}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2r-2c}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty}{
(q^{2N+2r-2c-2}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2c+2}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty}\\
&\times&
\prod_{j=2}^N
\frac{
(q^{2r+2N-2c-2a_{1,j}}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2c+2a_{1,j}}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty}{
(q^{2r+2N-2c-2a_{1,j}-2}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty
(q^{2c+2+2a_{1,j}}/z;q^{2r},q^{2N})_\infty}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The boundary Boltzmann weight functions and the Boltzmann weight functions satisfy the boundary Yang-Baxter equation [@S]. $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{f,g}
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
c&f\\
b&a
\end{array}\right|u_1-u_2\right)
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
c&d\\
f&g
\end{array}
\right|u_1+u_2\right)
K\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
~&g\\
f&\\
~&a
\end{array}
\right|u_1\right)
K\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
~&e\\
d&\\
~&g
\end{array}
\right|u_2\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\sum_{f,g}
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
c&d\\
f&e
\end{array}\right|u_1-u_2\right)
W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
c&f\\
b&g
\end{array}
\right|u_1+u_2\right)
K\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
~&e\\
f&\\
~&g
\end{array}
\right|u_1\right)
K\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
~&g\\
b&\\
~&a
\end{array}
\right|u_2\right).\nonumber
\\
\label{eqn:boundaryYBE2}\end{aligned}$$ We set the normalization function $h(z)$ such that the minimal eigenvalue of the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ becomes $1$. We define the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ for the elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$. $$\begin{aligned}
T_B(z)=\sum_{\mu=1}^N
\Phi^{*(a,a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu)}(z^{-1})
K\left(\left.
\begin{array}{cc}
~& a\\
a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu &\\
~& a
\end{array}
\right|u\right)
\Phi^{(a+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,a)}(z).
\label{def:boundary-transfer}\end{aligned}$$ The boundary $T_B(z)$ commute with each other. $$\begin{aligned}
~[T_B(z_1),T_B(z_2)]=0,~~~{\rm for~any~}z_1, z_2.\end{aligned}$$ This commutativity is consequence of the commutation relations of the vertex operators (\[eqn:VO1\]), (\[eqn:VO2\]), (\[eqn:VO3\]), and boundary Yang-Baxter equation (\[eqn:boundaryYBE2\]).
Diagonalization
===============
In this section we diagonalize the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$, using free field realization of the vertex operators [@Kojima3; @AJMP; @FKQ]. In this section we consider the case $r \geqq N+2$, $(r \in {\mathbb N})$ and $s=N$.
Boundary state
--------------
We call the eigenvector $|B\rangle$ with the eigenvalue $1$ the boundary state. $$\begin{aligned}
T_B(z)|B\rangle=|B\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We construct the free field realization of the boundary state $|B\rangle$, analyzing those of the transfer matrix $T_B(z)$. The free field realization of the boundary state $|B\rangle$ is given as following [@Kojima3]. $$\begin{aligned}
|B\rangle=e^F|k,k\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have set $$\begin{aligned}
F&=&
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m>0}
\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}
\frac{1}{m}\frac{[rm]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q}
I_{j,k}(m)B_{-m}^j B_{-m}^k
+\sum_{m>0}\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\frac{1}{m}
D_j(m)\beta_{-m}^j,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
D_j(m)&=&
-\theta_m\left(\frac{[(N-j)m/2]_q[rm/2]_q^+
q^{\frac{(3j-N-1)m}{2}}}
{[(r-1)m/2]_q}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{q^{(j-1)m}[(-r+2\pi_{1,j}+2c-j+2)m]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q}
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{[m]_q
q^{(r-2c+2j-2)m}}{[(r-1)m]_q}
\left(\sum_{k=j+1}^{N-1}q^{-2m \pi_{1,k}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{q^{(2j-N)m}[(r-2\pi_{1,N}-2c+N-1)m]_q}{[(r-1)m]_q},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
I_{j,k}(m)=\frac{[jm]_q[(N-k)m]_q}{[m]_q[Nm]_q}
=I_{k,j}(m)~~(1\leqq j\leqq k \leqq N-1).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used $[a]_q^+=q^a+q^{-a}$ and $\theta_m(x)=
\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
x,& m:~{\rm even}\\
0,& m:~{\rm odd}
\end{array}\right.$.
Excited states
--------------
In this section we construct diagonalization of the boundary transfer matrix $T_B(z)$ by using the boundary state $|B\rangle$ and type-II vertex operator $\Psi^{*(b,a)}(z)$. Let us introduce type-II vertex operator $\Psi^{*(b,a)}(z)$ [@FKQ] by the following commutation relations, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^{*(a,b)}(z_1)
\Psi^{*(b,c)}(z_2)
&=&\sum_{g}
W^*\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
a&g\\
b&c
\end{array}
\right|u_1-u_2\right)
\Psi^{*(a,g)}(z_2)
\Psi^{*(g,c)}(z_1),\nonumber\\
\\
\Phi^{(d,c)}(z_1)\Psi^{*(b,a)}(z_2)
&=&
\chi(z_2/z_1)
\Psi^{* (b,a)}(z_2)\Phi^{(d,c)}(z_1),
\label{eqn:IIVO2}\\
\Phi^{*(c,d)}(z_1)\Psi^{*(b,a)}(z_2)
&=&
\chi(z_1/z_2)
\Psi^{* (b,a)}(z_2)\Phi^{*(c,d)}(z_1),
\label{eqn:IIVO3}\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $\chi(z)=z^{-\frac{N-1}{N}}
\frac{\Theta_{q^{2N}}(-qz)}{
\Theta_{q^{2N}}(-qz^{-1})}$ and $W^*\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
a&g\\
b&c
\end{array}
\right|u\right)$ is obtained by substitution $r \to r^*$ of the Boltzmann weight functions $W\left(\left.\begin{array}{cc}
a&g\\
b&c
\end{array}
\right|u\right)$ defined in (\[def:B1\]), (\[def:B2\]), (\[def:B3\]). Let us set $l=b+\rho, k=a+\rho$, $(a \in P_{r-N}^+,
b \in P_{r-N-1}^+)$. The free field realization of the type-II vertex operators $\Psi_\mu^{*(b,a)}(z)$, $(1\leqq \mu \leqq N-1)$ are give by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^{*(b+\bar{\epsilon}_1,b)}
(z_0^{-1})&=&
V(z_0),\nonumber
\\
\Psi^{*(b+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,b)}(z_0^{-1})
&=&
\oint
\cdots \oint
\prod_{j=1}^{\mu-1}
\frac{dz_j}{2\pi i z_j} V(z_0)
\overline{E}_1(z_1)
\overline{E}_2(z_2)
\cdots
\overline{E}_{\mu-1}(z_{\mu-1})\nonumber\\
&\times&
\prod_{j=1}^{\mu-1}
\frac{[u_j-u_{j-1}-\frac{1}{2}+\pi_{j,\mu}]^*}
{[u_j-u_{j-1}+\frac{1}{2}]^*}.\end{aligned}$$ We take the integration contour to be simple closed curve that encircles $z_j=0, q^{-1+2r^*s}z_{j-1}, (s \in {\mathbb N})$ but not $z_j=q^{1-2r^*s}z_{j-1}, (s \in {\mathbb N})$ for $1\leq j \leq \mu-1$. The $\Psi^{*(b+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,b)}(z)$ is an operator such that $\Psi^{*(b+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,b)}(z):
{\cal F}_{l,k}\to {\cal F}_{l+\bar{\epsilon}_\mu,k}$. We introduce the vectors $|\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_M
\rangle_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\cdots,\mu_M}$ $(1\leqq \mu_1,\mu_2,\cdots,\mu_M \leqq N)$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_M
\rangle_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\cdots,\mu_M}\nonumber\\
&=&
\Psi^{*(b+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_1}
+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_2}+\cdots
+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_M},
b+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_2}+\cdots
+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_M})}(\xi_1)
\times \cdots \nonumber\\
&&\times \cdots
\Psi^{*(b+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_{M-1}}
+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_M},b+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_M})}(\xi_{M-1})
\Psi^{*(b+\bar{\epsilon}_{\mu_M},b)}(\xi_M)
|B \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We construct many eigenvectors of $T_B(z)$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&T_B(z)|\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_M
\rangle_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\cdots,\mu_M}\nonumber\\
&=&
\prod_{j=1}^M \chi(\xi_j/z)\chi(1/\xi_j z)~
|\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_M
\rangle_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\cdots,\mu_M}.\end{aligned}$$ The vectors $
|\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_M
\rangle_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\cdots,\mu_M}$ are the basis of the space of the state of the boundary $U_{q,p}(\widehat{sl_N})$ face model [@LP; @MW; @Kojima3]. It is thought that our method can be extended to more general elliptic quantum group $U_{q,p}(g)$.
\
[**Acknowledgements**]{}\
\
The author would like to thank to Branko Dragovich, Vladimir Dobrev, Sergei Vernov, Paul Sorba, Igor Salom, Dragan Savic and the organizing committee of 6th Mathematical Physics Meetings : Summer School and Conference on Modern Mathematical Physics, held in Belgrade, Serbia. This work is supported by the Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research [**C**]{} (21540228) from Japan Society for Promotion of Science.
[99]{} M.Jimbo and T.Miwa, [*Algebraic Analysis of Solvable Lattice Models*]{} CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics [**85**]{} AMS 1994. M.Jimbo,H.Konno,S.Odake and J.Shiraishi, [*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{}[**199**]{} (1999) 605. T.Kojima and H.Konno, [*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{}[**239**]{} (2003) 405. T.Kojima and J.Shiraishi, [*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{}[**283**]{} (2008) 795. Y.Asai,M.Jimbo,T.Miwa and Ya.Pugai, [*J.Phys.*]{}[**A29**]{} (1996) 6595. T.Kojima, accepted for publication in [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} (2010) \[arXiv.1007.3795\]. B.Feigin and A.Odesskii, [*Internat.Math.Res.Notices*]{}[**11**]{} (1997) 531. E.Sklyanin, [*J.Phys.*]{}[**A21**]{} (1988) 74. V.Bazhanov, S.Lukyanov, Al.Zamolodchikov, [*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{}[**177**]{} (1996) 381. T.Kojima, [*J.Phys.*]{}[**A41**]{} (2008) 355206 (16pp). S.Lukyanov and Ya.Pugai, [*Nocl.Phys.*]{}[**B473**]{} (1996) 631. T.Miwa and R.Weston, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{}[**B486**]{} (1997) 517. H.Furutsu, T.Kojima and Y.Quano, [*Int.J.Mod.Phys.*]{}[**A15**]{} (2000) 1533. V.G.Drinfeld, [*Soviet.Math.Dokl.*]{}[**36**]{} (1988) 212. M.T.Batchelor, V.Fridkin, A.Kuniba and Y.K.Zhou, [*Phys.Lett.*]{}[**B276**]{} (1996) 266. M.Jimbo,R.Kedem.T.Kojima,H.Konno and T.Miwa, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{}[**B441**]{} (1995) 437. T.Kojima, [*Int.J.Mod.Phys.*]{}[**A24**]{} (2009) 5561. T.Kojima and J.Shiraishi, [*J.Geometry, Integrability and Quantization*]{} [**X**]{} (2009) 183. M.Jimbo, T.Miwa and S.Odake, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{}[**B300**]{} (1988) 507. H.Furutsu and T.Kojima, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**41**]{} (2000) 4413. R.Baxter, [*Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics*]{}, Academic Press 1982.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '> As an important and challenging problem in computer vision and graphics, keypoint-based object tracking is typically formulated in a spatio-temporal statistical learning framework. However, most existing keypoint trackers are incapable of effectively modeling and balancing the following three aspects in a simultaneous manner: temporal model coherence across frames, spatial model consistency within frames, and discriminative feature construction. To address this issue, we propose a robust keypoint tracker based on spatio-temporal multi-task structured output optimization driven by discriminative metric learning. Consequently, temporal model coherence is characterized by multi-task structured keypoint model learning over several adjacent frames, while spatial model consistency is modeled by solving a geometric verification based structured learning problem. Discriminative feature construction is enabled by metric learning to ensure the intra-class compactness and inter-class separability. Finally, the above three modules are simultaneously optimized in a joint learning scheme. Experimental results have demonstrated the effectiveness of our tracker.'
author:
- |
Liming Zhao, Xi Li[^1], Jun Xiao, Fei Wu, Yueting Zhuang\
College of Computer Science\
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China\
{zhaoliming, xilizju, junx, wufei, yzhuang}@zju.edu.cn\
bibliography:
- 'zhao.bib'
title: |
Metric Learning Driven Multi-Task Structured Output Optimization\
for Robust Keypoint Tracking
---
Introduction
============
Due to the effectiveness and efficiency in object motion analysis, keypoint-based object tracking [@KLT1981; @Optical2010; @keypoint2013; @ConKey] is a popular and powerful tool of video processing, and thus has a wide range of applications such as augmented reality (AR), object retrieval, and video compression. By encoding the local structural information on object appearance [@Li2013], it is generally robust to various appearance changes caused by several complicated factors such as shape deformation, illumination variation, and partial occlusion [@EvaDes; @StrKey]. Motivated by this observation, we focus on constructing effective and robust keypoint models to well model the intrinsic spatio-temporal structural properties of object appearance in this paper.
![[]{data-label="fig:firstShow"}](res/flow/firstshow.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
Typically, keypoint model construction consists of keypoint representation and statistical modeling. For keypoint representation, a variety of keypoint descriptors are proposed to encode the local invariance information on object appearance, for example, SIFT [@SIFT] and SURF [@SURF]. To further speed up the feature extraction process, a number of binary local descriptors emerge, including BRIEF [@Brief], ORB [@ORB], BRISK [@BRISK], FREAK [@FREAK], etc. Since the way of feature extraction is handcrafted and fixed all the time, these keypoint descriptors are usually incapable of effectively and flexibly adapting to complex time-varying appearance variations as tracking proceeds.
In general, statistical modeling is cast as a tracking-by-detection problem, which seeks to build an object locator based on discriminative learning such as randomized decision trees [@RandTrees; @RandFerns] and boosting [@Boost2007; @Boost2013]. However, these approaches usually generate the binary classification output for object tracking, and thus ignore the intrinsic structural or geometrical information (e.g., geometric transform across frames) on object localization and matching during model learning. To address this issue, Hare [*et al.*]{} [@Hare2012] propose a structured SVM-based keypoint tracking approach that incorporates the RANSAC-based geometric matching information into the optimization process of learning keypoint-specific SVM models. As a result, the proposed tracking approach is able to simultaneously find correct keypoint correspondences and estimate underlying object geometric transforms across frames. In addition, the model learning process is independently carried out frame by frame, and hence ignores the intrinsic cross-frame interaction information on temporal model coherence, leading to instable tracking results in complicated scenarios.
In this work, we propose a joint learning approach that is capable of well balancing the following three important parts: temporal model coherence across frames, spatial model consistency within frames, and discriminative feature construction. As illustrated in Figure \[fig:firstShow\], the joint learning approach ensures the temporal model coherence by building a multi-task structured model learning scheme, which encodes the cross-frame interaction information by simultaneously optimizing a set of mutually correlated learning subtasks (i.e., a common model plus different biases) over several successive frames. As a result, the interaction information induced by multi-task learning can guide the tracker to produce stable tracking results. Moreover, the proposed approach explores the keypoint-specific structural information on spatial model consistency by performing geometric verification based structured output learning, which aims to estimate a geometric transformation while associating cross-frame keypoints. In order to make the keypoint descriptors well adapt to time-varying tracking situations, the proposed approach naturally embeds metric learning to the structured SVM learning process, which enhances the discriminative power of inter-class separability.
In summary, we propose a keypoint tracking approach that learns an effective and robust keypoint model through metric learning-driven multi-task structured output optimization. The main contributions of this work are as follows:
1. We propose a multi-task joint learning scheme to learn structured keypoint models by simultaneously considering spatial model consistency, temporal model coherence, and discriminative feature learning. An online optimization algorithm is further presented to efficiently and effectively solve the proposed scheme. To our knowledge, it is the first time that such a joint learning scheme is proposed for learning-based keypoint tracking.
2. We create and release a new benchmark video dataset containing four challenging video sequences (covering several complicated scenarios) for experimental evaluations. In these video sequences, the keypoint tracking results are manually annotated as ground truth. Besides, the quantitative results on them are also provided in the experimental section.
Approach
========
Our tracking approach is mainly composed of two parts: learning part and prediction part. Namely, an object model is first learned by a multi-task structured learning scheme in a discriminative feature space (induced by metric learning). Based on the learned object model, our approach subsequently produces the tracking results through structured prediction. Using the tracking results, a set of training samples are further collected for structured learning. The above process is repeated as tracking proceeds.
Preliminary {#sec:model}
-----------
Let the template image $O$ be represented as a set of keypoints $O=\{(u_i, \q_i)\}_{i=1}^{N^O}$, where each keypoint is defined by a location $u_i$ and associated descriptor $\q_i$. Similarly, let $I=\{(v_j,\d_j)\}_{j=1}^{N^I}$ denote the input frame with keypoints. Typically, the traditional approaches construct the correspondences between the template keypoints and the input frame keypoints. The correspondences are scored by calculating the distances between $\{\q_i\}_{i=1}^{N^O}$ and $\{\d_j\}_{j=1}^{N^I}$. Following the model learning approaches [@Hare2012; @track2012], we learn a model parameterized by a weight vector $\w_i$ for the template keypoint $u_i$ to score each correspondence. The set of the hypothetical correspondences is defined as $\C=\{(u_i,v_j,s_{ij})| (u_i,\q_i)\in O,(v_j,\d_j)\in I,s_{ij}=\left<\w_i,\d_j\right>\}$, where $s_{ij}$ is a correspondence score and $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>$ is the inner product.
Similar to [@Hare2012; @track2013], we estimate the homography transformation for planar object tracking as the tracking result based on the hypothetical correspondences.
Multi-task Structured Learning {#sec:structure}
------------------------------
During the tracking process, the keypoints in the successive frames $\{I_1,I_2,\dots\}$ corresponding to the $i$-th keypoint $u_i$ in the template image form a tracklet $\{v^1,v^2,\dots\}$. Based on the observation that the adjacent keypoints in a tracklet are similar to each other, the models learned for the frames $\{\w_i^1,\w_i^2,\dots\}$ should be mutually correlated. So we construct $K$ learning tasks over several adjacent frames. For example, task $k$ learns a model $\w^k$ over the training samples collected from the frames $I_{1}$ to $I_{t+k}$, where $\w^k=[\w_1^k,\dots,\w_{N^O}^k]^\T$ is the column concatenation of the model parameter vectors. We model each $\w^k$ as a linear combination of a common model $\w^0$ and an unique part $\v^k$ [@multi2013]: $$\w^k=\w^0+\v^k,\quad k=1,\dots,K$$ where all the vectors $\{\v^k\}_{k=1}^K$ are “small” when the tasks are similar to each other.
To consider the spatial model consistency in the model learning process, the transformation which maps the template to the location of the input frame is regarded as a structure, which can be learned in a geometric verification based structured learning framework. In our approach, the expected transformation $\hat{\y}$ is expressed as $\hat{\y}=\argmax_{\y\in\Y}F(\C,\y)$, where $F$ is a compatibility function, scoring all possible transformations generated by using the RANSAC [@Ransac] method. Before introducing the compatibility function, we give the definition of the inlier set with a specific transformation $\y$: $$\label{eq:inlier}
\H(\C,\y)=\{(u_i,v_j)| (u_i,v_j)\in\C, \lVert\y(u_i)-v_j\rVert<\tau\}$$ where $\y(u_i)$ is the transformed location in the input frame of the template keypoint location $u_i$, $\tau\in\R$ is a spatial distance threshold, and $\lVert\cdot\rVert$ denotes the Euclidean norm.
The compatibility function with respect to task $k$ is then defined as the total score of the inliers: $$\label{eq:F}
\begin{aligned}
F^k(\C,\y)=\hspace{-1em}\sum_{(u_i,v_j)\in\H(\C,\y)}\hspace{-2em}\left<\w_i^k,\d_j\right>
=\left<\w^k,\Fai(\C,\y)\right>
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Fai(\C,\y)$ is a joint feature mapping vector concatenated by $\fai_i(\C,\y)$ which is defined as: $$\label{eq:Phi}
\fai_i(\C,\y)=
\begin{cases}
\d_j & \exists(u_i,v_j)\in \C: \lVert\y(u_i)-v_j\rVert<\tau\\
\0 &\textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
Given training samples $\{(\C_t,\y_t)\}_{t=1}^{T}$ (each $\C_t$ is the hypothetical correspondences of the frame $I_t$, and $\y_t$ is the predicted transformation), a structured output maximum margin framework [@markov; @SSVM2005] is used to learn all the multi-task models, which can be expressed by the following optimization problem: $$\label{eq:multi}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\w^0,\v^k,\boldsymbol\xi}
&\frac{1}{2}\lVert\w^0\rVert^2
+\frac{\lambda_1}{2K}\sum_{k=1}^K\lVert\v^k\rVert^2
+\nu_1\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{t=k}^T\xi_{kt}
\\
\text{s.t.}
&\forall k,t, \xi_{kt} \geq 0\\
&\forall k,t, \forall \y\neq\y_t: \delta F_t^k(\y)\geq\Delta(\y_t,\y)-\xi_{kt}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta F^k_t(\y)=\left<\w^k,\Fai(\C_t,\y_t)\right>-\left<\w^k,\Fai(\C_t,\y)\right>$ and $\Delta(\y_t,\y)$ is a loss function which measures the difference of two transformations (in our case, the loss function $\Delta(\y_t,\y)=|\#\H(\C,\y_t)-\#\H(\C,\y)|$ is the difference in number of two inlier sets). The nonnegative ${\lambda_1}$ is the weight parameter for multiple tasks, and the weighting parameter $\nu_1$ determines the trade-off between accuracy and regularization.
![[]{data-label="fig:multi"}](res/multi/paper.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}\
(a) tracking result
![[]{data-label="fig:multi"}](res/multi/origin420.jpg "fig:"){width="82.00000%"}\
(b) without multi-task ![[]{data-label="fig:multi"}](res/multi/multi420.jpg "fig:"){width="82.00000%"}\
(c) with multi-task
To better describe the contribution of the multi-task learning, example tracking results of the trackers with and without multi-task learning are shown in Figure \[fig:multi\]. From Figure \[fig:multi\](b), we observe that the independent model fails to match the keypoints in the case of drastic rotations, while the multi-task model enables the temporal model coherence to capture the information of rotational changes, thus produces a stable tracking result.
Discriminative Feature Space {#sec:metric}
----------------------------
In order to make the keypoint descriptors well adapt to time-varying tracking situations, we wish to learn a mapping function $f(\d)$ that maps the original feature space to another discriminative feature space, in which the semantically similar keypoints are close to each other while the dissimilar keypoints are far away from each other, that can be formulated as a metric learning process [@Metric2009; @Metric2011]. We then use the mapped feature $f(\d)$ to replace the original feature $\d$ in the structured learning process, to enhance its discriminative power of inter-class separability.
Figure \[fig:metric\] shows an example of such feature space transformation. Before the mapping procedure, the object keypoints and the background keypoints can not be discriminated in the original feature space. After the transformation, the keypoints in different frames corresponding to the same keypoint in the template, which are semantically similar, get close to each other in the mapped feature space, while the features of the other keypoints have a distribution in another side with a large margin.
![[]{data-label="fig:metric"}](res/metric/book50origin.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} (a) before mapping
![[]{data-label="fig:metric"}](res/metric/book50metric.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} (b) after mapping
The following describes how to learn the mapping function. For a particular task $k$, given the learned model $\w_i^k$, the distance between a doublet $(\d_j,\d_k)$ is defined as follows: $$\label{eq:distance}
D_i^k(\d_j,\d_{j'})=\left<\w_i^k,f(\d_j)-f(\d_{j'})\right>$$
We assume that the binary matrix $p_{j{j'}}\in\{0,1\}$ indicates whether or not the features $\d_j$ and $\d_{j'}$ are semantically similar (if they are similar, $p_{j{j'}}=1$). Therefore, the hinge loss function on a doublet is defined as: $$\ell_i^k(\d_{j},\d_{j'})=[(-1)^{p_{j{j'}}}(1-D_i^k(\d_{j},\d_{j'}))]_+$$ where $[z]_+=\max(z,0)$.
To learn the effective feature consistently in our mapping process, we wish to find the group-sparsity of the features. So we utilize $\l21$-norm [@L21norm1; @L21norm2] to learn the discriminative information and feature correlation consistently. Since we use a linear transformation $f(\d)=\M^{\T}\d$ as our mapping function, the $\l21$-norm for the mapping matrix $\M$ is defined as: $\lVert\M\rVert_{2,1}=\sum_{i}\sqrt{\sum_{j}\M_{ij}^2}$.
Given all the keypoint features from the video frames $\{I_t\}_{t=1}^T$, we collect all possible combinations of the features as the training set, which is denoted as $\A=\{(\d_j,\d_{j'})|\d_j\in\{I_t\}_{t=1}^T, {j'}\neq{j}, \d_{j'}\in\{I_t\}_{t=1}^T\}$. We obtain the binary matrix $p_{j{j'}}$ by using the tracking results (if $\d_j$ and $\d_{j'}$ from different frames correspond to the same keypoint in the template, $p_{j{j'}}$ is set to 1; otherwise, $p_{j{j'}}$ is set to 0). We wish to minimize the following cost function consisting of the empirical loss term and the $\l21$-norm regularization term: $$\label{eq:metricLoss}
\sum_{i,k,(\d_{j},\d_{j'})\in\A}\hspace{-1.2em}\ell_i^k(\d_{j},\d_{j'})
+ \lambda\lVert\M\rVert_{2,1}$$
The cost function is incorporated into our multi-task structured learning framework, and then a unified joint learning scheme for object tracking is obtained. The final optimization problem of our approach is expressed in the following form: $$\label{eq:final}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\w^0,\v^k,\M,\boldsymbol\xi,\boldsymbol\gamma}
&\frac{1}{2}\lVert\w^0\rVert^2
+\frac{\lambda_1}{2K}\sum_{k=1}^K\lVert\v^k\rVert^2
+{\lambda_2}\lVert\M\rVert_{2,1}&\\
+\sum_{k=1}^K&
\Big(
\nu_1\sum_{t=k}^T\xi_{kt}
+\nu_2\sum_{t=k}^T\sum_{(u_i,v_j) \in \H(\C_t,\y_t)}\hspace{-1.5em}\gamma_{kti}
\hspace{0.3em}\Big)\\
\text{s.t.}\forall k,t,& \xi_{kt} \geq 0&\\
\forall k,t,& \forall \y\neq\y_t: \delta F_t^k(\y)\geq\Delta(\y_t,\y)-\xi_{kt}&\\
\forall k,t,&i: \gamma_{kti}\geq 0&\\
\forall k,t,&(u_i,v_j), \forall j'\neq j: D_i^k(\d_j,\d_{j'})\geq 1-\gamma_{kti}&
\end{aligned}$$
After all the models $\w^1,\w^2,\dots,\w^K$ are learned, we use the last model $\w=\w^K$ to predict the result of new frame $I_t$. We use the RANSAC method to generate hypothetical transformations. Based on the model $\w$, we predict the expected transformation $\y_t$ from all hypothetical transformations by maximizing Eq. . The hypothetical correspondence set $\C_t$ of the frame $I_t$ and the predicted transformation $\y_t$ are then added to our training set. We use all the training samples collected from the results of previous $K$ frames ($I_{t-K+1}$ to $I_{t}$) to update our model. Then the above process is repeated as tracking proceeds.
Online Optimization {#sec:optimization}
-------------------
The optimization problem presented in Eq. can be solved online effectively. We adopt an alternating optimization algorithm to solve the optimization problem.
#### Unconstrained form
Let $\a_{kt}=[\max_{\y\neq\y_t}\{\Delta(\y_t,\y)-\delta F_t^k(\y)\}]_+$ and $\b_{kti}=[\max_{j'\neq j}\{1-D_i^k(\d_j,\d_{j'})\}]_+$. Therefore, Eq. can be rewritten to an unconstrained form: $$\label{eq:relaxed}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\w^0,\v^k,\M}
\frac{1}{2}\lVert\w^0\rVert^2
+\frac{\lambda_1}{2K}\sum_{k=1}^K\lVert\v^k\rVert^2
+{\lambda_2}\lVert\M\rVert_{2,1}\\
+\sum_{k=1}^K
\Big(
\nu_1\sum_{t=k}^T\a_{kt}
+\nu_2\sum_{t=k}^T\sum_{(u_i,v_j) \in \H(\C_t,{\y_t})}\hspace{-1.5em}\b_{kti}
\hspace{0.2em}\Big)
\end{aligned}$$
For descriptive convenience, let $\J$ denote the term of $\nu_1\sum_{t=k}^T\a_{kt}+\nu_2\sum_{t=k}^T\sum_{(u_i,v_j) \in \H(\C_t,{\y_t})}\b_{kti}$.
#### Fix $\{\v^k\}_{k=1}^K$ and $\w^0$, solve $\M$
Firstly, we fix all $\{\v^k\}_{k=1}^K$ and $\w^0$, and learn the transformation matrix $\M$ by solving the following problem: $$\label{eq:M}
\min_{\M}
\hspace{0.2em}
\lVert\M\rVert_{2,1}
+\frac{1}{\lambda_2}\sum_{k=1}^K{\J}$$
Let $\M^i$ denote the $i$-th row of $\M$, and $Tr(\cdot)$ denote the trace operator. In mathematics, the Eq. can be converted to the following form: $$\label{eq:M2}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\M}
\hspace{0.2em}
Tr(\M^{\T}\D\M)
+\frac{1}{\lambda_2}\sum_{k=1}^K{\J}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\D$ is the diagonal matrix of $\M$, and each diagonal element is $\D_{ii}=\frac{1}{2\lVert\M^i\rVert_2}$. We use an alternating algorithm to calculate $\D$ and $\M$ respectively. We calculate $\M$ with the current $\D$ by using gradient descent method, and then update $\D$ according to the current $\M$. The details of solving Eq. are shown in the supplementary file.
#### Fix $\M$ and $\{\v^k\}_{k=1}^K$, solve $\w^0$
Secondly, after $\M$ is learned, let $\{\v^k\}_{k=1}^K$ have been the optimal solution of Eq. . Then $\w^0$ can be obtained by the combination of $\v^k$ according to [@Multitask]: $$\w^0=\hspace{0.2em}\frac{\lambda_1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\v^k$$ The proof can be found in our supplementary material.
#### Fix $\M$ and $\w^0$, solve $\{\v^k\}_{k=1}^K$
Finally, $\{\v^k\}_{k=1}^K$ can be learned one by one using gradient descent method. In fact, we learn $\w^k=\w^0+\v^k$ instead of $\v^k$ for convenience. Let $\bar{\w}=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\w^k$ be the average vector of all $\w^k$. Then the optimization problem for each $\w^k$ can be rewritten as: $$\label{eq:v}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\w^k}
\hspace{0.2em}
\rho_1\lVert\w^k\rVert^2
+\rho_2\lVert\w^k-\bar{\w}\rVert^2+{\J}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_1={\lambda_1}/({\lambda_1+1})$ and $\rho_2={\lambda_1^2}/({\lambda_1+1})$ (the derivation proof is given in the supplementary material).
Given training samples $\{(\C_{t-k},\y_{t-k})\}_{k=0}^{K-1}$ at time $t$, the subgradient of Eq. with respect to $\w^k$ is calculated, and we perform a gradient descent step according to: $$\label{eq:updateV}
\begin{aligned}
\w^k\leftarrow
\hspace{0.2em}
(1-\frac{1}{t})\w^k
+\eta\rho_2\bar{\w}
-\eta\frac{\partial\J}{\partial\w^k}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta={1}/{(\rho_1t+\rho_2t)}$ is the step size (the details of the term $J$ is described in the supplementary material). We repeat the procedure to obtain an optimal solution until the algorithm converges (on average converges after $5$ iterations).
All the above is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:opt\], and the details are described in the supplementary material.
Calculate the correspondences $\C_t$ based on the model $\w^K$ Estimate hypothetical transformations $\y$ using RANSAC; Calculate the inlier set of each $\y$ using Eq. Predict the expected $\y_t$ by maximizing Eq. Collect the training samples $\{(\C_{t-k},\y_{t-k})\}_{k=0}^{K-1}$ $\y_t$, $\{\w^1,\dots,\w^K\}$ and $\M$
Experiments and Results
=======================
Experimental Settings
---------------------
#### Dataset
The video dataset used in our experiments consists of nine video sequences. Specifically, the first five sequences are from [@Hare2012], and the last four sequences (i.e., “chart”, “keyboard”, “food”, “book”) are recorded by ourselves. All these sequences cover several complicated scenarios such as background clutter, object zooming, object rotation, illumination variation, motion blurring and partial occlusion (example frames can be found in the supplementary material).
#### Implementation Details
For keypoint feature extraction, we use FAST keypoint detector [@Fast] with 256-bit BRIEF descriptor [@Brief]. For metric learning, the linear transformation matrix $\M$ is initialized to be an identity matrix. For multi-task learning, the number of tasks $K$ is chosen as $5$ and we update all the multi-task models frame by frame. All weighting parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\nu_1,\nu_2$ are set to $1$, and remain fixed throughout all the experiments. Similar to [@Hare2012], we consider the tracking process of estimating homography transformation on the planar object as a tracking-by-detection task.
#### Evaluation Criteria
We use the same criteria as [@Hare2012] with a scoring function between the predicted homography $\y$ and the ground-truth homography $\y^*$: $$S(\y,\y^*)=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i=1}^{4}\lVert\y(c_i)-\y^*(c_i)\rVert_2$$ where $\{c_i\}_{i=1}^4=\{(-1,-1)^\T,(1,-1)^\T,(-1,1)^\T,(1,1)^\T\}$ is a normalized square. For each frame, it is regarded as a successfully detected frame if $S(\y,\y^*)<10$, and a falsely detected frame otherwise. The average success rate is defined as the number of successfully detected frames divided by the length of the sequence, which is used to evaluate the performance of the tracker. To provide the tracking result frame by frame, we present a criterion of the accumulated false detection number, which is defined as the accumulated number of falsely detected frames as tracking proceeds.
Experimental Results
--------------------
#### Comparison with State-of-the-art Methods
We compare our approach with some state-of-the-art approaches, including boosting based approach [@Boost2007], structured SVM (SSVM) approach [@Hare2012] and a baseline static tracking approach (without model updating). All these approaches are implemented by making use of their publicly available code. We also implement our approach in C++ and OPENCV. On average, our algorithm takes 0.0746 second to process one frame with a quad-core 2.4GHz Intel Xeon E5-2609 CPU and 16GB memory. Table \[tab:others\] shows the experimental results of all four approaches in the average success rate. As shown in this table, our approach performs best on all sequences.
----------- --------- ---------- ------ ------
Static Boosting SSVM Ours
barbapapa 19.7138 89.0302
comic 42.5000 57.6042
map 81.1295 82.0937
paper 05.0267 03.8502
phone 88.1491 84.9534
chart 13.1461 01.9101
keyboard 27.8607 57.7114
food 32.8173 67.4923
book 08.5616 08.9041
----------- --------- ---------- ------ ------
: []{data-label="tab:others"}
![[]{data-label="fig:chart"}](res/chart/chart.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![[]{data-label="fig:chart"}](res/chart/keyboard.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
\
![[]{data-label="fig:chart"}](res/chart/food.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![[]{data-label="fig:chart"}](res/chart/book.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
To provide an intuitive illustration, we report the detection result on each frame in Figure \[fig:chart\]. We observe that both the “Boosting” and “SSVM” approaches obtain a number of incorrect detection results on some frames of the test sequences, while our approach achieves stable tracking results in most situations (the curve corresponding to our approach grows slowly and is almost horizontal).
Figure \[fig:exp\] shows the tracking results on some sample frames (more experimental results can be found in our supplementary materials). These sequences containing background clutter are challenging for keypoint based tracking. In terms of metric learning and multi-task learning, our approach still performs well in some complicated scenarios with drastic object appearance changes.
SSVMOurs\
![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/chart/origin388.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/chart/ours388.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
(a) chart frame 388 (camera motion blurring)\
\
![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/keyboard/origin300.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/keyboard/ours300.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
(b) keyboard frame 300 (illumination variation)\
\
![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/food/origin350.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/food/ours350.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
(c) food frame 350 (object rotation)\
\
![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/book/origin357.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](res/exp/book/ours357.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
(d) book frame 357 (confusing keypoints)\
#### Evaluation of Our Individual Components
To explore the contribution of each component in our approach, we compare the performances of the approaches with individual parts, including SSVM(structured SVM), SML(SSVM $+$ metric learning), SMT(SSVM $+$ multi-task learning), and SMM (SSVM $+$ ML $+$ MT, which is exactly our approach). The experimental results of all these approaches in the average success rate are reported in Table \[tab:ours\].
------------------------- --------- --------- --------- -----
\[4\][\*]{}[Sequence]{}
SSVM SML SMT SMM
barbapapa 94.1176 94.2766
comic 98.1250 98.5417
map 98.6226
paper 82.7807 86.2032
phone 96.6711 97.2037
chart 53.0337 61.1236
keyboard 62.3549 73.6318
food 85.7585 88.0805
book 55.8219 71.5753
------------------------- --------- --------- --------- -----
: []{data-label="tab:ours"}
![[]{data-label="fig:indiv"}](res/indiv/comic.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![[]{data-label="fig:indiv"}](res/indiv/keyboard.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
\
![[]{data-label="fig:indiv"}](res/indiv/food.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![[]{data-label="fig:indiv"}](res/indiv/book.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
From Table \[tab:ours\], we find that the geometric verification based structured learning approach achieves good tracking results in most situations. Furthermore, we observe from Figure \[fig:indiv\] that multi-task structured learning guides the tracker to produce a stable tracking result in the complicated scenarios, and metric learning enhances the capability of the tracker to separate keypoints from background clutter. Our approach consisting of all these components then generates a robust tracker.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have presented a novel and robust keypoint tracker by solving a multi-task structured output optimization problem driven by metric learning. Our joint learning approach have simultaneously considered spatial model consistency, temporal model coherence, and discriminative feature construction during the tracking process.
We have shown in extensive experiments that geometric verification based structured learning has modeled the spatial model consistency to generate a robust tracker in most scenarios, multi-task structured learning has characterized the temporal model coherence to produce stable tracking results even in complicated scenarios with drastic changes, and metric learning has enabled the discriminative feature construction to enhance the discriminative power of the tracker. We have created a new benchmark video dataset consisting of challenging video sequences, and experimental results performed on the dataset have shown that our tracker outperforms the other state-of-the-art trackers.
Acknowledgments
===============
All correspondence should be addressed to Prof. Xi Li. This work is in part supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61472353), National Basic Research Program of China (2012CB316400), NSFC (61472353), 863 program (2012AA012505), China Knowledge Centre for Engineering Sciences and Technology and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
[^1]: Corresponding Author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The operating principle of squeeze-film pressure sensors is based on the pressure dependence of a membrane’s resonance frequency, caused by the compression of the surrounding gas which changes the resonator stiffness. To realize such sensors, not only strong and flexible membranes are required, but also minimization of the membrane’s mass is essential to maximize responsivity. Here, we demonstrate the use of a few-layer graphene membrane as a squeeze-film pressure sensor. A clear pressure dependence of the membrane’s resonant frequency is observed, with a frequency shift of 4 MHz between 8 and 1000 mbar. The sensor shows a reproducible response and no hysteresis. The measured responsivity of the device is 9000 Hz/mbar, which is a factor 45 higher than state-of-the-art MEMS-based squeeze-film pressure sensors while using a 25 times smaller membrane area.'
author:
- 'Robin J. Dolleman'
- Dejan Davidovikj
- 'Santiago J. Cartamil-Bueno'
- 'Herre S.J. van der Zant'
- 'Peter G. Steeneken'
bibliography:
- 'squeezefilm.bib'
title: 'Graphene Squeeze-Film Pressure Sensors'
---
Graphene, a single layer of $\mathrm{sp}^2$ bonded carbon atoms[@novoselov2005two], has exceptional mechanical properties. It has the highest Young’s modulus ($\sim$1 TPa) of all known materials [@lee2008measurement; @lee2013high]. Moreover, it has the lowest mass density and bending rigidity of all impermeable membranes[@bunch2008impermeable]. These properties make graphene a suitable material for nanomechanical sensors. Currently, pressure sensors are the most widespread membrane-based mechanical sensors and are present in most modern mobile handsets. Commercial microelectromechanical system (MEMS) based pressure sensors feature membranes of several hundreds of nanometers thickness. Replacing these by thin graphene membranes would allow an increase in responsivity and a size reduction by orders of magnitude. In order to exploit these advantages, several studies [@bunch2008impermeable; @smith2013electromechanical; @lee2014atomically; @lee2014air] have demonstrated the feasibility of sensing pressure changes with a graphene membrane suspended over a reference cavity at pressure $p_{\mathrm{ref}}$. When the ambient pressure ($p_{\mathrm{amb}}$) changes, the pressure difference ($p_{\mathrm{amb}}-p_{\mathrm{ref}}$) causes a deflection of the membrane. This has been directly detected by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and via a tension induced change in the membrane’s resonance frequency [@bunch2008impermeable]. Also the change in piezoresistance [@smith2013electromechanical] has been used to detect the change in pressure. However, the drawback of these pressure-difference based sensing methods is that they require a stable reference pressure $p_{\mathrm{ref}}$ over the $\sim$10 years lifetime of the sensor, posing extreme demands on the hermeticity of the reference cavity. Even though graphene sealed cavities were shown to have leak time constants of many hours [@bunch2008impermeable], at this stage it is unclear whether these can ever be increased to timescales of years. It is therefore of interest to develop pressure sensors that do not rely on the presence of an impermeable reference cavity.
In this work we demonstrate the feasibility of using graphene as a squeeze-film pressure sensor. The sensor consists of a membrane that covers a gas cavity, as is shown in Figure \[fig:fabrication\]. The main difference with conventional pressure sensors is the presence of an open venting channel that maintains the average pressure inside the cavity equal to the ambient pressure. Squeeze-film pressure sensors operate by compressing gas in the cavity that is at ambient pressure $p_{\mathrm{amb}}$. When the compression is performed at a high frequency, the gas fails to escape its effective position because of the viscous forces [@bao2007squeeze]. The added stiffness due to the compression of the gas is a function of pressure. For isothermal compression, this will change the resonance frequency ($f_{\mathrm{res}}$) of the resonator according to: $$\label{eq:squeezefilm}
f_{\mathrm{res}}^2 = f_0^2 + \frac{p_{\mathrm{amb}}}{4\pi^2 g_0 \rho h}.$$ Here, $f_{\mathrm{res}}$ is the membrane’s resonance frequency at pressure $p_{\mathrm{amb}}$, $f_0$ the resonance frequency in vacuum, $g_0$ the gap size between the membrane and the substrate that lies underneath the membrane and $\rho h$ the mass per unit square (see Supporting Information). Note, that the smaller the mass per unit square $\rho h$, the larger the frequency shift. The low mass density of graphene thus makes it a perfect material for this type of sensor.
As is shown in the Supporting Information, at high enough frequencies equation \[eq:squeezefilm\] is independent of mode-shape, thickness and boundary conditions of the membrane. The independence of the boundary conditions shows that the venting channel has no influence on the responsivity ($R={\rm d}f_{\mathrm{res}}/{{\rm d }p_{\mathrm{amb}}}$) of the device. Several works have demonstrated MEMS based squeeze-film pressure sensors with responsivities of up to 200 Hz/mbar [@andrews1993resonant; @southworth2009pressure; @andrews1993comparison; @kumar2015mems].
![a) Graphene flake transferred on a dumbbell shaped hole in a $\mathrm{SiO}_2$ substrate. Half of the dumbbell is covered, thus creating a drum with a venting channel. The diameter of the drum is 5 $\mu$m and the thickness of the oxide 400 nm. Lines A-A’ and B-B’ correspond to those in figures c) and b) respectively. b) Height profile from the atomic force microscopy (AFM) measurement, showing that the membrane is 10.5 $\pm$ 0.7 nm thick. c) Schematic cross-section of the squeeze-film sensor. d) Three-dimensional representation of the squeeze-film sensor design.[]{data-label="fig:fabrication"}](figure-fabrication-4.png)
We use an exfoliated few-layer graphene (FLG) flake that is suspended over dumbbell shaped holes using a dry stamping method [@castellanos2011atomically; @castellanos2013single]. The dumbbells have a diameter of 5 $\mu$m and are etched into a 400 nm $\mathrm{SiO}_2$ layer on a silicon substrate (Figure \[fig:fabrication\]a). The thickness of the flake after transfer is measured to be about 10.5 nm using atomic force microscopy (Figure \[fig:fabrication\]b). The stamping method allows accurate placement of the flake such that it covers half of the dumbbell shape, thus creating a graphene-based squeeze-film pressure sensor with a lateral venting channel (Figure \[fig:fabrication\]c–d). To demonstrate the importance of the venting channel for the sensor response, several sealed drums are created with the same flake. The resonance frequency of these sealed drums shows a strikingly different pressure dependence and undesired hysteresis as is discussed in the Supporting Information.
![Interferometry setup for detecting the resonance frequency of the graphene drum.[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](figure_setup.png)
Figure \[fig:setup\] shows the interferometry setup that is used to detect the sensor’s mechanical resonance modes as a function of gas pressure. The samples are mounted in a vacuum chamber with optical access. A dual-valve pressure controller connected to a nitrogen bottle controls the N$_{\rm 2}$ pressure in the chamber between 8 and 1000 mbar. An intensity modulated 405 nm blue laser drives the graphene membrane via optical absorption and thermomechanical force. A 632 nm red He-Ne laser beam targets the drum and cavity bottom and interference is detected at a photodiode. The intensity is modulated by the mechanical motion of the graphene drum. A vector network analyzer (VNA) modulates the blue diode intensity and detects the red laser light intensity on the photodiode to determine the frequency spectrum of the membrane [@castellanos2013single; @cartamil2015high].
The pressure-dependent resonance frequency of the sensor is studied by ramping the pressure upward and downward at a constant rate. During the pressure ramp the VNA continuously measures frequency spectra from 5-30 MHz at a rate of about 1 sweep every 2 seconds. Figure \[fig:datafits\] shows these frequency spectra at 4 different pressures. At 8 mbar 4 resonance modes are visible. At higher pressures the frequency of the fundamental mode increases while its Q-factor decreases. A damped harmonic oscillator model is fitted (red lines) to the data to extract the resonance frequency and quality factor as a function of pressure. The total frequency shift between 8 mbar and 1000 mbar is 4 MHz.
![\[fig:datafits\] Frequency spectra (blue) obtained from the VNA at different pressures. A damped harmonic oscillator model is fitted (red) to the fundamental mode to determine its resonance frequency and Q-factor.](newdatafits)
Figure \[fig:data\]a shows the frequency spectra taken during a pressure ramp in a contour plot. The frequencies of the first, third and fourth resonance modes increase as a function of pressure in close agreement (black dashed lines) with equation \[eq:squeezefilm\]. The intensity of the second mode vanishes above $\sim$50 mbar; therefore it is not possible to compare its response to equation \[eq:squeezefilm\]. For all modes the intensity decreases rapidly with pressure. The resonance frequency is plotted versus pressure in Figure \[fig:data\]b for a measurement at a ramp rate of 3.3 mbar/s. This measurement demonstrates the reproducibility of the sensor, showing no hysteresis as the pressure readings during upward and downward sweep are equal within the inaccuracy of the measurement. Equation \[eq:squeezefilm\] is plotted (dashed black line) in Figure \[fig:data\]b using the measured $f_0$ and no additional fit parameters. The theoretical curve is in close agreement with experimental data up to pressures of 200 mbar. We have also measured the pressure response with different gases as shown in the Supporting Information, this shows that the compression is isothermal and the use of equation \[eq:squeezefilm\] is valid. This also demonstrates that the pressure sensor operates independent of the type of gas. Above 200 mbar, the measured resonance frequency deviates from from equation \[eq:squeezefilm\]. This indicates that the assumptions underlying this equation cannot account anymore for the resonance frequency behavior at these higher pressures.
The quality factor is determined from harmonic oscillator fits (Figure \[fig:datafits\]) and plotted in Figure \[fig:data\]c. Three regimes can be distinguished: at pressures lower than 100 mbar, the quality factor drops as a function of pressure, approximately proportional to $1/p_{\mathrm{amb}}$. It is predicted by Bao et. al. [@bao2002energy] that the quality factor scales with $1/p_{\mathrm{amb}}$ in the free molecular flow regime. Between 100 and 500 mbar the quality factor appears to be more or less constant. Above 500 mbar the Q-factor reduces further approximately proportional to $1/p_{\mathrm{amb}}$. More sophisticated modeling is needed to explain the behavior of quality factor as a function of pressure.
From the data in Figure \[fig:data\]b it is possible to estimate the responsivity of the device: at low pressures the responsivity is approximately 9000 Hz/mbar while at atmospheric pressure it is 1000 Hz/mbar. The highest reported responsivity in squeeze-film MEMS pressure sensors is $200$Hz/mbar[@southworth2009pressure]. The responsivity of the graphene-based sensor is thus a factor of $\sim$5-45 larger than that of a MEMS sensor. At the same time the area of the graphene sensor is a factor 25 smaller. Based on equation \[eq:squeezefilm\], further improvement of the demonstrated sensor concept is possible by reducing the thickness of the membranes. It is estimated that using a single-layer graphene resonator will increase the responsivity by a factor of 5.6. A reduction of the gap size $g_0$ can enable a further increase of the responsivity.
In summary, a graphene-based squeeze-film pressure sensor has been demonstrated that does not need an impermeable reference cavity at stable reference pressure. Reproducible sensor response is demonstrated and a 4 MHz resonance frequency shift between 8 and 1000 mbar is measured. The resonance frequency closely follows the squeeze-film model up to 200 mbar, but at higher pressures deviations from the model are observed that require further theoretical study. In comparison with MEMS based squeeze-film sensors, the responsivity of the sensor is a factor 5-45 larger at an area of a factor 25 smaller. A further increase of the responsivity can be obtained using thinner membranes and reducing the gap size. In comparison to other graphene-based pressure sensing concept, the squeeze-film pressure sensor has the advantage that it does not rely on an impermeable reference cavity at constant pressure. It therefore provides a promising route towards size reduction and sensitivity improvements of pressure sensors.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Allard Katan, Ronald van Leeuwen and Warner J. Venstra for experimental support. The authors further thank the Dutch Technology Foundation (STW), which is part of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and which is partly funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, for financially supporting this work. The research leading to these results has also received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no 604391 Graphene Flagship and this work was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO/OCW), as part of the Frontiers of Nanoscience program.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
Substrates were fabricated using p-type silicon with thermally grown silicon dioxide on top. 400 nm cavities were etched into the silicon dioxide using reactive ion etching to obtain vertical etch profiles, using chromium as a mask and gases Ar at 2.7 sccm and $\mathrm{CHF}_3$ at 50 sccm with a power of 50 W and 7 $\mathrm{\mu}$bar pressure. The chromium mask was removed and samples were cleaned in nitric acid. For details on the graphene transfer process and the laser interferometer setup the reader is referred to Castellanos-Gomez et. al. [@castellanos2013single]. In the measurements the red laser power was 3 mW as measured before the objective entrance. The blue laser was kept at a power less than 1 mW, which was modulated using the VNA at -10 dB, resulting in a power modulation of 4.5%. Atomic force microscopy was performed on a Bruker Multimode 3 system to measure the thickness of the graphene flake. Pressure was controlled using a dual-valve pressure controller, calibrated for a pressure range between 0 and 1 bar. Dry nitrogen, carbon dioxide or argon was offered at the IN port of the controller and a (dry) scroll pump was connected to the vacuum port.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explore the possibility of planet formation in the carbon-rich protoplanetary disks of carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars, possible relics of the early Universe. The chemically anomalous abundance patterns (\[C/Fe\] $\geq$ 0.7) in this subset of low-mass stars suggest pollution by primordial core-collapsing supernovae (SNe) ejecta that are particularly rich in carbon dust grains. By comparing the dust-settling timescale in the protoplanetary disks of CEMP stars to the expected disk lifetime (assuming dissipation via photoevaporation), we determine the maximum distance $r_{max}$ from the host CEMP star at which carbon-rich planetesimal formation is possible, as a function of the host star’s \[C/H\] abundance. We then use our linear relation between $r_{max}$ and \[C/H\], along with the theoretical mass-radius relation derived for a solid, pure carbon planet, to characterize potential planetary transits across host CEMP stars. Given that the related transits are detectable with current and upcoming space-based transit surveys, we suggest initiating an observational program to search for carbon planets around CEMP stars in hopes of shedding light on the question of how early planetary systems may have formed after the Big Bang.'
author:
- |
Natalie Mashian$^{1}$[^1], Abraham Loeb$^{1}$[^2]\
$^{1}$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
title: 'CEMP stars: possible hosts to carbon planets in the early universe'
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmology: theory — early Universe — planets and satellites: formation — planets and satellites: detection — stars: chemically peculiar — stars: carbon
Introduction
============
The questions of when, where, and how the first planetary systems formed in cosmic history remain crucial to our understanding of structure formation and the emergence of life in the early Universe [@2014IJAsB..13..337L]. In the Cold Dark Matter model of hierarchical structure formation, the first stars are predicted to have formed in dark matter haloes that collapsed at redshifts $z \lesssim$ 50, about 100 million years after the Big Bang . These short-lived, metal-free, massive first-generation stars ultimately exploded as supernovae (SNe) and enriched the interstellar medium (ISM) with the heavy elements fused in their cores. The enrichment of gas with metals that had otherwise been absent in the early Universe enabled the formation of the first low-mass stars, and perhaps, marked the point at which star systems could begin to form planets [@2003Natur.425..812B; @2007MNRAS.380L..40F; @2008ApJ...672..757C]. In the core accretion model of planet formation (e.g. @2006RPPh...69..119P [@2011ApJ...736...89J]), elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are necessary not only to form the dust grains that are the building blocks of planetary cores, but to extend the lifetime of the protostellar disk long enough to allow the dust grains to grow via merging and accretion to form planetesimals .
In the past four decades, a broad search has been launched for low-mass Population II stars in the form of extremely metal-poor sources within the halo of the Galaxy. The HK survey [@1985AJ.....90.2089B; @1992AJ....103.1987B], the Hamburg/ESO Survey , the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; @2000AJ....120.1579Y), and the SEGUE survey [@2009AJ....137.4377Y] have all significantly enhanced the sample of metal-poor stars with \[Fe/H\] $<$ –2.0. Although these iron-poor stars are often referred to in the literature as “metal-poor" stars, it is critical to note that \[Fe/H\] does not necessarily reflect a stellar atmosphere’s total metal content. The equivalence between ‘metal-poor" and “Fe-poor" appears to fall away for stars with \[Fe/H\] $<$ –3.0 since many of these stars exhibit large overabundances of elements such as C, N, and O; the total mass fractions, $Z$, of the elements heavier than He are therefore not much lower than the solar value in these iron-poor stars.
Carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars comprise one such chemically anomalous class of stars, with carbon-to-iron ratios \[C/Fe\] $\geq$ 0.7 (as defined in @2007ApJ...655..492A [@2012ApJ...744..195C; @2013ApJ...762...28N]). The fraction of sources that fall into this category increases from $\sim$15-20% for stars with \[Fe/H\] $<$ –2.0, to 30% for \[Fe/H\] $<$ –3.0, to $\sim$75% for \[Fe/H\] $<$ –4.0 . Furthermore, the degree of carbon enhancement in CEMP stars has been shown to notably increase as a function of decreasing metallicity, rising from \[C/Fe\] $\sim$ 1.0 at \[Fe/H\] = -1.5 to \[C/Fe\] $\sim$ 1.7 at \[Fe/H\] = -2.7. [@2012ApJ...744..195C]. Given the significant frequency and level of carbon-excess in this subset of metal-poor Population II stars, the formation of carbon planets around CEMP stars in the early universe presents itself as an intriguing possibility.
From a theoretical standpoint, the potential existence of carbon exoplanets, consisting of carbides and graphite instead of Earth-like silicates, has been suggested by @2005astro.ph..4214K. Using the various elemental abundances measured in planet-hosting stars, subsequent works have sought to predict the corresponding variety of terrestrial exoplanet compositions expected to exist [@2010ApJ...715.1050B; @2012ApJ...747L...2C; @2012ApJ...760...44C]. Assuming that the stellar abundances are similar to those of the original circumstellar disk, related simulations yield planets with a whole range of compositions, including some that are almost exclusively C and SiC; these occur in disks with C/O $>$ 0.8, favorable conditions for carbon condensation [@1975GeCoA..39..389L]. Observationally, there have also been indications of planets with carbon-rich atmospheres, e.g. WASP-12b [@2011Natur.469...64M], and carbon-rich interiors, e.g. 55 Cancri e [@2012ApJ...759L..40M].
In this paper, we explore the possibility of carbon planet formation around the iron-deficient, but carbon-rich subset of low-mass stars, mainly, CEMP stars. In §2, we discuss the origins of the unique elemental abundance patterns among these C-rich objects and their potential implications for the carbon dust content of the gas from which CEMP stars and their protostellar disks form. Comparing the expected disk lifetime to the dust-settling timescale in these protostellar disks, we then determine the maximum distance from a host CEMP star at which the formation of a carbon-rich planet is possible (§3). In §4, we calculate the theoretical mass-radius relation for such a pure carbon planet and present the corresponding depth and duration of its transit across the face of its host CEMP star in §5. We conclude with a discussion of our findings in §6. Standard definitions of elemental abundances and ratios are adopted in this paper. For element X, the logarithmic absolute abundance is defined as the number of atoms of element X per 10$^{12}$ hydrogen atoms, $\log{\epsilon(\textrm{X})}=\log_{10}{(N_{\textrm{X}}/N_{\textrm{Y}})}+12.0.$ For elements X and Y, the logarithmic abundance ratio relative to the solar ratio is defined as \[X/Y\] = $\log_{10}{(N_{\textrm{X}}/N_{\textrm{Y}})}-\log_{10}{(N_{\textrm{X}}/N_{\textrm{Y}})_\odot}$. The solar abundance set is that of , with a solar metallicity Z$_\odot$ = 0.0134.
Star-forming environment of CEMP stars
======================================
A great deal of effort has been directed in the literature towards understanding theoretically, the origin of the most metal-poor stars, and in particular, the large fraction that is C-rich. These efforts have been further perturbed by the fact that CEMP stars do not form a homogenous group, but can rather be further subdivided into two main populations : carbon-rich stars that show an excess of heavy neutron-capture elements (CEMP-s, CEMP-r, and CEMP-r/s), and carbon-rich stars with a normal pattern of the heavy elements (CEMP-no). In the following sections, we focus on stars with \[Fe/H\] $\leq$ –3.0, which have been shown to fall almost exclusively in the CEMP-no subset [@2010IAUS..265..111A].
A number of theoretical scenarios have been proposed to explain the observed elemental abundances of these stars, though there is no universally accepted hypothesis. The most extensively studied mechanism to explain the origin of CEMP-no stars is the mixing and fallback model, where a “faint" Population III SN explodes, but due to a relatively low explosion energy, only ejects its outer layers, rich in lighter elements (up to magnesium); its innermost layers, rich in iron and heavier elements, fall back onto the remnant and are not recycled in the ISM [@2003Natur.422..871U; @2005ApJ...619..427U]. This potential link between primeval SNe and CEMP-no stars is supported by recent studies which demonstrate that the observed ratio of carbon-enriched to carbon-normal stars with \[Fe/H\] $<$ –3.0 is accurately reproduced if SNe were the main source of metal-enrichment in the early Universe [@2014MNRAS.445.3039D; @2014ApJ...791..116C]. Furthermore, the observed abundance patterns of CEMP-no stars have been found to be generally well matched by the nucleosynthetic yields of primordial faint SNe . These findings suggest that most of the CEMP-no stars were probably born out of gas enriched by massive, first-generation stars that ended their lives as Type II SNe with low levels of mixing and a high degree of fallback.
Under such circumstances, the gas clouds which collapse and fragment to form these CEMP-no stars and their protostellar disks may contain significant amounts of carbon dust grains. Observationally, dust formation in SNe ejecta has been inferred from isotopic anomalies in meteorites where graphite, SiC, and Si$_3$N$_4$ dust grains have been identified as SNe condensates . Furthermore, in situ dust formation has been unambiguously detected in the expanding ejecta of SNe such as SN 1987A [@1989LNP...350..164L; @2014ApJ...782L...2I] and SN 1999em [@2003MNRAS.338..939E]. The existence of cold dust has also been verified in the supernova remnant of Cassiopeia A by SCUBA’s recent submillimeter observations, and a few solar masses worth of dust is estimated to have condensed in the ejecta [@2003Natur.424..285D].
Theoretical calculations of dust formation in primordial core-collapsing SNe have demonstrated the condensation of a variety of grain species, starting with carbon, in the ejecta, where the mass fraction tied up in dust grains grows with increasing progenitor mass [@1989ApJ...344..325K; @2001MNRAS.325..726T; @2003ApJ...598..785N]. @2014ApJ...794..100M [@2015MNRAS.454.4250M] consider, in particular, dust formation in weak Population III SNe ejecta, the type believed to have polluted the birth clouds of CEMP-no stars. Tailoring the SN explosion models to reproduce the observed elemental abundances of CEMP-no stars, they find that: (i) for all the progenitor models investigated, amorphous carbon (AC) is the only grain species that forms in significant amounts; this is a consequence of extensive fallback, which results in a distinct, carbon-dominated ejecta composition with negligible amounts of other metals, such as Mg, Si, and Al, that can enable the condensation of alternative grain types; (ii) the mass of carbon locked into AC grains increases when the ejecta composition is characterized by an initial mass of C greater than the O mass; this is particularly true in zero metallicity supernova progenitors, which undergo less mixing than their solar metallicity counterparts [@2009ApJ...693.1780J]; in their stratified ejecta, C-grains are found only to form in layers where C/O $>$ 1; in layers where C/O $<$ 1, all the carbon is promptly locked in CO molecules; (iii) depending on the model, the mass fraction of dust (formed in SNe ejecta) that survives the passage of a SN reverse shock ranges between 1 to 85%; this fraction is referred to as the carbon condensation efficiency; (iv) further grain growth in the collapsing birth clouds of CEMP-no stars, due to the accretion of carbon atoms in the gas phase onto the remaining grains, occurs only if C/O $>$ 1 and is otherwise hindered by the formation of CO molecules.
Besides the accumulation of carbon-rich grains imported from the SNe ejecta, Fischer-Trope-type reactions (FTTs) may also contribute to solid carbon enrichment in the protostellar disks of CEMP-no stars by enabling the conversion of nebular CO and H$_2$ to other forms of carbon . Furthermore, in carbon-rich gas, the equilibrium condensation sequence changes signifcantly from the sequence followed in solar composition gas where metal oxides condense first. In nebular gas with C/O $\gtrsim$ 1, carbon-rich compounds such as graphite, carbides, nitrides, and sulfides are the highest temperature condensates ($T \approx$ 1200-1600 K) [@1975GeCoA..39..389L]. Thus, if planet formation is to proceed in this C-rich gas, the protoplanetary disks of these CEMP-no stars may spawn many carbon planets.
Orbital radii of Potential Carbon Planets
==========================================
Given the significant abundance of carbon grains, both imported from SNe ejecta and produced by equilibrium and non-equilibrium mechanisms operating in the C-rich protoplanetary disks, the emerging question is: would these dust grains have enough time to potentially coagulate and form planets around their host CEMP-no stars?
In the core accretion model, terrestrial planet formation is a multi-step process, starting with the aggregation and settling of dust grains in the protoplanetary disk . In this early stage, high densities in the disk allow particles to grow from submicron-size to meter-size through a variety of collisional processes including Brownian motion, settling, turbulence, and radial migration. The continual growth of such aggregates by coagulation and sticking eventually leads to the formation of kilometer-sized planetesimals, which then begin to interact gravitationally and grow by pairwise collisions, and later by runaway growth . In order for terrestrial planets to ultimately form, these processes must all occur within the lifetime of the disk itself, a limit which is set by the relevant timescale of the physical phenomena that drive disk dissipation.
A recent study by @2009ApJ...705...54Y of clusters in the Extreme Outer Galaxy (EOG) provides observational evidence that low-metallicity disks have shorter lifetimes ($<$ 1 Myr) compared to solar metallicity disks ($\sim$ 5-6 Myr). This finding is consistent with models in which photoevaporation by energetic (ultraviolet or X-ray) radiation of the central star is the dominant disk dispersal mechanism. While the opacity source for EUV (extreme-ultraviolet) photons is predominantly hydrogen and is thus metallicity-independent, X-ray photons are primarily absorbed by heavier elements, mainly carbon and oxygen, in the inner gas and dust shells. Therefore, in low metallicity environments where these heavy elements are not abundant and the opacity is reduced, high density gas at larger columns can be ionized and will experience a photoevaporative flow if heated to high enough temperatures [@2009ApJ...690.1539G; @2010MNRAS.402.2735E].
Assuming that photoevaporation is the dominant mechanism through which circumstellar disks lose mass and eventually dissipate, we adopt the metallicity-dependent disk lifetime, derived in @2010MNRAS.402.2735E using X-ray+EUV models [@2009ApJ...699.1639E], $$t_{disk}\propto Z^{0.77(4-2p)/(5-2p)}$$ where $Z$ is the total metallicity of the disk and $p$ is the power-law index of the disk surface density profile ($\Sigma \propto r^{-p}$). A mean power-law exponent of $p \sim$ 0.9 is derived by modeling the spatially resolved emission morphology of young stars at (sub)millimeter wavelengths [@2009ApJ...700.1502A; @2010ApJ...723.1241A] and the timescale is normalized such that the mean lifetime for disks of solar metallicity is 2 Myr [@2010MNRAS.402.2735E]. We adopt the carbon abundance relative to solar \[C/H\] as a proxy for the overall metallicity $Z$ since the opacity, which largely determines the photoevaporation rate, and thus the disk lifetime, is dominated by carbon dust grains in the CEMP-no stars we consider in this paper.
The timescale for planet formation is believed to be effectively set by the time it takes dust grains to settle into the disk midplane. The subsequent process of runaway planetesimal formation, possibly occurring via a series of pairwise collisions, must be quick, since otherwise, the majority of the solid disk material would radially drift towards the host star and evaporate in the hot inner regions of the circumstellar disk [@Armitagebook]. We adopt the one-particle model of to follow the mass growth of dust grains via collisions as they fall through and sweep up the small grains suspended in the disk. Balancing the gravitational force felt by a small dust particle at height $z$ above the mid-plane of a disk with the aerodynamic drag (in the Epstein regime) gives a dust settling velocity of $$v_{sett}=\frac{dz}{dt}=\frac{3\Omega_K^2zm}{4\rho c_s\sigma_d}$$ where $\sigma_d=\pi a^2$ is the cross-section of the dust grain with radius $a$ and $c_s=\sqrt{k_BT(r)/\mu m_H}$ is the isothermal sound speed with $m_H$ being the mass of a hydrogen atom and $\mu$=1.36 being the mean molecular weight of the gas (including the contribution of helium). $\Omega_K=\sqrt{GM_*/r^3}$ is the Keplerian velocity of the disk at a distance $r$ from the central star of mass $M_*$, which we take to be $M_*$ = 0.8 M$_\odot$ as representative of the low-masses associated with CEMP-no stars . The disk is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium with a density given by $$\rho(z,r)=\frac{\Sigma(r)}{h\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp{\left(-\frac{z^2}{2h^2}\right)}$$ where the disk scale height is $h=c_s/\Omega_k$. For the disk surface density $\Sigma(r)$ and temperature $T(r)$ profiles, we adopt the radial power-law distributions fitted to (sub-)millimeter observations of circumstellar disks around young stellar objects [@2005ApJ...631.1134A; @2009ApJ...700.1502A; @2010ApJ...723.1241A], $$T(r)=200 \textrm{ K} \left(\frac{r}{1 \textrm{ AU}}\right)^{-0.6}$$ $$\Sigma(r)=10^3 \textrm{ g/cm$^2$}\left(\frac{r}{1 \textrm{ AU}}\right)^{-0.9} \,\,.$$ Although these relations were observationally inferred from disks with solar-like abundances, we choose to rely on them for our purposes given the lack of corresponding measurements for disks around stars with different abundance patterns.
The rate of grain growth, $dm/dt$, is determined by the rate at which grains, subject to small-scale Brownian motion, collide and stick together as they drift towards the disk mid-plane through a sea of smaller solid particles. If coagulation results from every collision, then the mass growth rate of a particle is effectively the amount of solid material in the volume swept out the particle’s geometric cross-section, $$\frac{dm}{dt}=f_{dg}\rho\sigma_d\left(v_{rel}+\frac{dz}{dt}\right)$$ where $dz/dt$ is the dust settling velocity given by equation (2) and $$v_{rel}=\sqrt{\frac{8k_BT(m_1+m_2)}{\pi m_1m_2}}\approx\sqrt{\frac{8k_BT}{\pi m}}$$ is the relative velocity in the Brownian motion regime between grains with masses $m_1=m_2=m$. To calculate the dust-to-gas mass ratio in the disk $f_{dg}$, we follow the approach in @2014ApJ...782...95J and relate two expressions for the mass fraction of C: (i) the fraction of carbon in the dust, $f_{dg}M_{C,dust}/M_{dust}$, where $M_{dust}$ is the total dust mass and $M_{C,dust}$ is the carbon dust mass ; and (ii) the fraction of carbon in the gas, $\mu_C n_C/\mu n_H$, where $\mu_C$ is the molecular weight of carbon ($\sim12m_p$) and $n_C$ and $n_H$ are the carbon and hydrogen number densities, respectively.
Star $\log{g}^b$ \[Fe/H\] \[C/Fe\] C/O$^c$ Source$^d$
----------------- ------------- ---------- ---------- --------- ------------ -- -- -- --
HE0107-5240 2.2 -5.44 3.82 14.1 1,2
SDSS J0212+0137 4.0 -3.57 2.26 2.6 3
SDSS J1742+2531 4.0 -4.77 3.60 2.2 3
G77-61 5.1 -4.03 3.35 12.0 4, 5
HE2356-0410$^e$ 2.65 -3.19 2.61 $>$14.1 6
: Basic data$^a$ for CEMP stars considered in this paper
\
$^a$ Abundances based on one-dimensional LTE model-atmosphere analyses\
$^b$ Logarithm of the gravitational acceleration at the surface of stars expressed in cms$^{-2}$\
$^c$ C/O = $N_{\textrm{C}}/N_{\textrm{O}} = 10^{\textrm{[C/O]}+\log{\epsilon(\textrm{C})_\odot}-\log{\epsilon(\textrm{O})_\odot}}$\
$^d$ **References:** (1) @2004ApJ...603..708C; (2) @2006ApJ...644L.121C; (3) ; (4) ; (5) @2007AJ....133.1193B; (6) @2014AJ....147..136R.\
$^e$ CS22957-027
We then assume that a fraction $f_{cond}$ (referred to from now on as the carbon condensation efficiency) of all the carbon present in the gas cloud is locked up in dust, such that $$f_{cond}\frac{\mu_C n_C}{\mu n_H}=f_{dg}\frac{M_{C,dust}}{M_{dust}} \,\,.$$ Since faint Population III SNe are believed to have polluted the birth clouds of CEMP-no stars, and the only grain species that forms in non-negligible amounts in these ejecta is amorphous carbon [@2014ApJ...794..100M; @2015MNRAS.454.4250M], we set $M_{dust}=M_{C,dust}$. Rewriting equation (8) in terms of abundances relative to the Sun, we obtain $$f_{dg}=f_{cond}\frac{\mu_C}{\mu}10^{\textrm{[C/H]}+\log{\epsilon(C)_\odot}-12}$$ where $\log{\epsilon(C)_\odot}$=8.43$\pm$0.05 is the solar carbon abundance.
For a specified metallicity \[C/H\] and radial distance $r$ from the central star, we can then estimate the time it takes for dust grains to settle in the disk by integrating equations (2) and (6) from an initial height of $z(t=0)=4h$ with an initial dust grain mass of $m(t=0)=4\pi a_{init}^3\rho_d/3$. The specific weight of dust is set to $\rho_d$=2.28 g cm$^{-3}$, reflecting the material density of carbon grains expected to dominate the circumstellar disks of CEMP-no stars. The initial grain size $a_{init}$ is varied between 0.01 and 1 $\mu$m to reflect the range of characteristic radii of carbon grains found when modeling CEMP-no star abundance patterns [@2014ApJ...794..100M]. Comparing the resulting dust-settling timescale to the disk lifetime given by equation (1) for the specified metallicity, we can then determine whether there is enough time for carbon dust grains to settle in the mid-plane of the disk and there undergo runaway planetesimal formation before the disk is dissipated by photoevaporation. For the purposes of this simple model, we neglected possible turbulence in the disk which may counteract the effects of vertical settling, propelling particles to higher altitudes and thus preventing them from fully settling into the disk mid-plane [@Armitagebook]. We have also not accounted for the effects of radial drift, which may result in the evaporation of solid material in the hot inner regions of the circumstellar disk.
![The maximum distance $r_{max}$ from the host star out to which planetesimal formation is possible as a function of the star’s metallicity, expressed as the carbon abundance relative to that of the Sun, \[C/H\]. The dotted, dashed, and solid black curves correspond to the results obtained assuming carbon condensation efficiencies of 10%, 50%, and 100%, respectively, and an initial grain size of $a_{init}$ = 0.1 $\mu$m. The gray dash-dotted curve corresponds to the distance at which the disk temperature approaches the sublimation temperature of carbon dust grains, $T_{sub,\textrm{C}} \sim$ 2000 K; the formation of carbon planetesimals will therefore be suppressed at distances that fall below this line, $r \lesssim$ 0.02 AU. The colored vertical lines represent various observed CEMP stars with measured carbon abundances, \[C/H\].](RvsZa2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="105mm" height="80mm"}
As the dust settling timescale is dependent on the disk surface density $\Sigma(r)$ and temperature $T(r)$, we find that for a given metallicity, \[C/H\], there is a maximum distance $r_{max}$ from the central star out to which planetesimal formation is possible. At larger distances from the host star, the dust settling timescale exceeds the disk lifetime and so carbon planets with semi-major axes $r > r_{max}$ are not expected to form. A plot of the maximum semi-major axis expected for planet formation around a CEMP-no star as a function of the carbon abundance relative to the Sun \[C/H\] is shown in Figure 1 for carbon condensation efficiencies ranging between $f_{cond}$ = 0.1 and 1. As discovered in @2012ApJ...751...81J where the critical iron abundance for terrestrial planet formation is considered as a function of the distance from the host star, we find a linear relation between \[C/H\] and $r_{max}$, $$\textrm{[C/H]}=\log{\left(\frac{r_{max}}{1 \textrm{ AU}}\right)}-\alpha$$ where $\alpha$ = 1.3, 1.7, and 1.9 for $f_{cond}$ = 0.1, 0.5, and 1, respectively, assuming an initial grain size of $a_{init}$ = 0.1 $\mu$m. These values for $\alpha$ change by less than 1% for smaller initial grain sizes, $a_{init}$ = 0.01 $\mu$m, and by no more than 5% for larger initial grain sizes $a_{init}$ = 1 $\mu$m; given this weak dependence on $a_{init}$, we only show our results for a single initial grain size of $a_{init}$ = 0.1 $\mu$m. The distance from the host star at which the temperature of the disk approaches the sublimation temperature of carbon dust, $T_{sub,C} \sim$ 2000 K , is depicted as well (dash-dotted gray curve). At distances closer to the central star than $r \simeq$ 0.02 AU, temperatures well exceed the sublimation temperature of carbon grains; grain growth and subsequent carbon planetesimal formation are therefore quenched in this inner region.
Figure 1 shows lines representing various observed CEMP stars with measured carbon abundances, mainly, HE0107-5240 [@2002Natur.419..904C; @2004ApJ...603..708C], SDSS J0212+0137 , SDSS J1742+2531 , G77-61 , and HE2356-0410 [@1997ApJ...489L.169N; @2014AJ....147..136R]. These stars all have iron abundances (relative to solar) \[Fe/H\] $<$ -3.0, carbon abundances (relative to solar) \[C/Fe\] $>$ 2.0, and carbon-to-oxygen ratios C/O $>$ 1. This latter criteria maximizes the abundance of solid carbon available for planet formation in the circumstellar disks by optimizing carbon grain growth both in stratified SNe ejecta and later, in the collapsing molecular birth clouds of these stars. It also advances the possibility of carbon planet formation by ensuring that planet formation proceeds by a carbon-rich condensation sequence in the protoplanetary disk. SDSS J0212+0137 and HE2356-0410 have both been classified as CEMP-no stars, with measured barium abundances \[Ba/Fe\] $<$ 0 (as defined in ); the other three stars are Ba-indeterminate, with only high upper limits on \[Ba/Fe\], but are believed to belong to the CEMP-no subclass given their light-element abundance patterns. The carbon abundance, \[C/H\], dominates the total metal content of the stellar atmosphere in these five CEMP objects, contributing more than 60% of the total metallicity in these stars. A summary of the relevant properties of the CEMP stars considered in this analysis can be found in Table 1. We find that carbon planets may be orbiting iron-deficient stars with carbon abundances \[C/H\] $\sim$ -0.6, such as HE2356-0410, as far out as $\sim$ 20 AU from their host star in the case where $f_{cond}$ = 1. Planets forming around stars with less carbon enhancement, i.e. HE0107-5240 with \[C/H\] $\sim$ -1.6, are expected to have more compact orbits, with semi-major axes $r <$ 2 AU. If the carbon condensation efficiency is only 10%, the expected orbits grow even more compact, with maximum semi-major axes of $\sim$ 5 and 0.5 AU, respectively.
Mass-Radius Relationship for Carbon Planets
===========================================
Next we present the relationship between the mass and radius of carbon planets that we have shown may theoretically form around CEMP-no stars. These mass-radius relations have already been derived in the literature for a wide range of rocky and icy exoplanet compositions [@1969ApJ...158..809Z; @2004Icar..169..499L; @2006Icar..181..545V; @2007ApJ...659.1661F; @2007ApJ...669.1279S]. Here, we follow the approach of @1969ApJ...158..809Z and solve the three canonical equations of internal structure for solid planets,
1. mass conservation $$\frac{dm(r)}{dr}=4\pi r^2 \rho(r) \,,$$
2. hydrostatic equilbrium $$\frac{dP(r)}{dr}=-\frac{Gm(r)\rho(r)}{r^2} \,,\,\,\textrm{and}$$
3. the equation of state (EOS) $$P(r) = f\left(\rho(r),T(r)\right) \,,$$
where $m(r)$ is the mass contained within radius $r$, $P(r)$ is the pressure, $\rho(r)$ is the density of the spherical planet, and $f$ is the unique equation of state (EOS) of the material of interest, in this case, carbon.
Carbon grains in circumstellar disks most likely experience many shock events during planetesimal formation which may result in the modification of their structure. The coagulation of dust into clumps, the fragmentation of the disk into clusters of dust clumps, the merging of these clusters into $\sim$ 1 km planetesimals, the collision of planetesimals during the accretion of meteorite parent bodies, and the subsequent collision of the parent bodies after their formation all induce strong shock waves that are expected to chemically and physically alter the materials [@Mimurabook]. Subject to these high temperatures and pressures, the amorphous carbon grains polluting the protoplanetary disks around CEMP stars are expected to undergo graphitization and may even crystallize into diamond . In our calculations, the equation of state at low pressures, $P \leq$ 14 GPa, is set to the third-order finite strain Birch-Murnagham EOS (BME; @1947PhRv...71..809B [@Poirierbook]) for graphite, $$P=\frac{3}{2}K_0\left(\eta^{7/3}-\eta^{5/3}\right)\left[1+\frac{3}{4}\left(K_0^'-4\right)\left(\eta^{2/3}-1\right)\right]$$ where $\eta=\rho/\rho_0$ is the compression ratio with respect to the ambient density, $\rho_0$, $K_0$ is the bulk modulus of the material, and $K_0^'$ is the pressure derivative. Empirical fits to experimental data yields a BME EOS of graphite ($\rho_0$ = 2.25 g cm$^{-3}$) with parameters $K_0$ = 33.8 GPa and $K_0^'$ = 8.9 [@1989PhRvB..3912598H]. At 14 GPa, we incorporate the phase transition from graphite to diamond [@1976Natur.259...38N; @1989PhRvB..3912598H] and adopt the Vinet EOS [@1987JGR....92.9319V; @1989JPCM....1.1941V], $$P=3K_0\eta^{2/3}\left(1-\eta^{-1/3}\right)\exp{\left[\frac{3}{2}\left(K_0^'-1\right)\left(1-\eta^{-1/3}\right)\right]}$$ with $K_0$ = 444.5 GPa and $K_0^'$ = 4.18 empirically fit for diamond, $\rho_0$ = 3.51 g cm$^{-3}$ [@2008PhRvB..77i4106D]. (As pointed out in @2007ApJ...669.1279S, the BME EOS is not fit to be extrapolated to high pressures since it is derived by expanding the elastic potential energy as a function of pressure keeping only the lowest order terms.) Finally, at pressures $P \gtrsim$ 1300 GPa where electron degeneracy becomes increasingly important, we use the Thomas-Fermi-Dirac (TFD) theoretical EOS (@1967PhRv..158..876S; equations (40)-(49)), which intersects the diamond EOS at $P \sim$ 1300 GPa. Given that the full temperature-dependent carbon EOSs are either undetermined or dubious at best, all three EOSs adopted in this work are room-temperature EOSs for the sake of practical simplification.
{width="105mm" height="80mm"}
Using a fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme, we solve the system of equations simultaneously, numerically integrating equations (11) and (12) begining at the planet’s center with the inner boundary conditions $M(r=0)$ = 0 and $P(r=0)$ = $P_{\textrm{central}}$, where $P_{\textrm{central}}$ is the central pressure. The outer boundary condition $P(r=R_p)$ = 0 then defines the planetary radius $R_p$ and total planetary mass $M_p = m(r=R_p)$. Integrating these equations for a range of $P_{\textrm{central}}$, with the appropriate EOS, $P=P(\rho)$, to close the system of equations, yields the mass-radius relationship for a given composition. We show this mass-radius relation for a purely solid carbon planet in Figure 2. We find that for masses $M_p \lesssim$ 800 M$_\oplus$, gravitational forces are small compared with electrostatic Coulomb forces in hydrostatic equilibrium and so the planet’s radius increases with increasing mass, $R_p \propto M_p^{1/3}$. However, at larger masses, the electrons are pressure-ionized and the resulting degeneracy pressure becomes significant, causing the planet radius to become constant and even decrease for increasing mass, $R_p \propto M_p^{-1/3}$ [@Hubbardbook]. Planets which fall within the mass range 500 $\lesssim M_p \lesssim$ 1300 M$_\oplus$, where the competing effects of Coulomb forces and electron degeneracy pressure cancel each other out, are expected to be approximately the same size, with $R_p \simeq$ 4.3 R$_\oplus$, the maximum radius of a solid carbon planet. (In the case of gas giants, the planet radius can increase due to accretion of hydrogen and helium.)
Although the mass-radius relation illustrated in Figure 2 may alone not be enough to confidently distinguish a carbon planet from a water or silicate planet, the unique spectral features in the atmospheres of these carbon planets may provide the needed fingerprints. At high temperatures ($T \gtrsim$ 1000 K), the absorption spectra of massive ($M \sim$ 10 - 60 M$_\oplus$) carbon planets are expected to be dominated by CO, in contrast with the H$_2$O-dominated spectra of hot massive planets with solar-composition atmospheres [@2005astro.ph..4214K]. The atmospheres of low-mass ($M \lesssim$ 10 M$_\oplus$) carbon planets are also expected to be differentiable from their solar-composition counterparts due to their abundance of CO and CH$_4$, and lack of oxygen-rich gases like CO$_2$, O$_2$, and O$_3$ [@2005astro.ph..4214K]. Furthermore, carbon planets of all masses at low temperatures are expected to accommodate hydrocarbon synthesis in their atmospheres; stable long-chain hydrocarbons are therefore another signature feature that can help observers distinguish the atmospheres of cold carbon planets and more confidently determine the bulk composition of a detected planet [@2005astro.ph..4214K].
Transit Properties
==================
The detection of theoretically proposed carbon planets around CEMP stars will provide us with significant clues regarding how early planet formation may have started in the Universe. While direct detection of these extrasolar planets remains difficult given the low luminosity of most planets, techniques such as the transit method are often employed to indirectly spot exoplanets and determine physical parameters of the planetary system. When a planet “transits" in front of its host star, it partially occludes the star and causes its’ observed brightness to drop by a minute amount. If the host star is observed during one of these transits, the resulting dip in its measured light curve can yield information regarding the relevant sizes of the star and the planet, the orbital semi-major axis, and the orbital inclination, among other characterizing properties.
{width="105mm" height="80mm"}
A planetary transit across a star is characterized by three main parameters: the fractional change in the stellar brightness, the orbital period, and the duration of the transit . The fractional change in brightness is referred to as the transit depth, $\Delta F$ (with a total observed flux $F$), and is simply defined as the ratio of the planet’s area to the host star’s area [@2003ApJ...585.1038S], $$\Delta F = \frac{F_{\textrm{no transit}}-F_{\textrm{transit}}}{F_{\textrm{no transit}}}=\left(\frac{R_p}{R_*}\right)^2 \,.$$ Given the stellar radius $R_*$, measurements of the relative flux change $\Delta F$ yield estimates of the size of the planet $R_p$, and the corresponding planetary mass $M_p$ if the mass-radius relation for the planet is known. Using the $R_p$-$M_p$ relation derived in §4, we illustrate in Figure 3 how the transit depth varies as a function of planetary mass in the case where a pure carbon planet transits across the face of its host CEMP star. Curves are shown for each of the five CEMP stars considered in this study, where we assume a stellar mass of $M_*$ = 0.8 M$_\odot$ (representative of the low masses associated with old, iron-poor stellar objects) and derive the stellar radii using the stellar surface gravities $g$ listed in Table 1, $R_* = \sqrt{GM_*/g}$.
![Maximum orbital period of a carbon planet transiting across its host CEMP star as a function of the star’s metallicity, expressed as the carbon abundance relative to that of the Sun, \[C/H\]. The dotted, dashed, and solid black curves denote the results obtained assuming carbon condensation efficiencies of 10%, 50%, and 100% in the parent CEMP star with mass $M_*$ = 0.8 M$_\odot$. The colored vertical lines represent the five CEMP stars considered in this paper with measured carbon abundances \[C/H\].](Period-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="105mm" height="80mm"}
As can be seen in Figure 3, the relative change in flux caused by an Earth-mass carbon planet transiting across its host CEMP star ranges from $\sim$0.0001% for a host stellar radius of $R_* \sim$ 10 R$_\odot$ to $\sim$0.01% for a solar-sized stellar object. These shallow transit depths are thus expected to evade detection by ground-based transit surveys, which are generally limited in sensitivity to fractional flux changes on the order of 0.1% [@2009IAUS..253..319B]. To push the limits of detection down to smaller, low-mass terrestrial planets requires space-based transit surveys that continuously monitor a large number of potential host stars over several years and measure their respective transit light curves. There are a number of ongoing, planned, and proposed space missions committed to this cause, including CoRot (COnvection ROtation and planetary Transits), Kepler, PLATO (PLAnetary Transits and Oscillations of stars), TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite), and ASTrO (All Sky Transit Observer), which are expected to achieve precisions as low as 20-30 ppm (parts per million) . With the ability to measure transit depths as shallow as $\Delta F \sim$ 0.001%, these space transit surveys offer a promising avenue towards detecting the planetary systems that may have formed around CEMP stars.
{width="200mm" height="100mm"}
.
The orbital period of a planet $P$, which can be determined if consecutive transits are observed, is given by Kepler’s third law in the case of a circular orbit, $$P^2=\frac{4\pi^2 a^3}{G(M_*+M_p)}\simeq\frac{4\pi^2 a^3}{GM_*}$$ where $a$ is the orbital semi-major axis and the planetary mass is assumed to be negligible relative to the stellar mass, $M_p \ll M_*$, in the second equality. Given the relation we derived in equation (10) between the metallicity \[C/H\] and the maximum semi-major axis allowed for a planet orbiting a CEMP star, the maximum orbital period of the planet can be expressed as a function of the metallicity of the host CEMP star ($M_*$ = 0.8 M$_\odot$), $$P_{\textrm{max}}\simeq 365.25 \frac{10^{\frac{3}{2}(\textrm{[C/H]}+\alpha)}}{\sqrt{M_*/\textrm{M}_\odot}} \textrm{ days}$$ where $\alpha \simeq$ 1.3, 1.7, and 1.9 for carbon condensation efficiencies of 10%, 50%, and 100%. As can be seen in Figure 4, CEMP stars with higher carbon abundances \[C/H\], i.e. G77-61 and HE2356-0410, and larger efficiencies for carbon dust condensation $f_{cond}$, can host planets with wider orbits and slower rotations, resulting in transits as infrequently as once every couple hundred years. Conversely, carbon planets orbiting relatively less carbon-rich CEMP stars, like SDSSJ0212+0137, are expected to have higher rates of transit reoccurrence, completing rotations around their parent stars every $\sim$ 1-10 years. These shorter period planets therefore have a much higher probability of producing an observable transit.
The maximum duration of the transit, $T$, can also be expressed as a function of the metallicity \[C/H\] of the parent CEMP star. For transits across the center of a star, the total duration is given by, $$T\simeq2R_*\sqrt{\frac{a}{GM_*}}$$ with the assumption that $M_p\ll M_*$ and $R_p\ll R_*$. Once again, using the relation from equation (10) to express the maximum orbital distance from the host star in terms of the star’s carbon abundance, we find that the maximum transit duration of a carbon planet across its parent CEMP star ($M_*$ = 0.8 M$_\odot$) is $$T_{max}\simeq 13\,\frac{R_*}{\textrm{R}_\odot}\sqrt{\frac{10^{\textrm{[C/H]}+\alpha}}{M_*/\textrm{M}_\odot}} \textrm{ hrs}\,\,.$$ In Figure 5, these maximum durations are shown as a function of \[C/H\] for the various stellar radii associated with the CEMP stars we consider in this paper. Transits across CEMP stars with larger radii and higher carbon abundances are expected to take much longer. While the total transit duration across SDSSJ0212+0137 and SDSSJ1742+2531 with $R_*\sim$ 1.5 R$_\odot$ and metallicities of \[C/H\] $\sim$ -1.3 – -1.2, is at most $\sim$ 1-2 days, transits across HE0107-5240 ($R_*\sim$ 12 R$_\odot$, \[C/H\]$\sim$ -1.6) can take up to 2 weeks ($f_{cond}$ = 1). In general, the geometric probability of a planet passing between the observer and the planet’s parent star increases with stellar radius and decreases with orbital radius, $p_t \simeq R_*/a$ [@2007MNRAS.380.1488K]. Therefore, focusing on CEMP stars, such as HE0107-5240 and HE2356-0410, with large stellar radii increases the observer’s chance of spotting transits and detecting a planetary system.
Discussion
==========
We explored in this paper the possibility of carbon planet formation around the iron-deficient, carbon-rich subset of low-mass stars known as CEMP stars. The observed abundance patterns of CEMP-no stars suggest that these stellar objects were probably born out of gas enriched by massive first-generation stars that ended their lives as Type II SNe with low levels of mixing and a high degree of fallback. The formation of dust grains in the ejecta of these primordial core-collapsing SNe progenitors has been observationally confirmed and theoretically studied. In particular, amorphous carbon is the only grain species found to condense and form in non-negligible amounts in SN explosion models that are tailored to reproduce the abundance patterns measured in CEMP-no stars. Under such circumstances, the gas clouds which collapse and fragment to form CEMP-no stars and their protoplanetary disks may contain significant amounts of carbon dust grains imported from SNe ejecta. The enrichment of solid carbon in the protoplanetary disks of CEMP stars may then be further enhanced by Fischer-Trope-type reactions and carbon-rich condensation sequences, where the latter occurs specifically in nebular gas with C/O $\gtrsim$ 1.
For a given metallicity \[C/H\] of the host CEMP star, the maximum distance out to which planetesimal formation is possible can then be determined by comparing the dust-settling timescale in the protostellar disk to the expected disk lifetime. Assuming that disk dissipation is driven by a metallicity-dependent photoevaporation rate, we find a linear relation between \[C/H\] and the maximum semi-major axis of a carbon planet orbiting its host CEMP star. Very carbon-rich CEMP stars, such as G77-61 and HE2356-0410 with \[C/H\] $\simeq$ -0.7 – -0.6, can host carbon planets with semi-major axes as large $\sim$ 20 AU for 100% carbon condensation efficiencies; this maximum orbital distance reduces to $\sim$ 5 AU when the condensation efficiency drops by an order of magnitude. In the case of the observed CEMP-no stars HE0107-5240, SDSSJ0212+0137, and SDSSJ1742+2531, where the carbon abundances are in the range \[C/H\] $\simeq$ -1.6 – -1.2, we expect more compact orbits, with maximum orbital distances $r_{max} \simeq$ 2, 4, and 6 AU, respectively, for $f_{cond}$ = 1 and $r_{max} \simeq$ 0.5 - 1 AU for $f_{cond}$ = 0.1.
We then use the linear relation found between \[C/H\] and $r_{max}$ (§3), along with the theoretical mass-radius relation derived for a solid, pure carbon planet (§4), to compute the three observable characteristics of planetary transits: the orbital period, the transit depth, and the transit duration. We find that the relative change in flux, $\Delta F$, caused by an Earth-mass carbon planet transiting across its host CEMP star ranges from $\sim$ 0.0001% for a stellar radius of $R_* \sim$ 10 R$_\odot$ to $\sim$ 0.01% for a solar-sized stellar host. While the shallow transit depths of Earth-mass carbon planets around HE0107-5240 and HE2356-0410 may evade detection, current and future space-based transit surveys promise to achieve the precision levels ($\Delta F \sim$ 0.001%) necessary to detect planetary systems around CEMP stars such as SDSSJ0212+0137, SDSSJ1742+2531, and G77-61.
Short orbital periods and long transit durations are also key ingredients in boosting the probability of transit detection by observers. G77-61 is not an optimal candidate in these respects since given its large carbon abundance (\[C/Fe\] $\sim$ 3.4), carbon planets may form out to very large distances and take up to a century to complete an orbit around the star for $f_{cond}$ = 1 ($P_{max} \sim$ 10 years for 10% carbon condensation efficiency). The small stellar radius, $R_* \sim$ 0.5 R$_\odot$, also reduces chances of spotting the transit since the resulting transit duration is only $\sim$ 30 hours at most. Carbon planets around larger CEMP stars with an equally carbon-rich protoplanetary disk, such as HE2356-0410 ($R_* \sim$ 7 R$_\odot$), have a better chance of being spotted, with transit durations lasting up to $\sim$ 3 weeks. The CEMP-stars SDSSJ0212+0137, and SDSSJ1742+2531 are expected to host carbon planets with much shorter orbits, $P_{max} \sim$ 16 years for 100% condensation efficiency ($P_{max} \sim$ 1 year for $f_{cond}$ = 0.1), and transit durations that last as long as $\sim$ 60 hours. If the ability to measure transit depths improves to a precision of 1 ppm, then potential carbon planets around HE0107-5240 are the most likely to be spotted (among the group of CEMP-no stars considered in this paper), transiting across the host star at least once every $\sim$ 5 months (10% condensation efficiency) with a transit duration of 6 days.
While our calculations place upper bounds on the distance from the host star out to which carbon planets can form, we note that orbital migration may alter a planet’s location in the circumstellar disk. As implied by the existence of ‘hot Jupiters’, it is possible for a protoplanet that forms at radius $r$ to migrate inward either through gravitational interactions with other protoplanets, resonant interactions with planetesimals with more compact orbits, or tidal interactions with gas in the surrounding disk [@2006RPPh...69..119P]. Since Figure 1 only plots $r_{max}$, the $maximum$ distance out to which a carbon planet with \[C/H\] can form, our results remain consistent in the case of an inward migration. However, unless planets migrate inward from their place of birth in the disk, we do not expect to find carbon exoplanets orbiting closer than $r \simeq$ 0.02 AU from the host stars since at such close proximities, temperatures are high enough to sublimate carbon dust grains.
Protoplanets can also be gravitationally scattered into wider orbits through interactions with planetesimals in the disk[@1999AJ....117.3041H; @2009ApJ...696.1600V]. Such an outward migration of carbon planets may result in observations that are inconsistent with the curves in Figure 1. A planet that formed at radius $r \ll r_{max}$ still has room to migrate outwards without violating the ‘maximum distance’ depicted in Figure 1; however, the outward migration of a carbon planet that originally formed at, or near, $r_{max}$ would result in a breach of the upper bounds placed on the transiting properties of carbon planets (Section 5). In particular, a carbon planet that migrates to a semi-major axis $r > r_{max}$ will have an orbital period and a transit duration time that exceeds the limits prescribed in equations (18) and (20), respectively.
Detection of the carbon planets that we suggest may have formed around CEMP stars will provide us with significant clues regarding how planet formation may have started in the early Universe. The formation of planetary systems not only signifies an increasing degree of complexity in the young Universe, but it also carries implications for the development of life at this early junction [@2014IJAsB..13..337L]. The lowest metallicity planetary system detected to date is around BD+20 24 57, a K2-giant with \[Fe/H\] = -1.0 [@2009ApJ...707..768N], a metallicity already well below the critical value once believed to be necessary for planet formation [@2001Icar..152..185G; @2005MNRAS.364...29P]. More recent formulations of the minimum metallicity required for planet formation are consistent with this observation, estimating that the first Earth-like planets likely formed around stars with metallicities \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim$ -1.0 [@2012ApJ...751...81J]. The CEMP stars considered in this paper are extremely iron-deficient, with \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim$ -3.2, and yet, given the enhanced carbon abundances which dominate the total metal content in these stars ( \[C/H\] $\gtrsim$ -1.6), the formation of solid carbon exoplanets in the protoplanetary disks of CEMP stars remains a real possibility. An observational program aimed at searching for carbon planets around these low-mass Population II stars could therefore potentially shed light on the question of how early planets, and subsequently, life could have formed after the Big Bang.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are thankful to Sean Andrews and Karin Öberg for helpful discussions and feedback. This work was supported in part by NSF grant AST-1312034. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE1144152. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Andrews S. M., Williams J. P., 2005, ApJ, 631, 1134 Andrews S. M., Wilner D. J., Hughes A. M., Qi C., Dullemond C. P., 2009, ApJ, 700, 1502 Andrews S. M., Wilner D. J., Hughes A. M., Qi C., Dullemond C. P., 2010, ApJ, 723, 1241 Aoki W., Beers T. C., Christlieb N., Norris J. E., Ryan S. G., Tsangarides S., 2007, ApJ, 655, 492 Aoki W., 2010, IAUS, 265, 111 Armitage, P. J., 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation, Cambridge Univ. Press. Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Barkana R., Loeb A., 2001, PhR, 349, 125 Beckwith S. V. W., Henning T., Nakagawa Y., 2000, prpl.conf, 533 Beers T. C., Preston G. W., Shectman S. A., 1985, AJ, 90, 2089 Beers T. C., Preston G. W., Shectman S. A., 1992, AJ, 103, 1987 Beers T. C., Christlieb N., 2005, ARA&A, 43, 531 Beers T. C., Sivarani T., Marsteller B., Lee Y., Rossi S., Plez B., 2007, AJ, 133, 1193 Beichman C. A., Greene T., Krist J., 2009, IAUS, 253, 319 Birch F., 1947, PhRv, 71, 809 Bonifacio P., et al., 2015, A&A, 579, A28 Bond J. C., O’Brien D. P., Lauretta D. S., 2010, ApJ, 715, 1050 Borucki W. J., Dunham E. W., Koch D. G., Cochran W. D., Rose J. D., Cullers D. K., Granados A., Jenkins J. M., 1996, Ap&SS, 241, 111 Bromm V., Loeb A., 2003, Natur, 425, 812 Bromm V., Larson R. B., 2004, ARA&A, 42, 79 Campbell S. W., Lugaro M., Karakas A. I., 2010, A&A, 522, L6 Carollo D., et al., 2012, ApJ, 744, 195 Carter-Bond J. C., O’Brien D. P., Delgado Mena E., Israelian G., Santos N. C., Gonz[á]{}lez Hern[á]{}ndez J. I., 2012, ApJ, 747, L2 Carter-Bond J. C., O’Brien D. P., Raymond S. N., 2012, ApJ, 760, 44 Christlieb N., et al., 2002, Natur, 419, 904 Christlieb N., Gustafsson B., Korn A. J., Barklem P. S., Beers T. C., Bessell M. S., Karlsson T., Mizuno-Wiedner M., 2004, ApJ, 603, 708 Christlieb N., Sch[ö]{}rck T., Frebel A., Beers T. C., Wisotzki L., Reimers D., 2008, A&A, 484, 721 Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., 2008, ApJ, 672, 757 Collet R., Asplund M., Trampedach R., 2006, ApJ, 644, L121 Cooke R. J., Madau P., 2014, ApJ, 791, 116 Dahn C. C., Liebert J., Kron R. G., Spinrad H., Hintzen P. M., 1977, ApJ, 216, 757 de Bennassuti M., Schneider R., Valiante R., Salvadori S., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3039 Dewaele A., Datchi F., Loubeyre P., Mezouar M., 2008, PhRvB, 77, 094106 Dullemond C. P., Dominik C., 2005, A&A, 434, 971 Dunne L., Eales S., Ivison R., Morgan H., Edmunds M., 2003, Natur, 424, 285 Elmhamdi A., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 939 Ercolano B., Clarke C. J., Drake J. J., 2009, ApJ, 699, 1639 Ercolano B., Clarke C. J., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2735 Fortney J. J., Marley M. S., Barnes J. W., 2007, ApJ, 659, 1661 Fujimoto M. Y., Ikeda Y., Iben I., Jr., 2000, ApJ, 529, L25 Frebel A., Johnson J. L., Bromm V., 2007, MNRAS, 380, L40 Frebel A., Norris J. E., 2015, ARA&A, 53, 631 Gonzalez G., Brownlee D., Ward P., 2001, Icar, 152, 185 Gorti U., Hollenbach D., 2009, ApJ, 690, 1539 Hahn J. M., Malhotra R., 1999, AJ, 117, 3041 Hanfland M., Beister H., Syassen K., 1989, PhRvB, 39, 12598 Hirschi R., 2007, A&A, 461, 571
Hubbard W. B., 1984, Planetary Interiors, Van Nostrand Reinhold. Indebetouw R., et al., 2014, ApJ, 782, L2 Ishigaki M. N., Tominaga N., Kobayashi C., Nomoto K., 2014, ApJ, 792, L32 Iwamoto N., Umeda H., Tominaga N., Nomoto K., Maeda K., 2005, Sci, 309, 451 Janson M., Bonavita M., Klahr H., Lafreni[è]{}re D., Jayawardhana R., Zinnecker H., 2011, ApJ, 736, 89 Ji A. P., Frebel A., Bromm V., 2014, ApJ, 782, 95 Joggerst C. C., Woosley S. E., Heger A., 2009, ApJ, 693, 1780 Johansen A., Youdin A., Mac Low M.-M., 2009, ApJ, 704, L75 Johnson J. L., Li H., 2012, ApJ, 751, 81 Kane S. R., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1488 Keller S. C., et al., 2014, Natur, 506, 463 Kobayashi H., Kimura H., Watanabe S.-i., Yamamoto T., M[ü]{}ller S., 2011, EP&S, 63, 1067 Kornet K., Bodenheimer P., R[ó]{}[ż]{}yczka M., Stepinski T. F., 2005, A&A, 430, 1133 Kozasa T., Hasegawa H., Nomoto K., 1989, ApJ, 344, 325 Kress M. E., Tielens A. G. G. M., 2001, M&PS, 36, 75 Kuchner M. J., Seager S., 2005, astro, arXiv:astro-ph/0504214 Larimer J. W., 1975, GeCoA, 39, 389 L[é]{}ger A., et al., 2004, Icar, 169, 499 Lissauer J. J., 1993, ARA&A, 31, 129 Llorca J., Casanova I., 1998, M&PS, 33, Loeb A., Furlanetto S.R., 2013, The First Galaxies in the Universe, Princeton Univ. Press. Loeb A., 2014, IJAsB, 13, 337 Lucy L. B., Danziger I. J., Gouiffes C., Bouchet P., 1989, LNP, 350, 164 Madhusudhan N., et al., 2011, Natur, 469, 64 Madhusudhan N., Lee K. K. M., Mousis O., 2012, ApJ, 759, L40 Marassi S., Chiaki G., Schneider R., Limongi M., Omukai K., Nozawa T., Chieffi A., Yoshida N., 2014, ApJ, 794, 100 Marassi S., Schneider R., Limongi M., Chieffi A., Bocchio M., Bianchi S., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4250 Masseron T., Johnson J. A., Plez B., van Eck S., Primas F., Goriely S., Jorissen A., 2010, A&A, 509, A93 Meynet G., Ekstr[ö]{}m S., Maeder A., 2006, A&A, 447, 623 Meynet G., Hirschi R., Ekstrom S., Maeder A., Georgy C., Eggenberger P., Chiappini C., 2010, A&A, 521, A30 Mimura K., Sugisaki R., 2003, Shock Reactions of Carbon-Bearing Materials and Their Cosmochemical Significance, In *High-Pressure Shock Compression of Solids V*, Springer. Nagasawa M., Thommes E. W., Kenyon S. J., Bromley B. C., Lin D. N. C., 2007, prpl.conf, 639 Naka S., Horii K., Takeda Y., Hanawa T., 1976, Natur, 259, 38 Niedzielski A., Nowak G., Adam[ó]{}w M., Wolszczan A., 2009, ApJ, 707, 768 Norris J. E., Ryan S. G., Beers T. C., 1997, ApJ, 489, L169 Norris J. E., et al., 2013, ApJ, 762, 28 Nozawa T., Kozasa T., Umeda H., Maeda K., Nomoto K., 2003, ApJ, 598, 785 Onodera A., Higashi K., Irie Y., 1988, JMatS, 23, 422 Papaloizou J. C. B., Terquem C., 2006, RPPh, 69, 119 Papoular R., Conard J., Guillois O., Nenner I., Reynaud C., Rouzaud J.-N., 1996, A&A, 315, 222 Pinotti R., Arany-Prado L., Lyra W., Porto de Mello G. F., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 29 Plez B., Cohen J. G., 2005, A&A, 434, 1117 Poirier J. P., 2000, Introduction to the Physics of the Earth’s Interior, Cambridge Univ. Press. Rieke G. H., 2008, Formation and evolution of terrestrial planets in protoplanetary and debris disks, In *Exoplanets: Detection, Formation, Properties, Habitability*, Springer. Roederer I. U., Preston G. W., Thompson I. B., Shectman S. A., Sneden C., Burley G. S., Kelson D. D., 2014, AJ, 147, 136 Salpeter E. E., Zapolsky H. S., 1967, PhRv, 158, 876 Seager S., Mall[é]{}n-Ornelas G., 2003, ApJ, 585, 1038 Seager S., Kuchner M., Hier-Majumder C. A., Militzer B., 2007, ApJ, 669, 1279 Suda T., Aikawa M., Machida M. N., Fujimoto M. Y., Iben I., Jr., 2004, ApJ, 611, 476 Takai K., Oga, M., Sato H., Enoki T., Ohki Y., Taomoto A., Suenaga K., Iijima S., 2003, Phys. Rev. B, 67, 214202 Tegmark M., Silk J., Rees M. J., Blanchard A., Abel T., Palla F., 1997, ApJ, 474, 1 Tielens A. G. G. M., Seab C. G., Hollenbach D. J., McKee C. F., 1987, ApJ, 319, L109 Todini P., Ferrara A., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 726 Tominaga N., Maeda K., Umeda H., Nomoto Tominaga N., Umeda H., Nomoto K., 2007, ApJ, 660, 516 K., Tanaka M., Iwamoto N., Suzuki T., Mazzali P. A., 2007, ApJ, 657, L77 Tominaga N., Iwamoto N., Nomoto K., 2014, ApJ, 785, 98 Umeda H., Nomoto K., 2003, Natur, 422, 871 Umeda H., Nomoto K., 2005, ApJ, 619, 427 Valencia D., O’Connell R. J., Sasselov D., 2006, Icar, 181, 545 Veras D., Crepp J. R., Ford E. B., 2009, ApJ, 696, 1600 Vinet P., Ferrante J., Rose J. H., Smith J. R., 1987, JGR, 92, 9319 Vinet P., Rose J. H., Ferrante J., Smith J. R., 1989, JPCM, 1, 1941 Weidenschilling S. J., 1988, Formation processes and time scales for meteorite parent bodies, In *Meteorites and the early solar system*, Univ. of Arizona Press. Weidenschilling S. J., Cuzzi, J. N.,1993, Formation of planetesimals in the solar nebula, In *Protostars & Planets III*, Univ. of Arizona Press. Winn J. N., Fabrycky D. C., 2015, ARA&A, 53, 409 Wisotzki L., Koehler T., Groote D., Reimers D., 1996, A&AS, 115, 227 Yanny B., et al., 2009, AJ, 137, 4377-4399 Yasui C., Kobayashi N., Tokunaga A. T., Saito M., Tokoku C., 2009, ApJ, 705, 54 Yong D., et al., 2013, ApJ, 762, 27 York D. G., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 Yoshida N., Abel T., Hernquist L., Sugiyama N., 2003, ApJ, 592, 645 Zapolsky H. S., Salpeter E. E., 1969, ApJ, 158, 809 Zinner E., 1998, M&PS, 33, 549
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this fluid dynamics video, we show thermocapillary actuation of a binary drop of water and heptanol where the binary drop in motion takes on a UFO-like shape. On a parylene-coated silicon surface subjected to a linear temperature gradient, a pure heptanol droplet quickly moves to the cold side by the Marangoni stress, while a pure water droplet remains stuck due to a large contact angle hysteresis. When the water droplet was encapsulated by a thin layer of heptanol and thermally actuated, the binary droplet takes on a peculiar shape resembling an UFO, i.e. an “unidentified” floating object as the mechanism is not yet completely understood. Our finding suggests that pure liquid droplets (e.g. aqueous solutions) that are not conducive to thermocapillary actuation can be made so by encapsulating them with another judiciously chosen liquid (e.g. heptanol).'
author:
- |
Yuejun Zhao and Chuan-Hua Chen\
\
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science,\
Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
title: 'UFO: “Unidentified” Floating Object Driven by Thermocapillarity'
---
Introduction
============
[Video 1](http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/8237/2/LIFTED_H2_EMS
T_FUEL.mpg) includes all necessary information and videos.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We applied canonical transformation to water wave equation not only to remove cubic nonlinear terms but to simplify drastically fourth order terms in Hamiltonian. This transformation explicitly uses the fact of vanishing exact four waves interaction for water gravity waves for 2D potential fluid. After the transformation well-known but cumbersome Zakharov equation is drastically simplified and can be written in X-space in compact way. This new equation is very suitable as for analytic study as for numerical simulation. Localized in space breather-type solution was found. Numerical simulation of collision of two such breathers strongly supports hypothesis of integrability of 2-D free surface hydrodynamics.'
address:
- 'Novosibirsk State University, Pirogova 2,Novosibirsk-90, 630090, Russia'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 857201, USA'
- 'Physical Institute of RAS, Leninskiy prospekt, 53, Moscow, 119991, Russia'
- 'Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, 2 Kosygin str., Moscow, 119334, Russia'
author:
- 'A.I. Dyachenko,'
- 'V.E. Zakharov'
- 'and D.I. Kachulin'
title: Collision of two breathers at surface of deep water
---
[ ]{}
free surface, gravity waves, Zakharov equation, breather, integrability
Introduction
============
The work described here is motivated by two remarkable facts regarding one-dimensional free surface hydrodynamics:
- In [@DZ94] it was shown that four-wave interaction coefficient vanishes on the resonant manifold $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RES_MAN}
k + k_1 & = & k_2 + k_3,\cr
\omega_k + \omega_{k_1} & = & \omega_{k_2} + \omega_{k_3}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
- In [@DZ08; @ZD10] it was demonstrated that giant breather, highly nonlinear, exists on the fluid surface without radiation. Moreover, space-time spectrum of the breather consists of waves propagating in the same direction.
These two facts bring the idea that fourth order wave interactions can be drastically simplified by some canonical transformation of the Hamiltonian. Below we show how this transformation looks like. Dynamic equation derived using this transformation is very elegant and simple. It can be easily generalized for “almost” one-dimensional waves.
Compact equation
================
A one-dimensional potential flow of an ideal incompressible fluid with a free surface in a gravity field fluid is described by the following set of equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\phi_{xx} + \phi_{zz} &=& 0 \hspace{1cm} (\phi_z\to 0, z\to -\infty), \nonumber\\
\eta_t + \eta_x\phi_x &=& \phi_z\bigg|_{z=\eta}\nonumber\cr
\phi_t + \frac{1}{2}(\phi_x^2 + \phi_z^2) + g\eta &=& {0\bigg|_{z=\eta}};\end{aligned}$$ here $\eta(x,t)$ - is the shape of a surface, $\phi(x,z,t)$ - is a potential function of the flow and $g$ - is a gravitational acceleration. As was shown in[@Z68], the variables $\eta(x,t)$ and $\psi(x,t) = \phi(x,z,t)\bigg|_{z=\eta}$ are canonically conjugated, and satisfy the equations
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} =
-\frac{\delta H}{\delta \eta} \hspace{2cm}
\frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t} = \frac{\delta H}{\delta \psi}.$$
Here $H=K+U$ is the total energy of the fluid with the following kinetic and potential energy terms:
$$K = \frac{1}{2}\int\!dx\!\int_{-\infty}^\eta\,v^2\!dz \hspace{1cm}
U = \frac{g}{2}\int \eta^2\!dx$$
It is convenient to introduce normal complex variable $a_k$:
$$\nonumber
\eta_k = \sqrt{\frac{\omega_k}{2g}}(a_k+a^*_{-k}) \hspace{.5cm}
\psi_k = -i\sqrt{\frac{g}{2\omega_k}}(a_k-a^*_{-k})$$
here $\omega_k = \sqrt{gk}$ -is the dispersion law for the gravity waves, and Fourier transformations $\psi(x)\rightarrow\psi_k$ and $\eta(x)\rightarrow\eta_k$ are defined as follows: $$f_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int f(x)e^{-ikx}dx, \hspace{2em}
f(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int f_k e^{+ikx}dk.$$ Hamiltonian can be expanded in an infinite series in powers of $a_k$ (see)
$$\nonumber
H = H_2 + H_3 + H4 + \ldots$$
This variable $a_k$ satisfies the equation
$$\nonumber
\frac{\partial a_k}{\partial t} + i\frac{\delta H}{\delta a_k^*}=0,$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
H_2 & = & \int\!\omega_k a_k a_k^*dk,\nonumber\cr
H_3 & = & \int\!V^{k}_{k_1 k_2}\{a_k^*a_{k_1}a_{k_2}+a_k a_{k_1}^*a_{k_2}^*\}
\delta_{k-k_1-k_2}\!dkdk_1dk_2\nonumber\cr
&+&\frac{1}{3}\int\!U_{k k_1 k_2}\{a_ka_{k_1}a_{k_2}+a_k^*a_{k_1}^*a_{k_2}^*\}
\delta_{k+k_1+k_2}\!dkdk_1dk_2\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
V^{k}_{k_1 k_2} & = & \frac{g^{\frac{1}{4}}}{8\sqrt{\pi}}\left(
\left(k\over{k_1k_2}\right)^{1\over4}L_{k_1k_2}-
\left(k_2\over{kk_1}\right)^{1\over4}L_{-kk_1} -
\left(k_1\over{kk_2}\right)^{1\over4}L_{-kk_2}
\right)\nonumber\cr
U_{k k_1 k_2} & = & \frac{g^{\frac{1}{4}}}{8\sqrt{\pi}}\left(
\left(k\over{k_1k_2}\right)^{1\over4}L_{k_1k_2}+
\left(k_2\over{kk_1}\right)^{1\over4}L_{kk_1} +
\left(k_1\over{kk_2}\right)^{1\over4}L_{kk_2}
\right)\end{aligned}$$
$$\nonumber
L_{kk_1} = (\vec{k} \vec{k_1}) + |k||k_1|$$
Fourth order part of Hamiltonian is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
H_4 &=&
\frac{1}{2}\int W_{k_1k_2}^{k_3k_4}a_{k_1}^*a_{k_2}^*a_{k_3}a_{k_4}\delta_{k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4}dk_1dk_2dk_3dk_4 +\cr
&+&\frac{1}{3}\int G_{k_1k_2k_3}^{k_4}
(a_{k_1}^*a_{k_2}^*a_{k_3}^*a_{k_4}+a_{k_1}a_{k_2}a_{k_3}a_{k_4}^*\delta_{k_1+k_2+k_3-k_4}dk_1dk_2dk_3dk_4 +\cr
&+&\frac{1}{12}\int R_{k_1k_2k_3k_4}
(a_{k_1}^*a_{k_2}^*a_{k_3}^*a_{k_4}^*+a_{k_1}a_{k_2}a_{k_3}a_{k_4})\delta_{k_1+k_2+k_3+k_4}dk_1dk_2dk_3dk_4\end{aligned}$$ Here $W_{k_1k_2}^{k_3k_4}$, $G_{k_1k_2k_3}^{k_4}$ and $R_{k_1k_2k_3k_4}$ are equal to: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
W_{k_1k_2}^{k_3k_4} = \frac{-1}{32\pi}&&\left [
M_{-k_3-k_4}^{k_1k_2} + M_{k_1k_2}^{-k_3-k_4} - M_{k_2-k_4}^{k_1-k_3} -
M_{k_1-k_4}^{k_2-k_3} - M_{k_2-k_3}^{k_1-k_4} - M_{k_1-k_3}^{k_2-k_4}
\right ]\cr
G_{k_1k_2k_3}^{k_4} = \frac{-1}{32\pi}&&\left [
M_{k_1k_2}^{k_3-k_4} + M_{k_1k_3}^{k_2-k_4} + M_{k_2k_3}^{k_1-k_4} -
M_{k_3-k_4}^{k_1k_2} - M_{k_2-k_4}^{k_1k_3} - M_{k_1-k_4}^{k_2k_3}
\right ]\cr
R_{k_1k_2k_3k_4} = \frac{-1}{32\pi}&&\left [
M_{k_1k_2}^{k_3k_4} + M_{k_1k_3}^{k_2k_4} + M_{k_1k_4}^{k_2k_3} +
M_{k_2k_3}^{k_1k_4} + M_{k_2k_4}^{k_1k_3} + M_{k_3k_4}^{k_1k_2}
\right ].\end{aligned}$$ Here $$M_{k_1k_2}^{k_3k_4} = |k_1k_2|^{\frac{3}{4}}|k_3k_4|^{\frac{1}{4}}(|k_1+k_3|+|k_1+k_4|+|k_2+k_3|+|k_2+k_4|-2|k_1|-2|k_2|).$$ Now one can apply canonical transformation from variables $a_k$ to $b_k$ to exclude non resonant cubic terms along with non resonant fourth order terms with coefficients $G_{k_1k_2k_3}^{k_4}$ and $R_{k_1k_2k_3k_4}$. This transformation up to the accuracy $O(b^5)$ has the form [@Z68; @KRS91; @ZLF92]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TRANSFORMATION}
a_k &=& b_k+\int\Gamma^{k}_{k_1k_2}b_{k_1}b_{k_2}\delta_{k-k_1-k_2}dk_1dk_2
-2\int\Gamma^{k_2}_{kk_1}b_{k_1}^*b_{k_2}\delta_{k+k_1-k_2}dk_1dk_2+\cr
&+&\int\Gamma_{kk_1k_2}b_{k_1}^*b_{k_2}^*\delta_{k+k_1+k_2}dk_1dk_2
+\int B_{kk_1}^{k_2k_3}b_{k_1}^*b_{k_2}b_{k_3}\delta_{k+k_1-k_2-k_3}dk_1dk_2dk_3+\cr
&+&\int C_{kk_1k_2}^{k_3}b_{k_1}^*b_{k_2}^*b_{k_3}\delta_{k+k_1+k_2-k_3}dk_1dk_2dk_3
+\int S_{kk_1k_2k_3}b_{k_1}^*b_{k_2}^*b_{k_3}^*\delta_{k+k_1+k_2+k_3}dk_1dk_2dk_3.\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
B_{kk_1}^{k_2k_3} &=& \Gamma^{k_1}_{k_1-k_2} \Gamma^{k_3}_{kk_3-k}
+ \Gamma^{k_1}_{k_3k_1-k_3} \Gamma^{k_2}_{kk_2-k} -
\Gamma^{k}_{k_2k-k_2} \Gamma^{k_3}_{k_1k_3-k_1}
- \Gamma^{k_1}_{k_3k_1-k_3} \Gamma^{k_2}_{k_1k_2-k_1}-\nonumber\cr
&-& \Gamma^{k+k_1}_{kk_1} \Gamma^{k_2+k_3}_{k_2k_3}
+ \Gamma_{-k-k_1kk_1} \Gamma_{-k_2-k_3k_2k_3}+\tilde B_{k_2k_3}^{kk_1},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Gamma^{k}_{k_1k_2} = -{V^{k}_{k_1k_2}\over{\omega_k-\omega_{k_1}-\omega_{k_2}}},\hspace{0.8cm}
\Gamma_{kk_1k_2} = -{U_{kk_1k_2}\over{\omega_k+\omega_{k_1}+\omega_{k_2}}}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and $\tilde B_{k_2k_3}^{kk_1}$ is an arbitrary function satisfying the following symmetry conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tilde B_{k_2k_3}^{kk_1} = \tilde B_{k_2k_3}^{k_1k} =
\tilde B_{k_3k_2}^{kk_1} = -(\tilde B_{kk_1}^{k_2k_3})^*.\end{aligned}$$ Coefficients $C_{kk_1k_2}^{k_3}$ and $S_{kk_1k_2k_3}$ provide vanishing corresponding forth-order terms in the new Hamiltonian.
Details of this transformation can be found in [@DZ2011-1; @DZ2011-2]. In K-space Hamiltonian has the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal H}_ = \int \omega_k|b_k|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\int \tilde T_{k_1k_2}^{k_3k_4}b_{k_1}^*b_{k_2}^*b_{k_3}b_{k_4}\delta_{k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4}dk_1dk_2dk_3dk_4 \end{aligned}$$ In X-space it corresponds to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SPACE}
{\cal H} = \int\!b^*\hat\omega_k bdx +
\frac{i}{16}\int\!\left [ {b^*}^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ({b'}^2) -
b^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ({{b^*}'}^2) \right ]dx
-\frac{1}{4}\int\!|b|^2 \cdot \hat K(|b'|^2)dx.\end{aligned}$$ Here $b' = \frac{\partial }{\partial x}b$. After integrating by parts Hamiltonian acquires very nice form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SPACE_NICE}
{\cal H} = \int\!b^*\hat\omega_k bdx +
\frac{1}{4}\int\!|b'|^2\left [\frac{i}{2}(bb'^* - b^*b') -\hat K|b|^2 \right ] dx.\end{aligned}$$
Corresponding equation of motion is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MotionSPACE}
i\frac{\partial b}{\partial t} = \hat\omega_k b
+\frac{i}{8}\left [ b^* \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ({b'}^2) -
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}( {b^*}' \frac{\partial}{\partial x}b^2) \right ]
-\frac{1}{4} \left [ b \cdot \hat K(|b'|^2) - \frac{\partial}{\partial x}(b'\hat K (|b|^2))\right ].\end{aligned}$$
Monochromatic wave and modulational instability
===============================================
Monochromatic wave $$\label{Mono}
b(x) = B_0 e^{i(k_0x - \omega_0 t)}$$ is the simplest solution of (\[MotionSPACE\]). Indeed, plugging (\[Mono\]) in to the equation (\[MotionSPACE\]) one can get the following relation $$\label{StokesShift}
\omega_0 = \omega_{k_0} +\frac{1}{2}k_0^3 |B_0|^2.$$ Recalling transformation from $a_k$ to $b_k$ one can see that for waves with small amplitude ( $a_k\simeq b_k$) $$|B_0|^2 = \frac{\omega_{k_0}}{k_0}\eta_0^2,$$ and relation (\[StokesShift\]) coincides with well known Stokes correction to the frequency due to finite wave amplitude. $$\label{SS}
\omega_0 = \omega_{k_0}(1 +\frac{1}{2}k_0^2 |\eta_0|^2).$$
Modulational instability of monochromatic wave
----------------------------------------------
Let us consider perturbation to the solution $$b = B_{0}e^{i(k_0x - \omega_0 t)}$$ where $$B_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int b_{k_0}e^{i(k_0x - kx)}dx$$ and $$\omega_0 = \omega_{k_0} + \frac{1}{2}|B_0|^2 k_0^3, \hspace{2em} \frac{1}{4\pi}|b_{k_0}|^2 k_0^3 =
\frac{1}{2}T_{k_0 k_0}^{k_0 k_0}|b_{k_0}|^2.$$ Perturbed solution has the following form: $$\label{PERTK}
b \Rightarrow (b_{k_0} +
\delta b_{k_0+k}e^{-i\Omega_k t} + \delta b_{k_0-k}e^{-i\Omega_{-k} t})e^{-i\omega_0 t}.$$ with the following condition: $$\Omega_{k} = -\Omega_{-k}$$ Plugging perturbed solution (\[PERTK\]) in to the equation $$i\dot b_k = \omega_k b_k +\frac{1}{2}\int \tilde T_{k_2k_3}^{kk_1}b^*_{k_1}b_{k_2}b_{k_3}
\delta_{k+k_1-k_2-k_3}\!dk_1\!dk_2\!dk_3$$ we get the sum of two independent equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hspace{-1cm}\left [
i\delta \dot b_{k_0+k} +(\omega_0+\Omega_{k})\delta b_{k_0+k}\right .
&=& \left . \omega_{k_0+k}\delta b_{k_0+k}
+\tilde T^{k_0+k k_0}_{k_0+k k_0}|b_{k_0}|^2\delta b_{k_0+k}+
\frac{1}{2}\tilde T_{k_0 k_0}^{k_0+k k_0-k}b_{k_0}^2\delta b^*_{k_0-k}
\right ] e^{-i\omega_0t - i\Omega_{k} t}+\cr
\hspace{-1cm}+\left [
i\delta \dot b_{k_0-k} +(\omega_0+\Omega_{-k})\delta b_{k_0-k} \right .
&=& \left . \omega_{k_0-k}\delta b_{k_0-k}
+\tilde T_{k_0-k k_0}^{k_0-k k_0}|b_{k_0}|^2\delta b_{k_0-k}+
\frac{1}{2}\tilde T_{k_0 k_0}^{k_0-k k_0+k}b_{k_0}^2\delta b^*_{k_0+k}
\right ]
e^{-i\omega_0t - i\Omega_{-k} t}.\end{aligned}$$ Expressions for $\tilde T^{k_0+k k_0}_{k_0+k k_0}$ and $T_{k_0 k_0}^{k_0-k k_0+k}$ can be easily obtained: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TT}
\tilde T^{k_0+k k_0}_{k_0+k k_0} &=& \frac{k_0^3}{4\pi} + \frac{k_0(3k_0-|k|)}{4\pi}k +
\frac{k_0}{4\pi}(k_0^2 - k_0|k| +k^2),\\
T_{k_0 k_0}^{k_0-k k_0+k} &=& \frac{k_0}{2\pi}(k_0^2 - k_0|k| - \frac{k^2}{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Looking at even and odd powers of $k$ one can see that $$\Omega_k = \frac{\omega_{k_0+k} - \omega_{k_0-k}}{2} + \frac{|B_0|^2}{2}(3k_0-|k|)k$$ Let us denote $$d(k) = \frac{\omega_{k_0+k} - 2\omega_{k_0}+\omega_{k_0-k}}{2}.$$ Then $$i\delta \dot b_{k_0+k} = d(k)\delta b_{k_0+k} + \frac{|B_0|^2k_0}{2}(k_0^2-k_0|k|+k^2)\delta b_{k_0+k}+
\frac{B_0^2k_0}{2}(k_0^2-k_0|k|-\frac{k^2}{2})\delta b^*_{k_0-k}.$$ Suppose $\delta b_{k_0+k}$ growth as $$\delta b_{k_0+k} \Rightarrow \delta b_{k_0+k}e^{\gamma_k t}$$ one can easily obtain the following formula for $\gamma_k$: $$\label{GrowtRate}
\gamma_k^2 = \left [-d(k)-\frac{3|B_0|^2}{4}k_0 k^2\right]\left [d(k) +|B_0|^2 k_0(k_0-\frac{|k|}{2})^2\right ].$$ If we introduce steepness of the carrier wave $\omega_{k_0}\mu^2 = |B_0|^2k_0^2$ and approximate $d(k)$ as $$d(k) \simeq -\frac{1}{8}\omega''_{k_0}k^2 = -\frac{1}{8}\omega_{k_0}\frac{k^2}{k_0^2},$$ then for growth rate is $$\label{GR}
\gamma_k^2 = \frac{1}{8}\frac{\omega_{k_0}^2}{k_0^4}(1-{\bf 6\mu^2})k^2
\left [\mu^2(k_0 - {\bf \frac{|k|}{2}})^2-\frac{k^2}{8} \right ].$$ The difference between this formula and well-known expression derived from the nonlinear Schrodinger equation is highlighted by two boldfaced terms.
Breathers and numerical sumulation of its collisions
====================================================
Breather is the localized solution of (\[MotionSPACE\]) of the following type: $$\label{NLS}
b(x,t) = B(x-Vt) e^{i(k_0x - \omega_0 t)},$$ where $k_0$ is the wavenumber of the carrier wave, $V$ is the group velocity and $\omega_0$ is the frequency close to $\omega_{k_0}$. In the Fourier space breather can be written as follow: $$\label{BK}
b_k(t) = e^{-i(\Omega t + Vk)}\phi_k,$$ where $\Omega$ is close to $\frac{\omega_{k_0}}{2}$.
For $\phi_k$ the following equation is valid: $$\label{BREATHER}
(\Omega + Vk -\omega_k) \phi_k = \int \tilde T_{k k_1,k_2 k_3}\phi_{k_1}^* \phi_{k_2}\phi_{k_3}
\delta_{k+k_1-k_2-k_3}dk_1dk_2dk_3.$$ One can treat $\phi_k$ as pure real function of $k$.
To solve equation (\[BREATHER\]) one can use Petviashvili iteration method: $$\label{PETV}
(\Omega + Vk -\omega_k) \phi_k^{n+1} = M^n\int \tilde T_{k k_1,k_2 k_3}{\phi_{k_1}^*}^n \phi_{k_2}^n\phi_{k_3}^n
\delta_{k+k_1-k_2-k_3}dk_1dk_2dk_3.$$ Petviashvili coefficient $M$ is the following: $$M^n = \left [ \frac{<\phi_k^n (\Omega + Vk -\omega_k)\phi_k^n>}{<\phi_k^n\int \tilde T_{k k_1,k_2 k_3}{\phi_{k_1}^*}^n \phi_{k_2}^n\phi_{k_3}^n
\delta_{k+k_1-k_2-k_3}dk_1dk_2dk_3 >}\right ] ^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$ Below we present typical numerical solution of (\[BREATHER\]). Calculation were made in the periodic domain $2\pi$ with carier wavenumber $k_0\sim 25$, $V=0.1$ and $\Omega=2.53$.[^1]. In the Figures \[FIG\_01\], \[FIG\_02\], \[FIG\_03\] one can see real part of$b(x)$, modulus of $b(x)$ and Fourier spectrum of $b(x)$.
Very important question from the point of view of integrability of the equation (\[MotionSPACE\]) is the question about collision of two breathers. To study breathers collision we performed the following numerical simulation:
- As initial condition we have used two beathers separated in space (distance was $\pi$.)
- First breather has the following parameters: $\Omega_1 = 5.1$, $V_1=0.05$. Carrier wave number appears to be $\sim 100$.
- For the second breather - $\Omega_2 = 2.53$, $V_2=0.1$. Carrier wave number appears to be $\sim 25$
This initial condition is show in Figure \[FIG\_04\].
Its Fourier spectrum is shown in Figure \[FIG\_05\].
After time $\frac{\pi}{(V_2-V_1)}\simeq 62.8$ breathers collide. In the Figures \[FIG\_06\] and \[FIG\_07\] one can see breathers at the time close to collision ($t = 50$) and at the moment of collision ($t = 63$).
Fourier spectrum of two breathers at $t=63$ is shown in Figure \[FIG\_08\].
And finally we show the picture of two breathers at $t=126$ when they separated again at distance $\simeq\pi$. Real part of $b(x)$ and Fourier spectrum of that is given in Figures \[FIG\_09\], \[FIG\_10\].
So, the simulation demonstrates no interaction of breathers. It suggests that equation (\[MotionSPACE\]) is integrable.
Conclusion
==========
Simple equation describing evolution of 1-D water waves is derived. Derivation of this equation is based on the important property of vanishing four-wave interaction for gravity water waves. This property allows to simplify drastically well-known Zakharov’s equation for water waves, which is very cumbersome. Written in X-space instead of K-space, it allows further analytical and numerical study. The equation has breather-type solution which was found numerically using Petviashvili iteration method. Numerical simulation of collision of two breathers shows behavior which is typical for integrable system. It can be considered as numerical proof of integrability.
This new equation can be generalized for the “almost” 2-D waves, or “almost” 3-D fluid. When considering waves slightly inhomogeneous in transverse direction, one can think in the spirit of Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation for Korteveg-de-Vries equation, namely one can treat now frequency $\omega_k$ as two dimensional, $\omega_{k_x,ky}$, while leaving coefficient $\tilde T_{k_2k_3}^{kk_1}$ not dependent on $y$. $b$ now depends on both $x$ and $y$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KP}
{\cal H} = \int\!b^*\hat\omega_{k_x, k_y} bdxdy +
\frac{1}{4}\int\!|b'_x|^2\left [\frac{i}{2}(bb'^*_x - b^*b'_x) -\hat K_x|b|^2 \right ] dxdy.\end{aligned}$$
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by Grant of Government of Russian Federation for support of scientific research, carried under direction of leading scientists in russian universities N11.G34.31.0035 (leading scientist – Zakharov V.E., GOU VPO “Novosibirsk State University”). Also was it was supported by the US Army Corps of Engineers Grant W912-BU-08-P-0143, by ONR Grant N00014-10-1-0991, NSF Grant DMS 0404577, Grant NOPP “TSA-a two scale approximation for wind-generated ocean surface waves”, RFBR Grant 09-01-00631 and RFBR Grant 09-05-13605, the Program “Fundamental Problems in Nonlinear Dynamics” from the RAS Presidium, and Grant “Leading Scientific Schools of Russia”.
[99]{} Dyachenko A.I. and V.E.Zakharov V.E., [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**190**]{}, (1994), 144-148. Dyachenko A.I. and Zakharov V.E, Pis’ma v ZhETF, [**88**]{}, (2008) 356. Zakharov V.E and Dyachenko A.I, European Journal of Mechanics, B/Fluids, [**29(2)**]{}, (2010), 127-131.
Zakharov,V.E., Prikl.Mekh.Tekh.Fiz.(in Russian), [**2**]{}, (1968), 190 Crawford,D.E., Yuen,H.G. and Saffman,P.G., Wave Motion, [**2**]{}, (1980), 1 Krasitskii,V.P., Sov. Phys. JETP, [**71**]{},(1990), 921 Zakharov V.E., Lvov V.S. and Falkovich G., “Kolmogorov Spectra of Turbulence I”, Springer-Verlag, 1992. A.I. Dyachenko and V.E. Zakharov, “Compact equation for gravity waves on deep water”, JETP Letters, 93, (12), (2011) 701.
A.I. Dyachenko, V.E. Zakharov, “On dynamical equation for water waves in one horizontal dimension”, European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 7 September 2011.
[^1]: steepness of carrier wave $\mu$ must not exeed the crical value $\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}$ as it follows from formula for growt rate of modulatinal instability (\[GR\])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Some pioneering works have investigated embedding cryptographic properties in compressive sampling (CS) in a way similar to one-time pad symmetric cipher. This paper tackles the problem of constructing a CS-based symmetric cipher under the key reuse circumstance, i.e., the cipher is resistant to common attacks even a fixed measurement matrix is used [multiple]{} times. To this end, we suggest a bi-level protected CS (BLP-CS) model [which makes use of]{} the advantage of the [non-RIP measurement matrix construction]{}. Specifically, two kinds of artificial basis mismatch techniques are investigated to construct key-related sparsifying bases. It is demonstrated that the encoding process of BLP-CS is simply a random linear projection, which is the same as the basic CS model. However, decoding the linear measurements requires knowledge of both the key-dependent sensing matrix and its sparsifying basis. [The proposed model]{} is exemplified by sampling images [as a joint data acquisition and protection layer for resource-limited wireless sensors. Simulation results and numerical analyses have justified that the new model can be applied in circumstances where the measurement matrix can be re-used.]{}
compressive sampling, restricted isometry property, encryption, known/chosen-plaintext attack, random projection.
author:
- |
Leo Yu Zhang, , Kwok-Wo Wong, ,\
Yushu Zhang, [Jiantao Zhou, ,]{} [^1] [^2] [^3]
title: '[[Bi-level Protected Compressive Sampling]{}]{} [^4] '
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Compressive sampling (CS) has received extensive research attention in the last decade [@Donoho:CSIntro:TIT06; @Candes:IntroCS:SPM08; @Richard:CSIntro:SPM07]. By utilizing the fact that natural signals are either sparse or compressible, the CS theory demonstrates that such signals can be faithfully recovered from a small set of linear, nonadaptive measurements, allowing sampling at a rate lower than that required by the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
The use of CS for security purposes was first outlined in one of the foundation papers [@Candes:CS:TIT06], in which Candes and Tao suggested that the measurement vector obtained from random [subspace]{} linear projection can be treated as ciphertext since the [unauthorized user]{} would not be able to decode it unless he knows in which random subspace the coefficients are expressed. In this way, the entire CS scheme can be considered as a variant of symmetric cipher, [where the signal to be sampled, the measurement vector and the measurement matrix are treated as the plaintext, the ciphertext and the secret key, respectively]{}. [It is a favorable characteristic that certain kind of data protection mechanism can be embedded into the data acquisition stage. Such a property of CS is of particular importance for data acquisition systems in sensor networks, where each sensor is usually resource-limited and a separate cryptographic layer is too expensive for secure data transmission. Example applications work under this circumstance include visual sensor networks [@winkler2014security], video surveillance networks [@dufaux2008scrambling] and etc. Meanwhile, CS paradigm also found to be useful for medical systems, especially in the case that sampling speed [@lustig2007sparse] and privacy [@barrows1996privacy] are two major concerns.]{} [There are a]{} number of studies exploring the security that [a CS-based symmetric cipher]{} can provide from the computation point of view. For example, it was shown in [@Rachlin:secrecy:08] that the measurement matrix leads to computational secrecy under some attack scenarios, such as brute-force attack and ciphertext only attack (COA). Based on this result, there were many attempts in establishing secure measurement matrices. In [@dautov:establishing:2013], constructing the measurement matrix using physical layer properties and linear feedback shift register (LFSR) with the corresponding $m$-sequence was proposed. [In [@tong2011compressive], Tong *et al.* suggested constructing CS measurement matrix by chaotic sequence for privacy protection in video sequence. In [@Cambareri:TwoClassCS:2013], Cambareri *et al.* employed CS to provide two access levels by artificially carrying out sign flips to a subset of the measurement matrix. In this way, the first-class decoder, who can access full knowledge of the measurement matrix, can retrieve the signal faithfully while the second-class decoder, who can only access partial knowledge of the measurement matrix, subjects to a quality degradation during reconstruction. The work was later extended to multi-class low-complexity CS-based encryption [@cambareri2015low].]{}
[Another research area of the secrecy of CS lies in the information theory frame. It is shown in [@yangsecurity] that CS-based cryptosystems fail to satisfy both Shannon’s and Wyner’s perfect Secrecy. In this context, Cambareri *et al.* [@cambareri2015low] defined an achievable security metric, i.e., asymptotic spherical security, for CS-based cipher. Basically, it states that the statistical properties of the random measurements only leak information about the plaintexts’ energy. Based on this observation, Bianchi *et al.* [@Bianchi:SecRLM:ICASSP14] suggested that re-normalizing every measurement vector and treating the normalized measurements as the ciphertext will lead to a perfect “securized" CS-based cipher with the help of an auxiliary secure channel to transmit the energy of the real measurement vector.]{}
[ It should be noted that all the above security features of CS-based ciphers are obtained under limited attack models, i.e., the adversary is permitted to work out the secret key or plaintext from ciphertext only or to search the entire key space. Under more threatening scenarios, such as known-plaintext attack (KPA) and chosen-plaintext attack (CPA), the adversary can easily reveal the measurement matrix (secret key in a CS-based cipher) if he is able to collect sufficient amount of independent plaintexts. As such, to maintain their respective security features, all the results mentioned above must work in a one-time-sampling (OTS) manner, i.e., the measurement matrix is never re-used. ]{}
[ Assume that a $K\times M$ measurement matrix is produced by using a secure deterministic random number generator (SDRNG) from a secret key shared between the encoder and decoder. We note that this is exactly the case of the traditional one-time-pad (OTP) cipher [@shannon1949communication]. If a sparse signal belongs to $\{0, 1\}^{M}$, it requires exactly $M$ bits to perfectly protect this signal when OTP cipher is applied. For the case of OTS, it requires at least $K\times M$ bits (if the Bernoulli matrix is used) to sample (encrypt) the signal. From this sense, the OTS CS-based cipher indeed reduces the service life of the SDRNG. Meanwhile, generating a different measurement matrix for every signal could be energy-consuming. Additionally, for engineering practice, using the same measurement matrix for multiple signals or signal segments flavors the subsequent source coding stage of multimedia data sensing, as discussed in [@mun2012dpcm; @liu2014joint]. Based on these observations, it is concluded that investigating the behavior of CS-based cipher under the multi-time-sampling (MTS) scenario is both important from the cryptographic and engineering point of view. ]{}
[ The work presented in [@cambareriknown] offers an intimate view for MTS CS-based cipher, where a second-class user in the two-class CS encryption [@cambareri2015low] tries to upgrade the recovery quality by studying only one pair of known-plaintext and ciphertext. Restricting the measurement matrix to the form of Bernoulli matrix, it is shown in [@cambareriknown] that the number of candidate measurement matrices matching a single pair of known plaintext and ciphertext is too huge for the adversary to search for the true one. Still, the result only holds for a single plaintext-ciphertext pair while in typical KPA the adversary can access a large amount of plaintexts and the corresponding ciphertexts. Thus, the true measurement matrix may be determined uniquely. The same argument also applies to the case of CPA. ]{}
[ A straight forward solution to support the usage of CS in MTS scenario is to encrypt the entire or only the significant part of the quantized measurement vector using some conventional cryptographic method, such as AES or RSA. However, as we mentioned earlier, a standalone encryption layer can be too costly for a CS sensor and this approach does not take advantage of the confidentiality provided by CS itself. ]{}
[ Another approach to achieve this goal is to embed other efficient cryptographic primitives in the the CS encoding process. This is exactly the idea of product cipher introduced by Shannon [@shannon1949communication], who suggested combining two or more cryptographic primitives together such that the product is more secure than individual component against cryptanalysis.]{}
[ In [@zeng2012scrambling], Zeng *et al.* proposed a speech encryption algorithm by scrambling the CS measurements. A similar idea was later applied for secure remote image sensing [@huang2015compression]. For the purpose of image acquisition and confidentiality, Zhang *et al.* [@yushu:SCS:14arxiv] suggested scrambling the frequency coefficients before the CS encoding instead of scrambling the CS samples. Note that scrambling the frequency coefficients is a mature technique for multimedia confidentiality in traditional coding system [@Wenjun:FrequencyScrambling:TM03], the main advantage of employing this technique in the CS paradigm is that a so-called “acceptable" permutation can make the column (or row) sparsity level of $2$D signals uniform [@Fang:permutation:TSP13], thus relaxing the restricted isometry property (RIP) of the measurement matrix and flavoring a parallel CS (PCS) reconstruction model. The same technique is also used for privacy protection in cloud-assisted image service [@wu2014low]. Another popular approach to form product cipher for MTS usage of compressive imaging is to employ an optical encryption primitive, i.e., double-random phase encoding (DRPE) technique, such as those proposed in [@deepan2014multiple; @rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive]. There is also work that try to embed low-complexity nonlinear diffusion into the measurements quantization stage to enhance security of CS-based cipher [@leozhang2015joint]. ]{}
[ Although the above mentioned product ciphers are efficient, generally they cannot resist CPA in MTS scenario (this issue will be discussed in detail in Sec. \[subsec:B\] and \[subsec:C\]). The reason for the difficulty in applying CS-based cipher for MTS usage is due to the characteristic of CS itself: 1) the signal to be sensed must be sparse; 2) the encoding process is linear. For this reason, embedding some high-security primitives before CS encoding will probably make the signal noise-like and not sparse anymore. On the other hand, the introduction of any non-linear cryptographic primitive in CS paradigm will break the linearity of the sampling process and make the recovery infeasible. ]{}
[ Our work moves one step further for the usage of CS-based cipher under MTS scenario. Start with a RIPless reconstruction observation, we study how to embed security features in sparsifying bases under the sparse constraint. In more detail, we suggest a bi-level protected CS (BLP-CS) framework, which can be viewed as a product cipher of the basic CS model and transform-domain encryption technique under the sparse constraint. In particular, we propose several techniques to construct secret key-related sparsifying basis and incorporate them into our BLP-CS model. At the encoding stage, this model can be viewed as a new design of the measurement matrix, thus the encoding is the same as that of the original CS model. However, a successful decoding requires knowledge of the key-dependent sensing matrix and key-related sparsifying basis. In this way, the new product cipher can resist CPA. ]{}
[ This paper makes two contributions in the area of embedding secrecy in CS. On the one hand, we propose a CPA-resistant product cipher by utilizing the confidentiality provided by CS. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reprot that the CS-based (product) cipher can resist CPA. On the other hand, we incorporate a cryptographic permutation to the CS encoding stage, thus relaxing the RIP of the measurement matrix and flavoring a PCS reconstruction for $2$D sparse signals. In this sense, our work can be considered as an extension of the work presented in [@Fang:permutation:TSP13]. ]{}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:II\], we first review the CS framework and present [the CPA on CS-based product ciphers]{}. In Sec. \[sec:secIII\], two techniques for constructing secret key-related sparsifying basis are proposed to establish the bi-level protection model. [Sec. \[sec:discussion\] presents comparisons of the OTS CS-based cipher and our BLP-CS model from complexity and security point of view. ]{} As an application example, the new model is used to sample digital images in Sec. \[sec:Sec4\]. The superiority of the new CS-based image cipher is justified by both theoretical analyses and simulation results. Our work is concluded in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
[Security Defects of Existing CS-based Ciphers in MTS Scenario]{} {#sec:II}
=================================================================
[ As we mentioned earlier, there exists some effort to support CS-based cipher for MTS usage [@zeng2012scrambling; @huang2015compression; @yushu:SCS:14arxiv; @wu2014low; @deepan2014multiple; @rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive]. In this section, we report the fact that all of them fail to resist CPA. To begin with, we briefly review the theory of compressive sampling. ]{}
CS Preliminaries
----------------
We denote a $1$D discrete signal to be sampled as a column vector $\mathbf{x} = (x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_M)^T $. [$2$D signals of size $M = n \times n$, $\mathbf{X} = \left[\mathbf{X}_{i,j}\right]_{i=1, j=1}^{n, n}$, can be vectorized to $1$D format as $\mathbf{x}$ by stacking the columns of $\mathbf{X}$, i.e., $\mathbf{x} = \operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{X})$. ]{} $\mathbf{x}$ is said to be $k$-sparse under $\mathbf{\Psi}$ if there exists a certain sparsifying basis $\mathbf{\Psi} =\{\psi_{i,j}\}_{i=1,j=1}^{M,M}$ such that $\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{\Psi}\mathbf{s}$ and $\|\mathbf{s}\|_0=\# \{\operatorname{supp}{\mathbf{s}}\}=\#\{i:s_i \neq 0\} =k<<M$. [ Here, we emphasize that in almost all of the works about the secrecy of CS, such as [@Rachlin:secrecy:08; @cambareri2015low; @Bianchi:SecRLM:ICASSP14; @cambareriknown; @zeng2012scrambling; @li2015compressive], the role of the basis is ignored or simply treated as an orthnormal matrix. We relax the requirement of the basis to an invertible matrix in this work. The encoding process during CS is a linear projection, i.e.,]{} $$\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{s} =\mathbf{A}\mathbf{s},
\label{eq:samplingspace}$$ [if the sampling is perform in the space/time domain, or equivalently $$\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{s} = \mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{\Psi}^{-1} \mathbf{x} =\mathbf{A}\mathbf{s},
\label{eq:samplingfrequency}$$ if the sampling is performed in the frequency domain.]{}
[The revolutionary finding of CS is that the $K$ dimensional measurement vector $\mathbf{y}$ reserves all the information required for unique and stable recovery of $\mathbf{x}$ even if $k<K \ll M$ provided that the measurement matrix $\mathbf{A}$ obeys some information-preserving guarantees [@Candes:CS:TIT06; @Richard:ProveRIP:2008; @candes2011probabilistic; @kueng2014ripless]. Since the linear systems (\[eq:samplingspace\]) and (\[eq:samplingfrequency\]) are undetermined, both of them have infinite solutions. Considering the signal is sparse, the]{} intuitive way to restore $\mathbf{x}$ is to solve the $l_0$ optimization problem $$\label{eq:l0hard}
\min \|\mathbf{{s}}\|_0~~\text{subject to }\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{A} \mathbf{{s}},$$ to obtain $\mathbf{{s}}$ and then recover $\mathbf{x}$ by $\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{{s}}$. As stated in [@Tao:BPunderRIP:TIT05], solving this problem is NP-hard because it requires an exhaustive search over all subsets of columns of $\mathbf{A}$.
The convex relaxed form of problem (\[eq:l0hard\]) can be expressed as $$\label{eq:l1opt}
\min \|\mathbf{{s}}\|_1~~\text{subject to }\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{A} \mathbf{{s}}.$$ As proved in [@Candes:CS:TIT06], the solution of the $l_1$ problem (\[eq:l1opt\]) is identical to that of (\[eq:l0hard\]) with overwhelming probability provided that $\mathbf{A}$ satisfies RIP. [Examples of widely accepted matrices satisfying RIP including Gaussian ensemble and Bernoulli ensemble with $K = O(k \log M)$ rows. Up to a logarithmic factor, the number of measurements is optimal [@Candes:CS:TIT06]. Here we note that all the previously mentioned approaches of embedding secrecy into CS-based (product) ciphers work with RIP.]{}
[@Richard:ProveRIP:2008] \[def:RIP\] A matrix $\mathbf{A}$ of size $K \times M$ is said to satisfy the restricted isometry property of order $k$ if there exists a constant $\delta_k \in (0,1)$ such that $$(1- \delta_k) \|\mathbf{x}^{(T)}\|_2^2 \leq \|\mathbf{A}^{(T)} \mathbf{x}^{(T)}\|_2^2 \leq (1+ \delta_k) \|\mathbf{x}^{(T)}\|_2^2$$ holds for all column indices sets $T$ with $\#{T}<k$, where $\mathbf{A}^{(T)}$ is a $K \times \#{T}$ matrix composed of the columns indexed by $T$, $\mathbf{x}^{(T)}$ is a vector obtained by retaining only the entries indexed by $T$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ denotes the $l_2$ norm of a vector.
[More generally, let the $K$ rows of $\mathbf{A}$, i.e., $\mathbf{a}_1^T, \cdots, \mathbf{a}_K^T$, be i.i.d. random vectors drawn from a distribution, say $F$. The recently developed RIPless CS theory states that the solution of problem (\[eq:l1opt\]) is unique and equal to that of problem (\[eq:l0hard\]) if the number of measurements grows proportionally to the product of coherence parameter and the condtion number of the covariance matrix [@candes2011probabilistic; @kueng2014ripless], as given by Theorem \[theorem:RIPless\]. ]{}
[@kueng2014ripless] \[theorem:RIPless\] Let $\mathbf{s}$ be a $k$-sparse vector and $\omega \geq 1$. The solution of problem (\[eq:l1opt\]) is unique and equal to that of problem (\[eq:l0hard\]) with probability at least $1-e^{-\omega}$ if the number of measurements fulfills $$K = O(\mu(F) \theta \cdot \omega^2 k \log M),$$ where $\mu$, the coherence parameter, is the smallest number that $$\max_{1\leq i \leq M } |<\mathbf{a}^T, \mathbf{e}_i>| \leq \mu(F)$$ and $\theta$ is the condition number of the covariance matrix $\Sigma= \mathbb{E}[\mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^T]^{1/2}$ with $\mathbf{a}^T$ being a generic row random vector draw from $F$ and $\mathbf{e}_i$ being the canonical basis vector of dimension $M$.
[ What concerns us about the RIP CS and RIPless CS is that the quantity $\mu(F) \theta$ that governs the number of required measurements for successful $l_1$ reconstruction is different. For Gaussian, Bernoulli and partial Fourier matrices, it is shown that $\mu(F) \theta = O(1)$ in [@candes2011probabilistic]. Moreover, it is easy to find out that $\theta =1$ for unitary matrix and $\theta >1$ for generic matrix[^5]. Moreover, the larger the value of $\mu(F)\theta$, the more the samples we need for exact reconstruction in the RIPless setting. We make us of this fact to design the measurement matrix for security purpose.]{}
[ In the subsequent sections, we will show that almost all the CS-based product ciphers mentioned above, i.e., those proposed in [@zeng2012scrambling; @huang2015compression; @yushu:SCS:14arxiv; @wu2014low; @deepan2014multiple; @rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive], fail to resist the CPA under MTS scenario due to the fact that these product ciphers work only under the RIP framework. ]{}
[Scrambling in the Measurements Domain or the Frequency Domain]{} {#subsec:B}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[As described in the previous sections, it is more practical if the same measurement matrix can be re-used multiple times. To this end, there are some attempts trying to incorporate other low-complexity cryptographic primitives to fix the intrinsic security defect of CS in a manner of constructing product ciphers [@zeng2012scrambling; @huang2015compression; @yushu:SCS:14arxiv; @wu2014low]. A common cryptographic technique suitable for this purpose is scrambling (also known as random permutation), which has been widely used in the field of multimedia security [@dufaux2008scrambling; @Wenjun:FrequencyScrambling:TM03]. It should be noted that the works mentioned here and Sec. \[subsec:C\] are based on the RIP theory. Here, we treat the measurement matrix as Gaussian matrix for simplicity[^6].]{}
Roughly speaking, existing works utilizing scrambling for MTS usage of CS can be divided into two classes[^7]:
I. Scrambling is performed on the measurements, such as [@zeng2012scrambling; @huang2015compression];
II. Scrambling is done in the frequency domain, such as [@yushu:SCS:14arxiv; @wu2014low].
The scrambling process can be characterized by a permutation matrix, which is a square binary matrix that has exactly one non-zero element with value $1$ in each row and each column and $0$s elsewhere.
According to Eq. (\[eq:samplingspace\]), class I CS-based product cipher can be expressed as
[rCl]{} \[eq:encryptionBI\] = \_[K]{} = \_[K]{}\_[K]{} = \_[K]{}\_[K]{} ,
where $\mathbf{x}$ is a $k$-sparse signal with dimension $M$ to be sampled (encrypted), $\mathbf{\Psi}$ is a orthnormal sparsifying basis, $\mathbf{P}_{K}$ is a $K \times K$ permutation matrix, $\mathbf{\Phi}_{K}$ is the Gaussian ensemble and $\mathbf{\hat{y}}$ is the ciphertext to be transmitted or store. A difference between this class of product cipher and the basic CS-based ciphers is that the (equivalent) secret key for the product cipher is the permutation matrix $\mathbf{P}_{K}$ and the measurement matrix $\mathbf{\Phi}_{K}$ while only measurement matrix can be utilized as the key in basic CS-based ciphers. Ideally (from the designer’s point of view), the decoding (decryption) is composed of a two-step reconstruction, i.e.,
[rCl]{} &=& \_[K]{} ,\
\_1 &=& \_[K]{} .
However, since both $\mathbf{P}_{K}$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}$ are orthonormal, $\mathbf{P}_{K}\mathbf{\Phi}_{K} \mathbf{\Psi}$, which is a rotation of $\mathbf{\Phi}_{K}$, possess the distribution of a Gaussian ensemble. Governed by the RIP theory, we can simplify the decoding as a single-step optimization
[rCl]{} \_1 &=& \_[K]{}\_[K]{} = \_[K]{}\_[K]{}.
An unauthorized decoder, who can collect ciphertext for any plaintext in CPA scenario, submits a series of artificial signals $\{\mathbf{x}_j \}_{j=1}^{M} = \{(0, \cdots, 0, 1_j, 0, \cdots, 0)^T\}_{j=1}^M$ to the encryption oracle and concludes $\mathbf{P}_{K}\mathbf{\Phi}_{K} = \left[\mathbf{\hat{y}}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{\hat{y}}_M \right]$ using Eq. (\[eq:encryptionBI\]). It is clear that any further using of the same measurement and permutation matrices for security purpose is doomed to fail.
[ For the class II CS-based product ciphers, the same treatment can be applied. According to model (\[eq:samplingfrequency\]), we can rewrite the encoding (encryption) process as $$\mathbf{\hat{y}} = \mathbf{\Phi}_{K} \mathbf{P}_{K} \mathbf{s} = \mathbf{\Phi}_{K} \mathbf{P}_{K} \mathbf{\Psi}^{-1}\mathbf{x}. \nonumber$$ Once again, $\mathbf{\Phi}_{K} \mathbf{P}_{K}$ can jointly working as the measurement matrix and it can be revealed by $M$ independent chosen plaintexts and their corresponding ciphertexts. ]{}
In the following discussion, we will explain how scrambling (known as “acceptable¡± permutation in [@Fang:permutation:TSP13]) relaxes the RIP requirement of the measurement matrix for $2$D sparse signals. Without loss of generality, let $\mathbf{X} = \left[\mathbf{X}_{i,j}\right]_{i=1, j=1}^{n, n}$ be a $2$D signal sparse in the canonic sparsifying basis and $\mathbf{k} = (k_1, k_2, \cdots, k_n)$ be a row vector whose entry denotes the number of nonzero elements of the columns of $\mathbf{X}$. A column by column sampling process of $\mathbf{X}$ can be summarized as $$\mathbf{Y} = \left[\mathbf{y}_1, \mathbf{y}_2, \cdots, \mathbf{y}_n \right]= \mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{\Phi} \left[\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_n \right], \nonumber$$ or equivalently
[rCl]{} () = \^T= () = \^T,
where
[rCl]{} = .
The corresponding parallel (column by column) reconstruction is given by
[rCl]{} \[eq:PCSreconstruction\] \_j\_1 \_j &=& \_j,
where $j\in \{1, 2, \cdots, n\}$ and $\mathbf{\Phi}$ being a typical RIP measurement matrix with $O(\|\mathbf{k}\|_{\infty} \cdot \log n )$ rows. As we can see, the accurate reconstruction is proportional to $\|\mathbf{k}\|_{\infty}$ [@Fang:permutation:TSP13]. The smaller $\|\mathbf{k}\|_{\infty}$ is, the fewer rows $\mathbf{\Phi}$ require for correct recovery or the worse RIP constant $\mathbf{\Phi}$ can stand.
The remaining work is to demonstrate that $\|\mathbf{k}\|_{\infty}$ of $\mathbf{X}$ will decrease with large probability if $\mathbf{X}$ is randomly scrambled. Let $\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{\bar{X}}) = P\cdot \operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{X})$ and $\mathbf{\bar{k}}=(\bar{k}_1, \cdots, \bar{k}_n)$ be the sparsity vector of $\mathbf{\bar{X}}$, we define an acceptable permutation as follows:
A $n^2 \times n^2$ permutation $P$ is said to be acceptable if the following two rules are satisfied:
1. the expectations of the column sparsity of $\mathbf{\bar{X}}$ are the same, i.e., each column expects the same sparsity level;
2. the probability that $\|\mathbf{\bar{k}}\|_{\infty}$ deviates from the expected sparsity level observe a power law decay.
The following property demonstrates the role of (secret) random scrambling for $2$D signals which is sparse in space. By swapping time and frequency, reconstruction model (\[eq:PCSreconstruction\]) can be applied to natural $2$D signals, such as images. The examples demonstrating this phenomenon will be provided in Sec. \[sec:Sec4\].
\[pro:permutation\] Uniform random permutation is an *acceptable* permutation for any $n\times n$ $2$D sparse signal $\mathbf{X}$.
[ To prove this, we recall that uniform random permutation refers to choosing a permutation from all the $(n^2)!$ candidates with equal probability. In other words, each non-zero entry of $\mathbf{X}$ will appear at any location of $\mathbf{\bar{X}}$ with probability $1/n^2$ when $\mathbf{X}$ is processed by uniform random permutation.]{}
[ Since there are $\|\mathbf{k}\|_1$ non-zero entries of $\mathbf{X}$ in total, each entry of its permutated version is nonzero with probability $\|\mathbf{k}\|_1/n^2$. Apparently, the expected sparsity level of $\mathbf{\bar{x}}_j$ is $n\times \frac{\|\mathbf{k}\|_1}{n^2}= \|\mathbf{k}\|_1/n$, which meets the requirements of rule 1).]{}
Treat each column of $\mathbf{\bar{X}}$ as realization of $n$ independent, identically distributed random variables, the probability that $\|\mathbf{\bar{k}}\|_{\infty}$ deviates from the expectation $\|\mathbf{k}\|_1/n$ by $t$ can be characterized by
[rCl]{}\
&= & Prob( (\_j (|[k]{}\_j) -\_1/n ) t)\
&& Prob( ( |[k]{}\_j - \_1/n) t)\
&& e\^[-[2nt\^2]{}]{},
where the last inequality is obtained by applying Hoeffding inequality. Hence finishes the proof.
[Concatenation of CS and DRPE]{} {#subsec:C}
--------------------------------
[ As one of the optical information processing technique, image encryption using DRPE has received a lot of research attention since its first appearance in [@Refregier:DRPE:OL95; @javidi1999method]. This cipher was found insecure against various plaintext attacks [@carnicer2005vulnerability; @frauel2007resistance]. In a different context, CS offers a new approach for hologram compression and sensing in the optical domain [@clemente2013compressive; @rivenson2010compressive]. On the one hand, the concatenation of CS and DRPE enjoys a all-optical implementation and substantially data volume reduction. On the other hand, the secrecy provided by CS may enhance the security level of DRPE, and vice visa. These reasons making cascading CS and DRPE a noticeable alternative to support the MTS usage of CS. In the following discussion, we will point out that the later argument is questionable in MTS scenario since the CPA complexity of this model is exactly the same as that of the basic CS model. ]{}
Considering a discrete and bounded[^8] $2$D data $\mathbf{I}=[\mathbf{I}_{i,j}]$, the DRPE encryption can be formulated as
[rCl]{} \_[i,j]{} &=& ( ( \_[i,j]{} (j2p\_[i,j]{}) ) (j2q\_[u,v]{}) ),
where the random spatial phase mask $\mathbf{P}=[\exp(j2\pi p_{i,j})]$ and the random frequency phase mask $\mathbf{Q}=[\exp(j2\pi q_{u,v})]$ are the secret keys, and $\mathcal{FT}(\mathbf{X}) =\mathbf{F}\mathbf{X} \mathbf{F}^*$ with $\mathbf{\cdot}^*$ being the conjugate transpose and $\mathcal{IF}$ being the inverse Fourier transform. The DRPE decryption is omitted here since it is similar to the encryption process. With these notations, we can also divide the encryption schemes based on concatenation of CS and DRPE into two classes:
I. CS encryption followed by DRPE [@deepan2014multiple];
II. DRPE followed by CS encryption [@rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive].
Considering a $2$D image $\mathbf{X}$ with $M = n\times n $ pixels is sensed by CS with $K=m \times m$ measurements, the algorithms of class I can be modeled as a separate two-step process, i.e.,
[rCl]{} () = (),\
= ( ( \_[i,j]{} (j2p\_[i,j]{}) ) (j2q\_[u,v]{}) ) , \[eq:DRPE\]
where $\mathbf{\Phi}_{m^2 \times n^2}$, $\mathbf{P}_{m \times m}=[\exp(j2\pi p_{i,j})]$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{m \times m}=[\exp(j2\pi q_{u,v})]$ serve as the (equivalent) secret key in the whole process and $\mathbf{C}$ is the ciphertext to deliver or display. As claimed in [@deepan2014multiple], decoding $\mathbf{C}$ should observe a separate DRPE decryption and CS reconstruction, or by a reversed order in algorithms belonging to class II [@rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive]. As such, it is demonstrated that an unauthorized user who cannot access full knowledge of $\mathbf{\Phi}$, $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{Q}$ is not able decrypt $\mathbf{X}$ [@deepan2014multiple; @rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive].
We investigate the real strength against CPA for the approaches mentioned above by first rewriting Eq. (\[eq:DRPE\]) as a matrix form [@frauel2007resistance], i.e.,
[rCl]{} () & = & (),\
& = & \^\* (),
where $\mathbf{\bar{F}}_{m^2\times m^2}$ is the Kronecker product of the Fourier matrices $\mathbf{F}^*$ and $\mathbf{F}$, $\mathbf{\bar{P}}_{m^2\times m^2} ={\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}(\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{P}))$ and $\mathbf{\bar{Q}}_{m^2\times m^2} ={\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}(\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{Q}))$ are the DRPE secret key. By construction, $\mathbf{\bar{P}}$ and $\mathbf{\bar{Q}}$ are unitary matrices. So, it is concluded $\mathbf{T}$ is also a unitary matrices. In this concern, $\mathbf{T}\mathbf{\Phi}$ must be a RIP matrix and thus a single-step optimization can be formulated as[^9]
[rCl]{} \^[-1]{}()\_1 () &=& () .
Once again, the attacker who works under CPA assumption can retrieve $\mathbf{T}\mathbf{\Phi}$ faithfully from $M$ independent plaintexts and the corresponding ciphertexts. Moreover, he can use this information to decode (decrypt) any subsequent ciphertexts. Similarly, we can apply the analyses to class II algorithms and obtain the same conclusion.
The Proposed Scheme {#sec:secIII}
===================
[ As reviewed in the previous section, existing proposals [@zeng2012scrambling; @huang2015compression; @yushu:SCS:14arxiv; @wu2014low; @deepan2014multiple; @rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive] targeting the MTS usage of CS as joint sampling and data protection mechanism fail to resist plaintext attacks. Similarly, it can be concludes that cascading CS, scrambling and DRPE also suffer from the same defect, such as the one suggested in [@liu2013optical]. The underlying reason is that all these three cryptographic primitives are linear and we can always translate the encoding components to a (equivalent) RIP-based measurement matrix. Therefore, the key question is whether it is possible to construct a more secure CS-based product cipher without introducing any computing-intensive cryptographic primitives. We will give a positive solution to this problem by switching from the RIP measurement matrix construction to the RIPless matrix construction. We start with the following example.]{}
Consider a column vector $\mathbf{x}$ of length $M=500$ taking values from $\{0, 1\}$ has a sparsity level $k=10$. Let $F$ denote an independent multivariate antipodal distribution, which is given by $F = \{\pm d_1\} \times \{\pm d_2\} \times \cdots \times \{\pm d_M\}$ with $Prob(d_j)=Prob(-d_j)=1/2$ and $\{d_j\}_{j=1}^{M}$ be positive integers. We take $60$ sensing vectors[^10] from this distribution and get a measurement matrix $\mathbf{\Phi}$ which is further used to sample $\mathbf{x}$. By Definition 1, $\mathbf{\Phi}$ cannot guarantee energy-preserving property thus it is a non-RIP matrix. By construction, we have $\theta = O(\max_j(d_j)/\min_j(d_j))$ and
[rCl]{} (F) && \_[1i M ]{} |<\^T, \_i>|\
&=& max\_j(d\_j) .
In summary, $\mu(F) \theta=O(\max_j(d^2_j)/\min_j(d_j))$ is a non-negligible term and the following straightforward recovery dominated by RIPless theory (see Theorem 1 for detail) $$\min \|\mathbf{\bar{x}}\|_1~~\text{subject to } \mathbf{y}=\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\bar{x}} \nonumber$$ returns a solution $\mathbf{\bar{x}}\neq \mathbf{x}$. Set $\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{D} = \mathbf{\Phi}\cdot {\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}(1/d_1,\cdots, 1/d_M)$, the reconstruction can also transformed to a two-step reconstruction compliance with RIP theory after realizing that $\mathbf{A}$ is a Bernoulli matrix, i.e.,
[rCl]{} \_1 &=& (\^[-1]{}) = ,\
&=& .
We compare the recovery techniques described above. Figure \[fig1:RIPandRIPless\] depicts a typical reconstruction result with $d_j \in [1, 60]$, from which we can see that the recovery in the RIP case is exact but the RIPless case is not due to a lack of sufficient measurements.
![ Example of RIPless reconstruction and RIP reconstructions.[]{data-label="fig1:RIPandRIPless"}](RIPless){width="\figwidthb"}
![ Example of RIPless reconstruction and RIP reconstructions.[]{data-label="fig1:RIPandRIPless"}](RIP){width="\figwidthb"}
[ The above example provides a preparatory understanding of how a RIPless matrix construction can be transformed to a RIP one. Still, it cannot be considered as a good CS-based cipher since an attacker can reveal $\mathbf{D}$ from $\mathbf{\Phi}$ by $d_j = |\mathbf{\Phi}_{i,j}|$. Moreover, this technique only works for vector who is sparse in the canonical basis, which is not practical for real signals. In this concern, we apply this finding to the CS model (\[eq:samplingfrequency\]) and devise a so called bi-level protected CS model in a way that the measurement matrix is non-RIP and the reconstruction works under RIP theory. ]{}
[The BLP-CS model will be described in]{} Sec. \[subsec:newmodel\], which can be viewed as product of the CS-based cipher and a transform encryption. Then we propose two methods for key-related sparsifying transformation design, namely, *Type I Secret Basis* and *Type II Secret Basis*.
Bi-level Protection Model {#subsec:newmodel}
-------------------------
[The]{} block diagram of this model is shown in Fig. \[fig:newmodel\], where we suggest using key-dependent sensing matrix, $\mathbf{A}_K$, and secret-related sparsifying basis, $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$, to determine the measurement matrix $\mathbf{\Phi}= \mathbf{A}_K\mathbf{\Psi}^{-1}_K$. [Recalling the above example]{}, we are interested in [the phenomenon that the measurement matrix $\mathbf{\Phi}$ does not satisfy the RIP requirement, while the key-dependent sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}_K$ itself is a RIP matrix.]{} [Referring to Eq. (\[eq:samplingfrequency\])]{}, the sampling procedure can be expressed as $$\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{x}
= \mathbf{A}_K\mathbf{\Psi}^{-1}_K (\mathbf{\Psi}_K\mathbf{s}) = \mathbf{A}_K \mathbf{s}.$$ [It should be noted that the number of measurements (sampling rate) is on the order of $(k \log M)$ even though $\mathbf{\Phi}$ is a non-RIP measurement matrix. This number of measurements fails to meet the minimum requirement defined in Theorem \[theorem:RIPless\], thus makes the correct decoding from $\mathbf{\Phi}$ an impossible task. ]{}
![Block diagram of BLP-CS.[]{data-label="fig:newmodel"}](Newmodel){width="\imagewidtha"}
[To correctly decode (decrypt) $\mathbf{y}$,]{} a legitimate user should first derive $\mathbf{A}_K$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$ from the key scheduling process and then [refer to the following two-step reconstruction]{}
[rCl]{} \_1 &=& =\_K ,\
&=& \_K .
or equivalently
[rCl]{} \_K\^[-1]{}\_1 &=& ,
To fulfill the security requirement, the remaining task is to design two matrices $\mathbf{A}_K$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$ satisfying:
1. $\mathbf{A}_K$ is a key-related matrix satisfy RIP;
2. $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$ is a key-related sparsifying basis;
3. $\mathbf{A}_K\mathbf{\Psi}^{-1}_K$ is a structural non-RIP matrix.
The work of designing a RIP matrix is trivial since it is already clear that Guussian/Bernoulli [@Candes:CS:TIT06] and structurally random matrices [@Do:TSP:SRM12] are competent for this task with overwhelming probability. Therefor, we focus our attention on the designing of $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$ in the following discussions. [It is worth mentioning that the work of designing $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$ satisfying RULE b (also known as transform encryption) is very popular in the filed of multimedia encryption, examples can be found in [@zeng2014perceptual; @pande2012secure; @pande2013securing]. However, the work of designing $\mathbf{A}_K$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$ satisfying RULE c is totally new.]{}
Type I Secret Basis {#sec:TypeI}
-------------------
[ The first type of [secret]{} basis that drawn our attention is the parameterized construction of some familiar transform, such as parameterized discrete wavelet transform (DWT) [@engel2005parameterized; @pande2012secure] and directional discrete cosine transfrom (DCT) [@yeung2012new; @zeng2014perceptual]. Here, we present a parameterized transform based on Fractional Fourier Transform (FrFT) as an example. ]{}
The use of FrFT for security purpose can be dated back to year $2000$, when Unnikrishnan *et al.* [@Joseph:Frft:OL00] suggested to use FrFT for DRPE instead of the ordinary Fourier transform [@Refregier:DRPE:OL95], in order to benefit from its extra degrees of freedom provided by the fractional orders. Generally speaking, performing an order $\alpha$ FrFT on a signal can be viewed as a rotation operation on the time-frequency or space-frequency distribution at an angle $\alpha$. Though FrFT is very popular in optics for its easy implementation, it is not preferred in digital world since complex numbers always cause extra computational load.
To this end, Venturini *et al.* proposed a method to construct Reality-Preserving FrFT of arbitrary order [@Venturini:RealFrct:04]. Here, we deduce the Reality-Preserving Fractional Cosine Transform (RPFrCT) by the virtue of their method. Denote the discrete cosine transform [@Gianfranco:Ftct:TSP02] of size $n\times n$ by $$\mathbf{C} =\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \epsilon_l \cos(2 \pi \frac{(2i+1)l}{4n})\right),$$ where $i = 0\sim n-1$, $l= 0\sim n-1$, $\epsilon_0 =1$ and $\epsilon_l= \sqrt{2}$ for $l>0$. The unitary property of $\mathbf{C}$ assures that it can be diagonalized as $$\label{eq:Dct}
\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{U} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{U}^*,$$ where $\mathbf{U} = \{\mathbf{u}_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is composed of $n$ orthonormal eigenvectors, i.e., $\mathbf{u}^*_m \mathbf{u}_i = \delta_{mi}$ and $\mathbf{\Lambda} = {\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}(\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_i,\cdots , \lambda_n)$ with $\lambda_i = \exp(j \varphi_i)$. Replace $\lambda_i$ with its $\alpha$-th power $\lambda_i^\alpha$ in Eq. (\[eq:Dct\]), we can express the Discrete Fractional Cosine Transform (DFrCT) matrix $\mathbf{C}_\alpha$ of order $\alpha$ in the compact form $$\mathbf{C}_\alpha =\mathbf{U} \mathbf{\Lambda}^\alpha \mathbf{U}^*.$$ Having defined $\mathbf{C}_\alpha$, we can derive the RPFrCT matrix $\mathbf{R}_\alpha$ as follows:
- For any real signal $\mathbf{x}=\{x_l\}_{l=1}^{M}$ of length $M$ ($M$ is even), construct a complex signal of length $M/2$ by $$\mathbf{\widetilde{x}} = \{x_1+ jx_{M/2+1}, x_2+ jx_{M/2+2}, \cdots, x_{M/2}+ jx_{M} \}.$$
- Compute $\mathbf{\widetilde{y}} = \mathbf{B}_\alpha \mathbf{\widetilde{x}}$, where $\mathbf{B}_\alpha$ is a DFrCT matrix of size $(M/2\times M/2)$, namely, $\mathbf{B}_\alpha = \mathbf{C}_{\alpha, M/2}$.
- Determine the RPFrCT matrix $\mathbf{R}_\alpha$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y} & = & (\operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{\widetilde{y}}), \operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{\widetilde{y}}) )^T \nonumber\\
& = & \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) \operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}) - \operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) \operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}) \nonumber\\
\operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) \operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}) + \operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) \operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}) \nonumber\\
\end{array}
\right)\\
& = & \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) & -\operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) \nonumber\\
\operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) & \operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{B}_\alpha) \nonumber\\
\end{array}
\right) \cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\operatorname{Re}(\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}) \nonumber\\
\operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}) \nonumber\\
\end{array}
\right) \\
& = & \mathbf{R}_\alpha \mathbf{x} \nonumber.
\end{aligned}$$
From the construction process listed above, we can conclude that $\mathbf{R}_\alpha$ is orthogonal, reality preserving and periodic. Then, the Reality-Preserving Fractional Cosine Transform of a digital image $\mathbf{X}$ is given by
[rCl]{} \[eq:2dbasis\] = \_ \^[T]{}\_,
where [$(\cdot)^T$ represents the transpose operator, ]{} $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the orders of the Fractional Cosine Transform along $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively.
Equivalently, we can express this formula as
[rCl]{} () = \^[-1]{} (),
where $\mathbf{\Psi}^{-1} = \mathbf{\Psi}^{T}=(\mathbf{R}_\beta \otimes \mathbf{R}_\alpha)$. To study the sparsifying capability of the proposed parameterized basis,
we carried out experiments [on digital images]{} at different fractional orders $\alpha$ and $\beta$ by using the best $s$-term approximation, i.e., keep the $s$ largest coefficients and set the remaining ones to zero. The recovered result of RPFrCT is compared with that of DCT$2$ using the ratio between their peak signal-to-noise ratios (PSNRs). As expected, the sparsifying capability of RPFrCT raises when $\alpha$ or $\beta$ increases, as shown in Fig \[fig:FrCTDCT\]. When $\alpha, \beta \in (0.9, 1]$, the sparsifying capability of RPFrCT is comparable to that of DCT2. [It is worth mentioning that a similar sparsifying capability was also observed when this transform is applied to $1$D signals [@Venturini:RealFrct:04].]{}
![Comparison between the recovery result of RPFrCT and DCT2 using the best $s$-term approximation at different fractional orders.[]{data-label="fig:FrCTDCT"}](ratio){width="\imagewidth"}
Type II Secret Basis {#sec:TypeII}
--------------------
[ We have demonstrated a technique for parameterized sparsifying basis construction, where the free parameter can be used as the secret key in the BLP-CS model. In this way, the resultant basis satisfies RULE b. However, it still suffers from the same CPA shown in Sec. \[sec:II\] since it fails to meet RULE c. In the subsequent discussions, we propose three kind of operations on an existing basis to make it fulfill RULE c. ]{} We start the deviation by defining equivalent sparsifying bases.
Two basis matrices, $\mathbf{\Psi}$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}'$ are equivalent sparsifying bases if $\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{\Psi}\mathbf{s} = \mathbf{\Psi}'\mathbf{s}'$, $\|\mathbf{s}\|_0 = \|\mathbf{s}'\|_0=k$ holds for any signal $\mathbf{x}$.
\[pro:basischange1\] $\mathbf{\Psi}'$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}$ are equivalent sparsifying bases if
[rCl]{} ’ & = & \_1()\
& = &(d\_1\_1, d\_2\_2, , d\_j\_j, , d\_M\_M),
where $\{d_j\}_{j=1}^M$ are non-zero constants and $\psi_j$ is the $j$-th column of $\mathbf{\Psi}$.
Set $s'_j = \frac{1}{d_j} s_j$ and we have $\|\mathbf{s}\|_0 = \|\mathbf{s}'\|_0$.
We demonstrate that we are able to construct a non-RIP measurement matrix satisfying RULE c. Assume $\mathbf{\Psi}$ is an orthonormal basis and set
[rCl]{} ’ = ,
where $\mathbf{D}={\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}(1/d_1, 1/d_2, \cdots, 1/d_M)$ and $\{d_j\}_{j=1}^{M}$ are positive integers drawn from certain distribution independently. Let $\mathbf{A}$ denote a Gaussian matrix with i.i.d. entries and calculate $\mathbf{\Phi}$ as
[rCl]{} &=& ()\^[-1]{} ,\
&=& \^[-1]{} \^[T]{}.
Once again, the effect of $\mathbf{\Psi}^{T}$ can be viewed as a rotation of $\mathbf{A} \mathbf{D}^{-1}$ in a $M$ dimensional space, which is energy preserving. By construction, $\mathbf{\Phi}$ is a non-RIP matrix.
\[pro:basischange2\] $\mathbf{\Psi}'$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}$ are equivalent sparsifying bases if $$\mathbf{\Psi}' = \mathbb{F}_2(\mathbf{\Psi}) = \mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{P},$$ where $\mathbf{P}$ is a random permutation matrix.
Since $\mathbf{\Psi}\mathbf{s} = \mathbf{\Psi}(\mathbf{P}\mathbf{P}^T)\mathbf{s} = \mathbf{\Psi}' (\mathbf{P}^T\mathbf{s}) =\mathbf{\Psi}'\mathbf{s}'$ , $\|\mathbf{s}'\|_0 = \|\mathbf{P}^T\mathbf{s}\|_0=\| \mathbf{s}\|_0$.
[In the $1$D case, this property implies that random scrambling does not cause any loss of the sparsity level of any given signal. In the $2$D case, as we have shown in Sec. \[subsec:B\], it helps to uniform the column (or row) sparsity level and thus flavors a parallel CS reconstruction technique, which will be exemplified in Sec \[sec:Sec4\].]{}
In addition, if we know or partially know that $\operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{s})$ is localized in a certain $k$-dimensional subspacerather than uniformly distributed in $\mathbb{R}^N$, we can embed more secrets into the sparsifying basis, as stated in Property \[pro:basischange3\]. Here we assume that $\mathbf{\Psi}$ is an orthonormal sparsifying basis for simplicity.
\[pro:basischange3\] $\mathbf{\Psi}'$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}$ are equivalent sparsifying bases if
[rCl]{} ’ & = & \_3()\
& = & (\_1, , \_[j-1]{}, a\_j+b\_k,\_[j+1]{}, , \_M),
where $a,b$ are non-zero constants and $j, k \in \operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{s})$ or $j, k \notin \operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{s})$.
Since $\mathbf{\Psi}$ is orthonormal, $s_j = (\mathbf{\psi}_j, \mathbf{x}) =\mathbf{\psi}_j^T \mathbf{x}$ and we know $s_j = 0$ when $j \notin \operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{s})$. Then the proof for $j, k \notin \operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{s})$ is trivial. For $j, k \in \operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{s})$, set $\mathbf{s}' = (s'_1, s'_2, \cdots,s'_j, \cdots, s'_k, \cdots, s'_M)^T \nonumber $ with $$\label{eq:suppunchanged}
s'_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
s_i/a & \text{if } i = j, \\
s_i - s_j{b}/{a} & \text{if } i = k, \\
s_i & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array} \right.$$ Then we have
[rCl]{} & = &\
& = & \_ \^[N]{} s\_i\_i + s\_j \_j +s\_k \_k\
& = & \_ \^[N]{} s\_i\_i + (a \_j+b\_k) + (s\_k - )\_k\
& = & ’’
By Eq. (\[eq:suppunchanged\]), we conclude that $\| \mathbf{s}'\|_0 = \|\mathbf{s}\|_0$, hence completes the proof.
Obviously, the operator $\mathbb{F}_3(\cdot)$ can be applied to three or more columns as long as all of the chosen columns are either in $\operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{s})$ or not. Finally, we provide an example to further illustrate Property \[pro:basischange3\]. The grayscale image “Lena" with size $512 \times 512$, as shown in Fig \[fig3:DCT2Energy\]a), is transformed using RPFrCT with orders $\alpha = 0.99$ and $\beta= 0.95$. Figure \[fig3:DCT2Energy\]b) shows the absolute value of the RPFrCT coefficients under the logarithm base. It is clear that the energy of the RPFrCT coefficients matrix is localized, specifically, they are concentrated at the upper-left corner of the four sub-blocks. Thus, we can apply Property \[pro:basischange3\] to the RPFrCT basis $\mathbf{\Psi} = (\mathbf{R}_{\beta} \otimes \mathbf{R}_{\alpha})^T$ accordingly. [A similar effect can be observed in the parameterized DWT and DCT settings.]{}
![a) Original image “Lena"; b) Energy distribution of RPFrCT coefficients of “Lena" using logarithm base.[]{data-label="fig3:DCT2Energy"}](lenna512 "fig:"){width="\figwidth"} a)
\
![a) Original image “Lena"; b) Energy distribution of RPFrCT coefficients of “Lena" using logarithm base.[]{data-label="fig3:DCT2Energy"}](FrCTenergy "fig:"){width="\figwidtha"} b)
[Discussions and Security Analysis]{} {#sec:discussion}
=====================================
[ We have demonstrated the possibility of using BLP-CS as a joint data acquisition and protection model for MTS purpose. This section aims to compare the basic OTS CS cipher and BLP-CS cipher from the viewpoints of complexity and security.]{}
Complexity {#subsec:complexity}
----------
Suppose we have constructed a RPFrCT matrix $\mathbf{R}_{\alpha}$ with appropriate fractional order $\alpha$, a $M\times 1$ signal $\mathbf{x}$ can be sparsified by $\mathbf{R}_{\alpha}\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{s}$. All the techniques on manipulating the sparsifying basis $\mathbf{R}_{\alpha}^T$ introduced in Sec. \[sec:TypeII\] can be unified to the following matrix notation[^11], i.e.,
[rCl]{} \_[K]{} & = & \_\^T ,
where $\mathbf{D}$, $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{Q}$ are matrices determined by operators $\mathbb{F}_1$, $\mathbb{F}_2$ and $\mathbb{F}_3$, respectively. It worth mentioning that $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{\Psi}_{K} \mathbf{s'} = \mathbf{R}_{\alpha}^T \mathbf{s}$ with $\|\mathbf{s'}\|_0 = \|\mathbf{s}\|_0$. Recall from Sec. \[subsec:newmodel\], the encoding of BLP-CS is governed by
[rCl]{} \[eq:blpsampling\] = &=& \_K \_[K]{}\^[-1]{} ,
and the decoding should follow a two-step reconstruction, i.e.,
[rCl]{} \_1 &=& =\_K ,\
&=& \_K . \[eq:blpdecoding\]
Once a well-designed key schedule is given[^12], a trusted third party can produce $\mathbf{\Phi}$, $\mathbf{A}_K$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$ faithfully and transmit them to the encoder and decoder. An alternative option is that the encoder and decoder produce their own matrix key on the air using the agreed key schedule from the same root key. We assume the OTS CS model also adopts the same matrix key generation process for a fair comparison.
[ We first take a look at the encoder side. For the former situation, where the matrix key is produced by the trusted party and then delivered to both the CS encoder and decoder, the encoding complexity of the BLP-CS model outperforms that of the OTS CS model since it does not bring extra communication cost once the key is set. For the later situation, the encoding complexity of the OTS CS model is lower than that of the BLP-CS model at the first glimpse due to the reason that the encoding process of the second model involves a matrix multiplication, i.e., $\mathbf{A}_K \mathbf{\Psi}_{K}^{-1}$, in the key generation process. Nevertheless, since the OTS CS system requires updating the measurement matrix in every sampling, the BLP-CS model outperforms OTS CS after sampling $(2f'+f)/f'$ times. Here, $f$ and $f'$ refer to the complexity of the matrix multiplication and the matrix key generation, respectively. ]{}
[ At the decoder side, the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of the sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}_K$ need to be calculated in every iteration of some $l_1$ optimization algorithms [@Boyd:Convex:08], for example, orthogonal matching pursuit [@tropp2007signal]. The complexity of this operation dominates the overall complexity in CS reconstruction. As such, if some off-line techniques can be employed to calculate the pseudoinverse of $\mathbf{A}_K$, the complexity of the reconstruction can be largely reduced. For the OTS CS system, this is impossible since the measurement matrix is never re-used. ]{}
Security
--------
I. [*Brute-force and Ciphertext-only Attacks*]{}\
We employ the existing results presented in [@Rachlin:secrecy:08; @cambareri2015low] to show that the BLP-CS preserves most secrecy features of the OTS CS-based cipher under these two attacks.
[@Rachlin:secrecy:08 Theorem 1 and Corollary 1] \[theorem:wrongrec\] Let $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{A}'$ be $K\times M$ Gaussian matrices. Let $\mathbf{x}$ be $k$-sparse with respect to the canonic basis and $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{A}\mathbf{x}$. If $K>k$, then $l_0$ problem (\[eq:l0hard\]) and $l_1$ problem (\[eq:l1opt\]) will yield an $K$-sparse solution $\mathbf{x}'$ with probability one such that $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{A}'\mathbf{x}'$.
We first examine the case of brute-force attack, i.e., the attacker try to guess possible measurement matrices and use them for decoding. Referring to Theorem \[theorem:wrongrec\], the $l_0$ or $l_1$ recovery governed by a wrong sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}_K$ will lead to an incorrect reconstruction with probability one. Thus the OTS CS-based cipher can guarantee computational secrecy if the key space is large enough to make systematic search of all the keys (sensing matrices) impossible. This result can be directly applied to our BLP-CS model. According Eqs. (\[eq:blpsampling\]) and (\[eq:blpdecoding\]), we can conclude that BLP-CS is computationally strong even if the attacker can successfully retrieved the secret sparsifying basis $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$. In this concern, the transform encryption approach enhances the security level of the basic CS paradigm.\
An interesting security feature of the OTS CS cryptosystem under ciphertext-only attack is the asymptotic spherical secrecy [@cambareri2015low]. This type of secrecy states that any two different plaintexts (sparse signals to be sampled in this context) with equal power remain approximately indistinguishable from their measurement vectors when CS operates under the RIP framework. Alternatively, we can intercept this property as only the energy of the measurements carries information about the signal. A bird’s-eye view of why this asymptotic spherical secrecy holds for the OTS CS cipher may refer to the definition of RIP, which states that the CS encoding should obey an energy-preserving guarantee. A theoretical proof about this property can be found in [@cambareri2015low].\
As we demonstrated in Eqs. (\[eq:blpsampling\]) and (\[eq:blpdecoding\]), the proposed BLP-CS model works under the seemingly RIPless theory if one cannot determine $\mathbf{A}_K$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_K$. Therefore, the energy-preserving constraint introduced by RIP is unapplicable to this setting. As such, we can conclude that the measurements (ciphertext) carries no information about the signal (plaintext) when a single ciphertext is observed. The BLP-CS and the OTS CS ciphers have the following major difference: when multiple ciphertexts are observed by the attacker, he is aware of the fact that two plaintexts must be similar if their corresponding ciphertexts are close to each other in the Euclidean space. This is caused by the multi-time usage of the same measurement matrix and the linear encoder. Surely the OTS CS cipher is more secure then the BLP-CS cipher from this point of view. Nevertheless, as mentioned in Sec. \[sec:intro\], this is a favorable property that promotes the source coding gain from a system point-of-view [@mun2012dpcm]. This property also finds its way in privacy-preserving video surveillance systems [@tong2011compressive]: assume the attacker happens to know some pairs of plaintext and ciphertext, such as static video scenes and their corresponding measurement vectors, and he want to retrieve privacy-sensitive data from a new intercepted ciphertext. After studying the Euclidean distance of the new ciphertext, he comes to realize that plaintext corresponding to the new ciphertext contains privacy-sensitive data. However, the decryption of this ciphertext requires full knowledge of the matrix key $\mathbf{A}_K$ and $\mathbf{\Phi}_K$. This leads to our discussion of resistance of the BLP-CS cipher with respect to plaintext attacks.
II. [*Plaintext Attacks*]{}\
As discussed in Sec. \[sec:II\], the data complexity of retrieving a general measurement matrix (the secret key) is $M$ independent plaintexts and their corresponding ciphertexts in any basic CS-based cipher. If the used measurement matrix is Bernoulli, a single plaintext in the form $\mathbf{x}=(2^0, 2^1, \cdots, 2^M)^T$ and the corresponding ciphertext can be utilized to recover the Bernoulli measurement matrix completely[^13]. Based on these knowledge, investigating the resistance of the OTS CS cryptosystem is a trivial work. We hereby focus on the BLP-CS cipher. Referring to Eq. (\[eq:blpsampling\]), the attacker can retrieve $\mathbf{\Phi}$ from $M$ independent plaintext-ciphertext pairs. By construction, $\mathbf{\Phi}$ is a non-RIP matrix. Thus the conclusion drawn from Theorem \[theorem:RIPless\] assures that a straightforward use $\mathbf{\Phi}$ in the $l_1$ optimization problem (\[eq:l1opt\]) is not applicable. Considering that the $l_0$ optimization problem (\[eq:l0hard\]) is NP-hard [@Tao:BPunderRIP:TIT05], the attacker tries to decompose $\mathbf{\Phi}$ with the form $\mathbf{\Phi} = \mathbf{E}\mathbf{F}$, with the constraint that entries of $\mathbf{E}$ should observe certain kind of distribution (Gaussian or Bernoulli). In particular, $\mathbf{F}$ is the product of an elementary matrix and an orthonormal matrix.\
If the decomposition is unique or the possible number of decompositions is very limited, i.e., polynomial function of $M$, the attacker can determine the matrix key $\mathbf{A}_K$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_{K}^{-1}$ and the BLP-CS cryptosystem is regarded as fail to resist plaintext attacks. To summarize, we conclude that the number of decompositions should be at least $O(M!)$, thus making the search for the true one inconclusive[^14]. The conclusion is based on the simple fact $\mathbf{E}\mathbf{F} = (\mathbf{E}\mathbf{P})(\mathbf{P}^T\mathbf{F})$, where $\mathbf{P}$ is a $M \times M$ random permutation matrix. As we can see, distribution of all the entries of $(\mathbf{E}\mathbf{P})$ is exactly the same as that of $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{P}^T$ represents elementary row operation on $\mathbf{F}$. As such, the attacker cannot distinguish the decomposition result $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{F}$ from $(\mathbf{E}\mathbf{P})$ and $(\mathbf{P}^T\mathbf{F})$.
BLP-CS for Digital Images {#sec:Sec4}
=========================
In this section, the proposed [BLP-CS model is applied as a joint data acquisition and protection layer for digital images. The aim is to provide an intuitive interpretation of how a cryptographic random scrambling can relax RIP of the measurement matrix and substantially reduce the decoding complexity, i.e., parallel reconstruction. Moreover, some other features owned by a basic CS paradigm, such as robust to packet loss and noise, are also observed.]{}
We now consider a $2$D image $\mathbf{X}$ with $M= n\times n$ pixels. If the chosen parameterized transform is RPFrCT, the basis for $\mathbf{X}$ is $(\mathbf{R}_{\beta}^T\otimes \mathbf{R}_{\alpha}^T)$ according to Eq. (\[eq:2dbasis\]). Following the same approach adopted in [@duarte2008single], the encoding stage can be written as
[rCl]{} () = \[\_1, \_2, , \_n\]\^T= (),
where $\mathbf{\Phi}$ is the product of the $K\times M$ key-dependent sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}_K$ and the $M\times M$ key-dependent basis $\mathbf{\Psi}^{-1}_{K}$ having the form
[rCl]{} \^[-1]{}\_[K]{} = \^[-1]{}\^[T]{}(\_\^T\_\^T),
and
[rCl]{} \_K =
with $\mathbf{A}_j = \mathbf{A}$ for $j \in \{1, \cdots n\}$ being Gaussian matrices. As we discussed in Sec. \[subsec:complexity\], repeatedly using the same sensing matrix for different signal segments can speed up the reconstruction if some off-line mechanism is allowed to calculate the pseudoinverse of $\mathbf{A}$ in advance.
According to Secs. \[sec:TypeI\] and \[sec:TypeII\], $\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{S}) = [\mathbf{s}_1, \mathbf{s}_2, \cdots, \mathbf{s}_n]^T = \mathbf{\Psi}^{-1}_{K}\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{X})$ is sparse in the canonical basis. Referring to property \[pro:permutation\] and Eq (\[eq:PCSreconstruction\]), a parallel construction is applied as
[rCl]{} \[eq:pcsrec\] \_j\_1 \_j &=& \_j.
for all $j\in \{1, 2,\cdots, n\}$. Finally, the recovered image is given by $\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{\bar{X}})=\mathbf{\Psi}_{K} \operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{S})$.
A block diagram of the whole system is depicted in Fig. \[fig:PCSRecons\]. [In summary, this system is a instance of the simplified BLP-CS model.]{}
![Block diagram of BLP-CS for digital images.[]{data-label="fig:PCSRecons"}](ParaRec){width="\imagewidthb"}
To further illustrate how the random scrambling $\mathbf{P}$ relaxes the RIP requirement of the sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}$, we consider another sampling configuration
[rCl]{} () = (),
where $\mathbf{\Phi} =\mathbf{A}_K \mathbf{\hat{\Psi}}^{-1}_{K}$ with $\mathbf{A}_K$ is the same as defined above and $\mathbf{\hat{\Psi}}^{-1}_{K}= \mathbf{D}^{-1}(\mathbf{R}_{\beta}^T\otimes \mathbf{R}_{\alpha}^T)$. Here, we note that the only difference of $\mathbf{{\Psi}}^{-1}_{K}$ and $\mathbf{\hat{\Psi}}^{-1}_{K}$ is the permutation matrix $\mathbf{P}$. The reconstruction is exactly the same as that of Eq. (\[eq:pcsrec\]). By construction, this is a special form of block-based compressive sampling (BCS) [@Gan:BCS:07], where each block is a column of the frequency coefficients, together with block independent recovery. We call this model BCS-In. We also note that using the smoothed projected Landweber operator can largely improve the BCS reconstrution quality at relatively low extra computation overhead [@fowler2011multiscale]. However, the study of embedding the smoothed projected Landweber operator in the BLP-CS reconstruction is out of the scope of this paper.
[ Four representative images, “Lena", “Peppers", “Cameraman" and “Baboon" of size $512\times 512$ are used as our test images. The tests are carried out under different sampling rate SR $= \frac{K}{M}\times 100\%$. The reconstruction quality is evaluated in terms of average[^15] peak signal-to-noise ratio, APSNR (dB) $=10 \cdot \log_{10}\mathbb{E} \left( \frac{M255^2}{\|\operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{X})- \operatorname{vec}(\mathbf{\bar{X}})\|_2^2}\right)$. The results are listed in Table \[table:PSNRcomparision\] and they support the conclusion of property \[pro:permutation\], i.e., a cryptographic random scrambling helps make the column sparsity level of $\mathbf{S}$ uniform. The last point worth mentioning is that random scrambling is suitable for all kind of $2$D sparse data (all kind of sparsifying coefficients under parameterized orthonormal transform), which extends the result that zig-zag scrambling works for DCT$2$ coefficients [@Fang:permutation:TSP13]. ]{}
----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
[SR]{}
[BLP-CS]{} [BCS-In]{} [BLP-CS]{} [BCS-In]{} [BLP-CS]{} [BCS-In]{} [BLP-CS]{} [BCS-In]{}
[“Lena"]{} $21.6$ $15.5$ $27.5$ $23.3$ $31.4$ $27.3$ $35.7$ $32.1$
[“Peppers"]{} $20.9$ $14.4$ $27.2$ $22.6$ $30.9$ $27.9$ $34.7$ $32.5$
[“Cameraman"]{} $19.2$ $13.0$ $24.8$ $21.5$ $28.6$ $27.4$ $32.9$ $32.8$
[“Baboon"]{} $17.8$ $9.7$ $20.2$ $17.6$ $22.6$ $21.3$ $25.8$ $25.2$
----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
\[table:PSNRcomparision\]
[The basic CS paradigm that works under RIP theory is known to be robust]{} with respect to transmission imperfections such as noise or packet loss [@dimakis2009lp; @laska2011democracy]. [ Since the new proposal works under the RIPless theory at only the encoder but RIP theory at the decoder, we expect the same property in our approach.]{} To quantitatively study this, we evaluate the robustness of the proposed framework with respect to additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and various packet loss rates (PLRs). In the former case, we artificially add a zero-mean normal distribution random sequence with variance $1$ to the measurements while in the latter we randomly discard certain number of measurements governed by PLR. Then we [perform reconstruction on]{} the corrupted measurements. In real applications, PLR can be up to $30\%$ [@Zhao:PacketLoss:03ACM] and we measure the quality of the reconstruction in terms of APSNR at $10\%$, $20\%$ and $30\%$ PLR, respectively. These tests were carried out using the “Lena" image, but similar results were obtained using other images. As observed from Table \[table:NoisePsnr\], our scheme is almost immune to AWGN when we compare the APSNR of the ideal [case]{} and the one with AWGN. In addition, comparing the APSNRs at different levels of PLR, we found that the reduction rate of APSNR is linear to the increasing rate of PLR, which implies that all measurements are of the same importance [@laska2011democracy].
------------------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
[SR]{} [0.1]{} [0.3]{} [0.5]{} [0.7]{}
21.6 27.5 31.4 35.7
[BLP-CS AWGN]{} 21.8 27.4 31.3 34.9
[BLP-CS $10\%$ PLR ]{} 21.7 26.8 30.5 34.1
[BLP-CS $20\%$ PLR ]{} 20.9 26.2 29.5 32.7
[BLP-CS $30\%$ PLR ]{} 19.9 25.5 28.5 31.3
------------------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
: APSNR of the reconstructions under AWGN and various PLRs.
\[table:NoisePsnr\]
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
[ To realize the MTS usage of CS cryptosystem, some approaches have already been proposed. Typical examples include scrambling in different domains [@zeng2012scrambling; @huang2015compression; @yushu:SCS:14arxiv; @wu2014low] and cascading the DRPE technique [@deepan2014multiple; @rawat2015compressive; @li2015compressive]. However, we have shown that they fail to satisfy the security requirement. In this concern, we suggest a BLP-CS model by making use of the non-RIP measurement matrix construction. Our approach differs from existing ones in two aspects: 1) the RIPless CS theory is firstly applied for providing the security features of a CS-based cipher; 2) the role of the sparsifying basis for the secrecy of CS is revealed. ]{}
[The security of the BLP-CS model is discussed from various aspects, such as brute-force attack, ciphertext-only attack and plaintext attacks. Special attention has been paid to the plaintext attacks since it is widely accepted that basic CS model is immune to brute-force attack and ciphertext-only attack [@Rachlin:secrecy:08; @cambareri2015low]. Under plaintext attacks, we have demonstrated that the number of candidate sensing matrices and sparsifying basis matrices that match the information inferred by the attacker is huge. Therefore, the searching of the true sensing matrix and sparsifying basis matrix is impossible. ]{}
[ Finally, we apply the proposed model for the purpose of secure compressive image sampling. Both theoretical analyses and experimental results support our expectation, i.e., random scrambling plays a critical role in relaxing the RIP requirement of the measurement matrix and flavoring a PCS reconstruction for $2$D sparse signals. Other features of a basic CS system, such as robust to packet loss and noise, are also observed. ]{}
[^1]: Leo Yu Zhang and Kwok-wo Wong are with Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected])
[^2]: Yushu Zhang is with the School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China (e-mail: [email protected])
[^3]: [Jiantao Zhou is with Department of Computer and Information Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Macau, Macau (e-mail: [email protected])]{}
[^4]:
[^5]: Recall that condition number is the absolute value of the ratio between the largest and smallest singular values.
[^6]: This simplification will not affect the security level of the discussed product cipher.
[^7]: Note that embedding scrambling in the time domain actually brings no benefit to security enhancement, but it helps the construction of a structural sampling ensemble [@Do:TSP:SRM12].
[^8]: This always holds true given that continuous data can be adequately sampled.
[^9]: We note that the multiple measurement vector CS model [@duarte2005distributed] should be adopted since $\mathbf{T}$ is a complex matrix.
[^10]: Here, we take $K=60$ because $K>4k$ is an empirical threshold for exact CS recovery in the RIP theory [@Candes:IntroCS:SPM08].
[^11]: We are aware of the fact that any parameterized orthonormal transform with good sparsifying capability can play the role of $\mathbf{R}_{\alpha}^T$.
[^12]: The design of an effective key scheduling process is not considered in this paper since our concern is only the secrecy of CS paradigm. We also note that this is a common treatment for all the state-of-the-art works on this topic.
[^13]: One can imagine the role of a $\{+1, -1\}$ matrix as that of a $\{0, 1\}$ matrix, the proof can be found in [@cambareriknown]. A vector composed by $\{0, 1\}$ can be recovered from the inner product of this vector and $\mathbf{x}$.
[^14]: This is even worse than directly solving the NP-hard $l_0$ problem (\[eq:l0hard\]), who has a complexity $M \choose k$.
[^15]: $\mathbb{E}$ denotes calculate average over $100$ tests.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'The CONCERTO collaboration: P. Ade , M. Aravena, E. Barria , A. Beelen , A. Benoit , M. Béthermin , J. Bounmy , O. Bourrion , G. Bres , C. De Breuck , M. Calvo , Y. Cao , A. Catalano , F.-X. Désert , C.A Durán , A. Fasano , T. Fenouillet , J. Garcia , G. Garde , J. Goupy , C. Groppi , C. Hoarau , G. Lagache , J.-C. Lambert , J.-P. Leggeri , F. Levy-Bertrand , J. Macias-Perez , H. Mani, J. Marpaud , P. Mauskopf , A. Monfardini , G. Pisano , N. Ponthieu , L. Prieur , S. Roni , S. Roudier , D. Tourres , C. Tucker'
bibliography:
- 'conc.bib'
title: 'A wide field-of-view low-resolution spectrometer at APEX: instrument design and science forecast'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Modern imaging and polarimetry cameras, at millimetre and sub-millimetre wavelengths, are currently operating on large (e.g. D $>$ 10 meters) single-dish telescopes. The main goal of such instruments is to map, at relatively high angular resolution (e.g. 5-30 arcseconds) large portions of the sky (e.g. several deg$^2$) with high sensitivity (e.g. RMS$_{\mathrm{MAP}} \lesssim$ 1mJy). Polarised emissions are also measured with similar specifications.
In this context, the dual-band NIKA2 camera represents the first kilo-pixels instrument operating at these wavelengths based on the Kinetic Inductance Detectors (KID) technology [@nika2_1; @nika2_2]. The particular flavour of KID used for NIKA2 (and CONCERTO) are front-illuminated Lumped Elements KID (LEKID) [@Doyle2010]. They consist in inductor-capacitor (LC) superconducting planar resonators made by a long meandered inductor (wire) terminated at both ends by an inter-digitated capacitor. NIKA2 supersedes previous cameras based on Transition Edge Sensors (referred to as TES bolometers) in the frequency range 150-360GHz, such as MAMBO2 at IRAM [@kreysa1998], LABOCA at APEX [@Siringo2009] and SCUBA-2 at the JCMT [@holland2013].
In order to extend the capabilities of the existing instruments, and open new observational windows of the millimetre sky, the spectral dimension has to be added, without sacrificing the instantaneous field-of-view. The large field-of-view and the mapping speed are, actually, the main asset of single dish telescopes when compared to variable baseline interferometers like ALMA[^1] or NOEMA [@NOEMA2020]. For this reason, we are developing a millimetre-wave low spectral resolution (R=$\nu / \Delta \nu \leq 300$) spectrometer with an instantaneous field-of-view of 20arcminutes. In order to preserve the angular resolution, at frequencies of around 300GHz and assuming a 10-meters class telescope, a focal-plane containing around 2,000 spatial pixels is needed. To achieve these figures, we adopt a room-temperature Martin-Puplett Interferometer (MpI) [@MPI70] coupled to a large field millimetre-wave camera. The instrument, named CONCERTO, has been designed to interface with the Atacama Pathfinder EXperiment (APEX) 12-meters telescope [@Gusten2006]. A pathfinder instrument, named KISS and based on the same concept, has been built by our collaboration and deployed in November, 2018, at the Teide Observatory [@KISS2020].
One important science driver that has motivated our developments is the study of \[CII\] emission line at high redshift. \[CII\] is among the brightest lines originating from star-forming galaxies and a reliable tracer of star formation on global scales. With CONCERTO at APEX, we will map in three dimensions the fluctuations of the \[CII\] line intensity in the reionisation and post-reionisation epoch ($z\gtrsim5$). This technique, known as “intensity mapping”, will allow to answer the questions of whether dusty star-formation contributes to early galaxy evolution, and whether \[CII\]-emitters play an important role in shaping cosmic reionisation. The dedicated \[CII\] survey will provide a (spatial-spectral) data cube in which intensity is mapped as a function of sky position and frequency. The 3-D fluctuations are then studied in Fourier space with the power spectrum. The \[CII\] survey will also be sensitive to the CO intensity fluctuations arising from $0.3<z<2$ galaxies, giving the spatial distribution and abundance of molecular gas over a broad range of cosmic time. \[CII\] intensity mapping is also one of the main goals of CCAT-prime [@choi2020] and TIME [@crites2014], two experiments based on different technologies than CONCERTO: gratings and TES (Transition Edge Sensors) bolometers for TIME, KID and Fabry-Perot interferometers for CCAT-p. In addition to the main \[CII\] survey, we expect CONCERTO to bring a significant contribution in a number of areas, including the study of galaxy clusters (via the thermal and kinetic SZ effect), the observation of local and intermediate-redshift galaxies, and the study of Galactic star-forming clouds. In this paper, we detail the main goals of the \[CII\] intensity mapping and galaxy clusters surveys.
The paper is organised as follow. We present the instrumental concept, design and preliminary results in Sect.\[sec2\]. The discussion includes KID detectors, cryogenics and optics. In Sect.\[sec3\], we describe the first laboratory tests (still on-going for a full characterisation). In Sect.\[sec4\], we present the sensitivity estimates, while Sect.\[sec5\] is dedicated to the \[CII\] intensity mapping and SZ surveys.
CONCERTO instrument {#sec2}
===================
CONCERTO has been specifically designed to fit into the Cassegrain cabin (C-cabin) of the APEX telescope. It is composed of two main components: the so-called “chassis” and the “optics box”. The “chassis” includes the camera (cryostat), the MpI interferometer, the readout and control electronics. The “optics box” includes a number of mirrors and polarisers and a cold reference for the MpI. In Table \[tab1\] we summarise the main instrument characteristics. The location of CONCERTO sub-systems are shown in Fig.\[whole\].
----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
Telescope primary mirror diameter \[m\] 12
Field-of-view diameter \[arcmin\] 20
Absolute spectral resolution \[GHz\] $\geq$ 1
Relative spectral resolution R \[\#\] 1-300
Frequency range HF $\mid$ LF \[GHz\] 195-310 $\mid$ 130-270
Pixels on Sky HF $\mid$ LF \[\#\] 2152 $\mid$ 2152
Angular resolution HF $\mid$ LF \[arcsec\] 20-32 $\mid$ 23-45
Average angular resolution HF $\mid$ LF \[arcsec\] 26 $\mid$ 34
Instrument geometrical throughput \[srm$^2$\] 2.5$\times$10$^{-3}$
Single Pixel geometrical throughput \[sr$\,$m$^2$\] 1.16$\times$10$^{-6}$
Data rate \[MBytes/sec\] 128
----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
: Main characteristics of CONCERTO. For comparison, the NIKA2 instrument (6.5’ field-of-view, 30-meters telescope) geometrical throughput (A$\times\Omega$), characterising the camera collecting power, is 1.7$\times$10$^{-3}$ sr$\,$m$^2$. Concerning the overall optical transmission of CONCERTO compared to NIKA2, we refer the reader to Sect.\[sec4.1\].[]{data-label="tab1"}
In this section, we describe in detail the camera and its content (Sect.\[subsec2-1\]), the MpI (Sect.\[subsec2-2\]), and the chassis and related electronics (Sect.\[subsec2-3\]). The room temperature optics, including the cold reference source, is presented in Sect.\[subsec2-4\]. Section\[subsec2-5\] is devoted to a brief description of the CONCERTO hardware components located elsewhere than in the telescope tower. The installation at the telescope is the purpose of Sect.\[subsec2-6\].
![Location of the CONCERTO sub-systems: the chassis and optics in the C-cabin, the Data AcQuisition computers (DAQ) in the middle container (“instrumentation container”) and the gas handling system and the pulse-tube compressor in the bottom container (“compressors room”). Real Time Analysis (RTA) computers and hard disks are not in the telescope tower.[]{data-label="whole"}](whole.pdf){width="9cm"}
The camera {#subsec2-1}
----------
CONCERTO camera is based on a cryogenic-liquid-free custom dilution cryostat. The dilution insert and the pulse-tube orientation, in particular, have been specifically designed to allow the rotation of the cryostat axis following telescope movements. The cryostat is optimised for the range of telescope elevations (EL) comprised between 30 and 90 degrees. The best working point is achieved for EL=60 degrees.
![CONCERTO camera cross-section and 3-D view (inset). The positions of the three HDPE lenses are shown (L1, L2, L3), together with the Image Stop (IS), the Cold Pupil (CP), the cold polariser (P3) and the two focal planes (FP). The diameter of L1 is around 250 mm.[]{data-label="cryostat"}](Cryostat.pdf){width="9cm"}
The main camera optical features, shown in Fig. \[cryostat\], are the Image Stop (IS) at a temperature of 4K and the Cold Pupil (CP) at the base temperature of around 0.1K. Three HDPE (High Density PolyEthilene) lenses are used in the camera: L1 (room temperature), L2 (4K) and L3 (0.1K). In order to analyse the polarised signal, the last polariser of the MpI (P3) is placed just in front of the LEKID arrays (FP) at base temperature. P3 is a custom wire-grid polariser. It is realised on a 12 $\mu$m-thick Polyimide membrane, and with Copper wires with a pitch of 50$\mu$m. A number of IR-blocking (thermal) and metallic multi-meshes filters [@Pisano] are mounted at different stages. In particular, we have thermal filters on the warmest stages (room temperature to 50K), low-pass multi-mesh filters at the intermediate temperatures (50K to 1K) and band-defining filters at base temperature, i.e. just in front of each focal-plane array. A specially blackened baffle is installed at 4K, between IS and L2, in order to suppress the stray-light.
Since LEKID are sensitive to variations of magnetic fields, they have to be protected by a multi-stage B field screen. Four concentric high-permittivity alloys (i.e. mu-metal and cryogenics variations) cylinders are installed at 300K, 50K (double screen) and 4K. An additional superconducting screen will be wrapped around the focal planes section.
The focal plane arrays are microstrip-coupled LEKID similar to those used for NIKA2 [@nika2_1]. Six excitation/readout lines (feed-lines) are needed to readout each of the 2152 pixels array. A total of twelve pairs of coaxial cables are thus running into the cryostat. The pixels design itself is derived from NIKA [@nika1]. The LEKID details have been optimised to meet the CONCERTO specifications. In particular, the shape of the meander and its coupling quality factor have been adjusted to the target range of frequencies and expected background. The coupling quality factor is designed to be Q$_c\approx\Delta f_{-3dB} / f_0 \approx$ 2.5$\times$10$^4$, with $\Delta f_{-3dB}$ the typical width of the resonance under dark conditions. The thickness of the dielectric substrate is calibrated in order to maximise the quantum efficiency, and is in the range 100-120$\mu$m.
![Picture of the first “100mK block” including the cold pupil, the L3 lens, the P3 polariser and the two arrays (HF and LF) containing 2152 pixels each. The arrays holders are in this case realised in Aluminium. A version of the block with Copper holders is also available.[]{data-label="array"}](Blocco100mK.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
The fabrication process [@dicing2016] looks straightforward when compared to competing detectors having similar performance. The substrate, a 100-millimetres high-purity mono-crystalline Silicon wafer[^2], is prepared in the deposition chamber by a soft ion milling. The superconducting film deposition, Aluminium with thickness of 20nm, is achieved by e-beam evaporation and under a residual chamber pressure of 5$\times$10$^{-8}$ mbars. The deposition rates is fixed at 0.1nm/sec. The UV photo-lithography step is based on a positive resist, and is followed by wet etching. The etching is done using a standard Aluminium etching solution based on phosphoric acid. The diced detectors arrays are packaged in custom holders and bonded, via 17$\mu$m Aluminium wires, to the 50-Ohms micro-strip launchers. Those are then tin-soldered to the inner pin of the SMA[^3] feed-throughs.
The front-end electronics stage is installed in the cryostat, at a temperature of 4K. It is made of a series of twelve low-noise amplifiers (LNA) operating at the resonance frequencies[^4], i.e. in the range 1.5-2.5GHz. A second stage of cryogenic amplification, i.e. twelve commercial LNA, has been added on the 50K cryogenic stage to simplify the room-temperature electronics and reduce its power consumption. The connections between the cold electronics stages, the arrays and the SMA vacuum feed-throughs plate (see Fig.\[cryostat\]), are ensured by commercial semi-rigid cryogenic coaxial cables. In particular, we adopt NbTi superconducting coaxial cables for the portion connecting the output of the LEKID arrays to the input of the front-end amplifiers. Fixed attenuators are mounted on each input line, at the 4K stage. The overall electrical gain of each radio-frequency line to/from the room temperature electronics has been measured and is about +25dB.
The Martin-Puplett Interferometer {#subsec2-2}
---------------------------------
The MpI is a particular kind of Fourier Transform Spectrometer (FTS). It is capable of measuring the differential spectrum of a source, with respect to a given reference. The key elements are three polarisers (P1-beam divider, P2-splitter and P3-analyser), two (fixed/variable) arms, and two (fixed/moving) rooftop mirrors (see Fig.\[MPIreference\]). This technique is widely adopted in the millimetre and sub-millimetre domains, mostly for laboratory characterisations, but also, in the past, for narrow[^5] field-of-view observations from space [@firas99; @Griffin2010]. The first examples of wide field instruments making use of an MpI to obtain spectral information are the stratospheric balloon OLIMPO [@OLIMPO2014] and the already mentioned KISS ground-based spectro-photometre [@Fasano2020].
![Schematics of the MpI concept. Two options are shown for the reference source: a) a de-focused image of the instantaneous field-of-view; b) a cold reference. The polariser P1 provides the needed polarised input to the MpI. P2 is the beam splitter defining the two arms while P3, in the cryostat, dispatches the two projections of the polarised signal to the focal-plane arrays. The incoming beam is represented by a spectral distribution S($\nu$).[]{data-label="MPIreference"}](MpIreference2.pdf){width="9cm"}
To achieve a spectral resolution better than 1GHz, the maximum range $\Delta$l$_{max}$ of the moving rooftop mirror has to larger than 75mm. In CONCERTO, the motors can move by up to 90mm. The range $\Delta$l spanned by the interferogram can be adjusted, on a scan-by-scan basis and depending on the science target, from zero to the maximum. The spectral resolution will then be $$\Delta \nu = \frac{c}{4 \times \Delta l}\,.$$ The optical path difference is thus OPD=$2\Delta l$. Leaving the rooftop mirror stopped at the zero-path difference position results in using CONCERTO as a broad- and dual-band large field-of-view imager.
The distinctive feature of the CONCERTO (and KISS) MpI is the combination of the speed of movement of the rooftop mirror and its size/mass. In order to avoid atmospheric drifts during a single interferogram, the mechanical frequency of the motors is set to around 4Hz, i.e. 8 full interferograms (and spectra) per second are produced by each of the pixels. The lateral size of the mirror to be moved exceeds 0.5meters, for a mass exceeding 3kg. In order to counter-balance the linear momentum associated to such a moving mass, a second motor, with an equivalent mass, oscillates with an opposite instantaneous velocity. With a maximum force around 1000N, the acceleration that can be imposed to the moving mass, including the motor piston, exceeds 100m/s$^2$. The theoretical curve that is commanded to the motor is a square wave, i.e. constant speed for both ways and maximum acceleration at the turn-backs. The real curve is of course smoothed out by the finite acceleration near the extremes. We present a picture of the system that has been built for CONCERTO in Fig.\[MPI3D\].
![CONCERTO double-motors MpI. Two identical linear motors, developing a force of $\geq$1000N each, are acted on in counter-phase to null the total momentum.[]{data-label="MPI3D"}](MpI_picture.pdf){width="9cm"}
The “chassis” and electronics {#subsec2-3}
-----------------------------
The chassis is a single, compact support structure to which many of the core components of CONCERTO are attached. These include the camera itself, the MpI motors and moving mirror, and the electronics boards, along with a large number of modules devoted to the monitoring and control of the instrument. The chassis has been designed and fabricated to match the constraints related to the limited space available in the C-cabin. It allows installing multiple sub-systems of CONCERTO as a single element inside the APEX C-cabin. The chassis is laboratory pre-mounted and can slide through the C-cabin door.
Five microTCA[^6] racks mounted on the side of the chassis host the 12 Advanced Mezzanine Cards (AMC) used to readout the two arrays. The cards have an architecture similar to those used for NIKA2 [@bourrion2012], but they have been improved to be able to generate up to 400 excitation tones spanning 1GHz bandwidth. The data acquisition rate has been increased from less than 100Hz up to 4kHz, in order to properly sample the interferograms generated by the MpI. The calibration strategy has been inherited from the NIKA and NIKA2 instruments [@calvo], but the continuous frequency modulation used there is no longer viable because of the high-sampling rate. As a consequence, in CONCERTO, the position and shape of each resonance circle, which is used to calibrate the data, is reconstructed by sampling three points around the resonance: $f_0$, $f_0+\delta f$, $f_0-\delta f$. The $\delta f$ is much smaller than the resonance width, and of the order of a few kHz. The calibration step is performed at the beginning of each interferogram, while the MpI rooftop mirror is changing the direction of its motion [@KISS2020]. This approach represents in our opinion the best trade-off between optimal calibration and observing efficiency, i.e. the fraction of time that is devoted to science data stream.
The moving elements inside the chassis, in particular the MpI motors and the gas flowing in the Pulse Tube head, generate vibrations which could affect the detector performances. In order to suppress their propagation to the focal plane, the camera is fixed to the chassis only via a series of soft rubber pneumatic actuators, which strongly dampen the vibrations. Furthermore, the pressure inside the actuators (eight in total, with different orientations, as shown in Fig.\[rotation\]) is constantly adjusted by a dedicated software, so that the cryostat position and axis, monitored by means of linear position transducers, are kept constant independently of the telescope elevation. The cryostat position adjustment, requiring a few seconds to complete, is done automatically after each re-pointing and, upon request, between two subsequent observing blocks (scans). The position is, on the other hand, monitored in real time even during scans.
![Rotation of the camera (and chassis) following the telescope elevation (EL). The position of the eight soft rubber pneumatic actuators is shown. Two of them are dedicated to the pulse-tube head. For the six remaining, we indicate (with black arrows) those at action for three representative elevation cases.[]{data-label="rotation"}](Rotation.pdf){width="9cm"}
The cabin optics and the cold reference (optics box) {#subsec2-4}
----------------------------------------------------
The first CONCERTO element along the optical axis, after the telescope mirrors (M1 and M2), is the M3 foldable mirror mounted on the chassis. With a diameter of 900mm, it is the largest among the CONCERTO mirrors. The next mirror M4, attached to C-cabin upper ring, reflects the beam toward the C-cabin floor and directly into the so-called “optics box”. A first virtual image is generated, by the combination M1-M2-M3-M4, before M5. This virtual image plane will be used for some of the CONCERTO qualification tests.
The “optics box” includes a large number of mirrors (M5 to M11), the two polarisers P1 and P2 (Fig.\[MPIreference\]) and the part of the optics providing the cold reference for the MpI. It also includes the fixed rooftop mirror of the interferometer. A general 3-D view is shown in Fig.\[optics1\].
The mirrors are held at the C-cabin temperature, that is regulated at 11$^{\mathrm o}$C=284K. We expect an emissivity of the order of 1% per mirror, equivalent to an additional background of about 3K per surface, so not smaller than 30K in total. The stability of the temperature in the cabin is $\pm$1K. This means that, for an emissivity of 1%, the effective background temperature variation induced per mirror is around 10mK. Considering roughly 10 mirrors, this translates to a total effective background temperature variation of 0.1K. The KID detectors, with a NET of the order of $\approx$mK$\cdot\sqrt{s}$ per pixel, are sensitive to this drift that will produce a correlated signal on all the pixels. However, these instabilities are harmless since they are slower and smaller than the atmospheric fluctuations sitting on top.
![3-D view of the CONCERTO optics, evidencing the M3 mirror interfaced to the APEX sub-reflector (M2). M4 is attached to the ceiling of the C-cabin and represents the only reflective optics component, with M3 and the MpI rooftop moving mirror, outside of the “optics box”. Completing the optical chain: a large number of mirrors (M5 to M11), the two polarisers P1 and P2, and the cold reference optics.[]{data-label="optics1"}](Optics_v16.pdf){width="9cm"}
We performed a trade-off between the requirements related to the image quality (and the interferometry efficiency) and the lateral size of the MpI. In order to obtain a diffraction-limited combined beam for each position of the movable roof mirror (in the range 0–90mm), we imposed the criterion, for each field on the sky, of producing a quasi-parallel beam inside the MpI. According to the geometrical throughput conservation rule, the field-to-field divergence is thus fixed by the diameter of the beam. For the 20arcmin field-of-view, and considering a 12m primary mirror, we obtained an overall beam diameter of about 420mm inside the interferometer. A consequence of this method is that, imposing that the combined beam does not “walk” in the focal plane (see Fig.\[walk\]), we must accept a jitter on the entrance pupil of the optical system, i.e. the “active” portion of the primary mirror. This is, in the end, the main reason why we have decided to under-sample the size of the illuminated primary mirror, to about 11 metres.\
![Simulated focal plane image for the full, 20arcmin, field-of-view. Each spot is shown for the two extreme positions of the roof mirror, i.e. green (0mm) and blue (90mm). The black circles represent the Airy disks. It is clear that the “walking” of the beam is well contained in the diffraction disk.[]{data-label="walk"}](walk.png){width="9cm"}
A remotely controllable three-positions mirror is inserted in the optics chain in order to select the type of reference input for the MpI. The three options are:
- *Sky:* a de-focused image of the full 20arcminutes instantaneous field-of-view. The distinctive advantage is that the atmospheric common-mode spectrum is optically subtracted, providing a differential measurement of the astrophysics source spectrum with respect to the atmosphere along the line-of-sight. This means that, when targeting a field populated by weak sources, and at the first order, we will obtain a null interferogram. This configuration is ideally suited for compact object, i.e. angular extension smaller than 20arcminutes.
- *External cold black-body:* a highly-emissive ($\epsilon \geq $0.98) cold disk cooled down by an independent pulse-tube cryostat (T$_{BB}\approx$8K). This configuration is mostly adapted to extended emission observations, i.e. when the spectral and photometric gradients extend on average more than 20arcmin.
- *Cold cryostat:* a de-focused image of the CONCERTO cryostat cold (inner) parts. In other words CONCERTO “looks” into itself to find a cold auto-reference. Considering the number of optical elements (six mirrors and three lenses) lying between the three-positions mirror and the coldest stage of the cryostat, we expect an equivalent effective temperature of the order of 20K. This is in any case lower than the loading of the sky plus the whole optics train between M1 and the focal plane (which is not lower than 50K). This innovative configuration will be investigated as a simpler alternative to the external cold black body.
We stress the fact that the external cold black-body, or its alternative “cold cryostat”, are not used as spectral calibrators. They simply represent cold, i.e. colder that the combined thermal emission of the atmosphere and the optical chain, references. In contrast to the “Sky” reference case, the interferogram is not expected to be null at first order. We expect in this case potential systematic effects to be minimised by the fact that both the reference and the dominant target (mostly the atmosphere in the common case of weak astrophysical sources) exhibit thermal black-body spectra.
The best choice between the three references will depend on the particular science target, the observing conditions and the still unknown systematic effects affecting this new kind of large field-of-view spectro-photometre. A crucial phase of the on-sky commissioning will be dedicated to investigating this item. We will report in further publications the results of this study, as well as a more detailed description of the CONCERTO MpI spectral reference system that is beyond the scope of the present paper.
CONCERTO hardware outside the C-cabin {#subsec2-5}
-------------------------------------
On top of the elements described above and located in the C-cabin, CONCERTO is made also by modules elsewhere in the telescope tower and beyond, in particular, the commercial pulse-tube compressor (Cryomech CPA289C) and, more interestingly, the dilution cryostat Gas Handling System (GHS) and the Data AcQuisition (DAQ) and Real Time Analysis (RTA) computers.
The GHS is composed of: a) a series of pumps and compressors for the circulation of the $^3$He-$^4$He mixture and for providing compressed air to CONCERTO, and, b) an electronic cabinet hosting a National Instrument CompactRIO[^7] real-time controller and multiple analogue and digital input-output modules. A dedicated Labview-based software is loaded on the CompactRIO. The software continuously monitors the state of the cryostat and controls all the pumps, compressors, valves and actuators of the dilution circuit. It can perform many tasks automatically, such as pre-cooling the system or putting it in a safe mode if the security thresholds are exceeded. It also acts as a server-side program for the client Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is used on remote computers. The GUI allow to easily see the state of the system and control its components (Fig.\[map\]).
![The GUI used to control the dilution refrigerator circuit.[]{data-label="map"}](ConcCryo.png){width="9cm"}
All the pipes and cables that are needed to interconnect the elements of CONCERTO situated in different rooms (C-Cabin, instrumentation and compressors containers) are routed through flexible hoses. The hoses protect the CONCERTO cabling from the environment and guarantee the flexibility required by the movement of the telescope. Inside the C-cabin, all the connections are centralized on a dedicated panel located on the front side of the chassis, thus easing the procedures of plugging and unplugging.
The DAQ system is located in the middle container and is connected to CONCERTO in the C-cabin, producing 128MBytes per second, through five dedicated Ethernet cables. The DAQ consists in two commercial computers with 48GB of RAM and 24 cores each. The disk storage (432TB) and the RTA systems are installed in the so-called “servers room”, located a few tens of meters away from the telescope tower. The RTA computer has 32 cores and 512GB of RAM. The network connection between the DAQ and the disk/RTA is ensured by two 10 Gigabit switches and underground cables.
Installation at the APEX telescope {#subsec2-6}
----------------------------------
The Atacama Pathfinder EXperiment (APEX) telescope is a modified prototype ALMA antenna with a primary mirror diameter of 12meters and a usable field-of-view of about 20arcminutes. The location at around 5100meters a.s.l. on the Chajnantor plateau ensures optimal observing conditions (see Fig.\[atmosphere\]). In particular, the fraction of time showing a precipitable water vapour (PWV) column lower than 2mm is of the order of 70% or more.
![Atmosphere transmission at APEX under 1mm PWV (blue) and 2mm PWV (orange) conditions. The CONCERTO bands for the HF and LF arrays are shown.[]{data-label="atmosphere"}](atmosphere.png){width="9cm"}
The structure of the Cassegrain cabin, and in general the telescope infrastructure, had been designed to host large field-of-view instrumentation. The primary mirror surface has been recently refurbished, and achieves in some conditions a precision of the order of 10$\mu m$ RMS. APEX is thus, to date, a state-of-the-art installation for millimetre and sub-millimetre Astronomy. The telescope has hosted since 2007, in the same place that will be occupied by CONCERTO, the Large APEX BOlometer CAmera (LABOCA) operating at 360GHz [@Siringo2009].
The CONCERTO optics box and chassis are slided separately through the C-cabin door and then fixed to the floor by a sufficient number of 12mm metric screws. Since the beam will bounce between the floor and the top of the cabin (M4), we have measured the deformations of the C-cabin itself under typical APEX observing conditions. This measurement was achieved using two linear wire sensors with range of 3meters and a single measurement precision of 0.1mm. As shown in Fig.\[deformations\], the RMS of both sensors, over 48hours of data taken during standard APEX observations, is smaller than 0.2mm and thus negligible for our purposes.
![Deformations of a wire sensor running between the floor and the top of the APEX Cassegrain cabin recorded during 48hours. The average absolute length of the wire is 2675.3mm. Inset: picture of the wire sensor.[]{data-label="deformations"}](Deformation.pdf){width="9cm"}
The alignment of the mirrors in the optics box will be achieved in laboratory. The position of each mirror is adjusted with three micro-metric screws. No tuning will be possible at the telescope. The alignment of the optics box with respect to the chassis is ensured by the mechanical fixations. A set of specific lasers will be mounted to achieve in laboratory the internal alignments. At the telescope, we will use these lasers to align the optics box with respect to M4, M4 with respect to M3 and M3 with respect to M2. The alignment procedures will represent a critical step of the installation.
Detectors laboratory characterisation {#sec3}
=====================================
We describe in this section the first tests done on CONCERTO detectors. Some of the electrical tests on the resonances occurred in the CONCERTO cryostat itself. On the other hand, the optical characterisation of the detectors has been achieved in the former NIKA2 test-bench. The so-called NIKA1.5 camera is an easily re-configurable optical dilution cryostat with a base temperature of 60mK. It has been recently modified to host one CONCERTO array at a time. In particular, the optical filters can be easily replaced, and NIKA1.5 can be interfaced to a custom MpI for spectral characterisation, or alternatively to a Sky Simulator (described in detail in @nika1) for sensitivity and beams geometry measurements.
![Frequency sweep (transmission of the feed-line between port 1 and 2, i.e. mod(S21)) of five blocks of resonances out of the baseline HF array. They have been acquired under dark conditions, in the CONCERTO cryostat, at T=70mK.[]{data-label="S21"}](S21.pdf){width="9cm"}
Since the twelve readout lines of the HF and LF arrays share a common Local Oscillator (LO, frequency reference for the readout electronics), it is of vital importance to accommodate all the resonances block in a common $\leq$1 GHz band. This is nicely achieved, for example, in the case of the HF array shown in Fig.\[S21\]. The spread between blocks of resonances belonging to the same array, and between different arrays, is mainly due to inhomogeneities and uncertainties in the thickness of the Aluminium film.
![Quality factors distribution for one representative block of resonances in the CONCERTO HF array. For this particular block Q$_c$=23k+/-12k, in line with all the other blocks and with the designed Q$_c$=25k. These quality factors have been measured in the CONCERTO cryostat at T=70mK.[]{data-label="Q"}](Qc_good.pdf){width="9cm"}
Another important electrical parameter to be studied for large arrays of LEKID is the coupling quality factor Q$_c$. The micro-strip configuration that has been chosen has the advantage of guaranteeing a relatively well-peaked distribution of Q$_c$. This is achieved without requiring complicated and risky additional technology steps like cross-the-line micro-bondings or suspended micro-bridges. Figure \[Q\] shows an example of the statistics obtained for one readout line of the CONCERTO HF array. All the lines, as well as the LF arrays tested so far, exhibit similar behaviours. The quality factor distribution is, as designed, peaking around 25k.
![Spectral response of two CONCERTO HF arrays (solid lines) and one NIKA2 260GHz detector (dashed line). Red: HR Silicon substrate thickness of 110$\pm$5$\mu$m; blue: thickness of 100$\pm$5$\mu$m. Spectral responses have been measured in the NIKA1.5 cryostat with low-pass filters defining an open band up to 300GHz.[]{data-label="Spectra"}](SpectraAll.png){width="9cm"}
The spectral response of two HF arrays, with slightly different substrate thicknesses, has been measured. The results are reported in Fig. \[Spectra\].
![Sky simulator trace. A fake “planet” (point-like source) is crossing the field-of-view of the considered pixel. A raster scan with sub-scans at fixed elevation is simulated. The “elevation” steps are of 4mm each. This measurement has been obtained using the NIKA1.5 cryostat at T=120mK and under a background temperature around 50K.[]{data-label="Planet"}](Planet.pdf){width="9.5cm"}
The sensitivity has been measured in terms of NET (Noise Equivalent Temperature), specific for the NIKA1.5 optics system. The average NET per pixel of the CONCERTO arrays, in NIKA1.5, is around 2mK/$\sqrt{Hz}$. This results in an NET of about 45$\mu$K/$\sqrt{Hz}$ per array (polarisation), or 32 $\mu$K/$\sqrt{Hz}$[^8] when combining both polarisations. Since the sensitivities per pixel are in accordance to what had been measured for the very similar NIKA2 detectors [@nika2_1], we will base our sensitivity estimate in Sect.\[sec4\] on NIKA2 values measured on-sky. We believe actually that the sensitivities measured on the maps on the sky for similar detectors are a more realistic prediction compared to somewhat ideal values estimated in laboratory.
The good imaging characteristics of the CONCERTO arrays are demonstrated by the Sky Simulator tests. An example is shown in Fig.\[Planet\]. A deeper geometrical characterisation of the thousands beams is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be only performed on the final arrays.
The typical response time of the LEKID used for CONCERTO ranges between 30 $\mu$s and 100$\mu$s, depending on the background. Even at the chosen sampling rate of 4kHz, a cosmic-ray hit will thus represent a single-point glitch in the CONCERTO raw-time traces. The order of magnitude of expected rate is 0.1Hz per pixel.
Sensitivity estimates {#sec4}
=====================
Due to the similarities between the NIKA2 and CONCERTO detectors, we use the NIKA2 sensitivity measured on sky, and on reduced maps, as a base to estimate the sensitivity for CONCERTO. As already advocated, we think that this approach, coupled to our NET laboratory measurements, provides quite realistic predictions.
CONCERTO as an photometer: dual-band sensitivity \[sec4.1\]
-----------------------------------------------------------
We first compute the sensitivity for CONCERTO as if it was a dual-band imager (LF and HF). For that, we rely on NIKA2 sensitivity measurements on the IRAM 30-meter telescope. Average NEFDs for NIKA2 (NEFD$_{NIKA2}$) are equal to 9.8 and 36.1 mJysec$^{1/2}$, at 150 and 260GHz, respectively, for pwv=2 and an elevation of 60 degrees [@nika2_2]. These numbers already suffer from the transmission of the whole experiment.\
We observe a large difference between the NIKA2 260 and 150GHz channel performances. A combination of known effects explains the gap in sensitivity. Indeed, at 260GHz, i) the beam efficiency of the 30-meters telescope is about 55%, ii) the sensitivity is strongly affected (by 35%) by a known defect of the NIKA2 dichroïc, and iii) the contribution of residual sky noise to the average NEFDs is important. Therefore, as a realistic starting point for CONCERTO, we assume a sensitivity for the LF array equals to that of NIKA2 at 150GHz. For the HF array, we assume a sensitivity better than that of the NIKA2 260GHz channel, thanks to a gain in beam efficiency at APEX (which is at the order of 80% at the CONCERTO wavelengths), the lack of dichroïc in CONCERTO, and better atmospheric conditions. The values are thus (for pwv=2 and an elevation of 60 degrees): $$NEFD_{NIKA2}^{LF} = 10\,[7.5-15] \,\mathrm{mJy\,sec^{1/2} \,and,}$$ $$NEFD_{NIKA2}^{HF} = 15\,[10-20] \,\mathrm{mJy\,sec^{1/2}.}$$ The numbers in bracket give the uncertainties on our assumption. As it was the case for NIKA2, we make the hypothesis that no excess noise will appear in CONCERTO at APEX compared to CONCERTO in laboratory. Of course, this cannot be verified until installation.
Compared to NIKA2, for CONCERTO, we have to scale the sensitivities to match the APEX telescope size, and we add two polarisers in the optical path (P1 and P2, see Fig.\[MPIreference\]). Sensitivity loss is only due to P1, by a factor between $\sqrt{2}$ (if photon noise dominated) and 2. To be conservative, we consider a factor 2. Thus, for a single array of CONCERTO, the NEFD becomes: $$NEFD^{LF, HF} = NEFD_{NIKA2}^{LF, HF} \times 2 \times \left( \frac{27.5}{11} \right)^2$$ where 27.5 and 11 meters are the IRAM and APEX telescopes effective sizes, respectively, i.e. the portion of the primary mirrors that are optically conjugated to the cold pupils of the instruments (aperture stops).
Then we assume a frequency window of $\Delta\nu$=115GHz, making the assumption that the two arrays cover the frequency range 195-310GHz (HF) and 130-270GHz (LF), with a notch filter removing 25GHz of the low-frequency bandpass (around 183GHz). Finally, we also have to take into account the decrease in transmission due to increase optics complexity of CONCERTO compared to NIKA2 (in particular FTS optics will have some transmission loss and additional loading), which we estimate to be $T=0.8$ for an unpolarised source (this is only an additional loss of transmission compared to NIKA2+P1 and not the overall transmission).
The sensitivity of CONCERTO as a dual-band photometer (set when the optical path difference in the FTS is null) is thus: $$NEFD_{\mathrm{phot}}^{LF, HF} = NEFD^{LF, HF} \times \sqrt{\frac{\Delta\nu_{NIKA2}^{LF, HF}}{\Delta\nu}} \times \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}$$ We have $\Delta\nu_{NIKA2}^{HF}$=48GHz and $\Delta\nu_{NIKA2}^{LH}$=39.2GHz [@nika2_2] and thus:\
$NEFD_{\mathrm{phot}}^{LF}$ = 81.6 \[61.2 - 122.4\] mJysec$^{1/2}$ and\
$NEFD_{\mathrm{phot}}^{HF}$ = 135.4 \[90.3 - 180.6\]mJysec$^{1/2}$.\
Note that due to the FTS in front of the cryostat, CONCERTO is a non-optimal instrument for imaging. However, the option of removing the first polariser for purely photometric campaigns could be studied. In that case the sensitivity is expected to be 2 times better for each individual array (as we took a factor 2 of penalty for P1).
Sensitivity in spectroscopy
---------------------------
For the spectroscopic mode, we consider a fix value for spectral resolution $\delta\nu$=1.5GHz. The number of spectral elements in the frequency range is $N_{se}$= $\Delta\nu$/$\delta\nu$.
The sensitivity per spectral element (in mJy s$^{1/2}$) for a single spectrometer (note that in our case, with an FTS, the number of pixel equals the number of spectrometers) is given by $$NEFD_{FTS}= NEFD_{\mathrm{phot}} \times N_{se} \,.
\label{Eq_1}$$
The beam area is computed assuming a Gaussian beam, $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\mathrm{beam}} &=& 2\pi \left( \frac{\theta_{\mathrm{beam}}}{2\sqrt{2 \log{2}}} \right)^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ with a FWHM determined by the Rayleigh criterion for a D=11m antenna (our illumination of the APEX 12m antenna) at a given frequency (corresponding to a given redshift for the \[CII\] line), $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\mathrm{beam}} &=& 1.22\lambda_{\mathrm{obs}} / D\,.\end{aligned}$$
We can then convert the sensitivity per spectral element from point source (Eq.\[Eq\_1\]) to diffuse emission (in MJysr$^{-1}$s$^{1/2}$) following $$NEI_{FTS} = NEFD_{FTS} \times 10^{-9} / \Omega_{\mathrm{beam}}
\label{Eq_2}$$ This is the Noise Equivalent Intensity, on sky, per KIDS, per spectral bin (taken as $\delta\nu$=1.5GHz).
We can finally compute the mapping speed MS (per spectral element) following, $$\mathrm{MS} = \mathrm{FOV} / NEI_{FTS}^2$$ where FOV is the field of view area (with a diameter of 20arcminutes). Numbers are given in Table\[Tbl\_sens\]. Note that we ignored the frequency overlap between the two arrays (and thus a gain of $\sim \sqrt{2}$ on the sensitivity in the frequency overlap region). We considered $NEFD_{DB}^{LF}$ for $\nu \le$ 150GHz, $NEFD_{DB}^{HF}$ for $\nu \ge$ 260GHz, and a linear interpolation between the two NEFDs for $150<\nu<260$GHz.\
We also give in Table\[Tbl\_sens\] the sensitivity for the whole array, per spectral element, which is: $$\sigma_{\mathrm{array}} = NEI_{FTS} / \sqrt{N_{\mathrm{KIDS}}}\,,
\label{sigma_array}$$ where N$_{\mathrm{KIDS}}$ is the number of pixels (KIDS) of each array (we use 1720 KIDS, which correspond to 80% of valid KIDS in each array). This would be the sensitivity of each voxel[^9] of large maps, assuming a RA-DEC (or AZ-EL) raster scan-like scanning strategy (and assuming pixel sizes of the map equal to beam sizes). Each voxel of the observed map would then be observed by each KIDS. We checked these numbers using a scanning strategy similar to NIKA2 raster scans, with 3 interferograms per beam.
$\nu$ \[GHz\] 131 156 211 238 272 302
----------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------- ------------------- --------------------
Redshift of the \[CII\] line 13.5 11.2 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.3
Beam size \[arcsec\] 52.4 44.0 32.5 28.8 25.2 22.7
Beam solid angle \[$\times$10$^{-8}$ sr\] 7.30 5.15 2.81 2.21 1.70 1.37
Mapping Speed 42.8 \[19.0-76.0\] 19.8 \[9.0-35.9\] 3.4 \[1.8-7.1\] 1.7 \[0.9-3.7\] 0.8 \[0.5-1.9\] 0.5 \[0.3-1.2\]
\[$\times$10$^{-3}$ deg$^2$ / (MJy/sr)$^2$ / hour\]
On sky map sensitivity $\sigma_{array}$ 2.1 \[1.5-3.1\] 3.0 \[2.3-4.5\] 7.3 \[5.1-10.2\] 10.4 \[7.1-14.1\] 14.8 \[9.9-19.7\] 18.2 \[12.2-24.3\]
\[(MJy/sr) $\mathrm{sec}^{1/2}$\]
Low spectral-resolution spectroscopic surveys {#sec5}
=============================================
CONCERTO will offer a generic access to a large FoV and low-frequency resolution spectroscopic instrument. This opening of 3D large-scale surveys is the next step after the broad-band photometric experiments, either from the ground (e.g. LABOCA, SCUBA2, NIKA2) or from space (e.g. Herschel and Planck). The first scientific aim of CONCERTO is to map in three dimensions the fluctuations of the \[CII\] line intensity in the reionisation and post-reionisation epoch (z$\ge$5.3). This technique, known as “intensity mapping”, will measure the clustering of \[CII\] emissivity and allow answering questions on how and when galaxies and quasars formed, and the history and topology of reionisation. Even if \[CII\] intensity mapping has been the basis of instrument definition, we extended the instrument capabilities to make CONCERTO a multi-purpose instrument (e.g., extending the frequency range down to 130GHz for galaxies clusters observations). Thus we expect CONCERTO to bring a significant contribution in a number of areas, including the study of galaxy clusters (via the thermal and kinetic SZ effect), the follow-up of cosmological deep surveys, the observation of local and intermediate-redshift galaxies, and the study of Galactic star-forming clouds. In this section we give some forecast on the expected signal to noise ratio that can be obtained on the \[CII\]-emission power spectrum (Sect.\[CII\_IM\]). In addition, we give some predictions for observing the SZ signal of galaxy clusters (Sect.\[SZ\]).
\[CII\_IM\] \[CII\] intensity mapping with CONCERTO
---------------------------------------------------
\[CII\] is one of the brightest emission lines in the spectra of galaxies. It is an excellent coolant for neutral gas in photo-dominated regions and an extinction-free tracer of star formation at high $z$. Being redshifted into the sub-millimetre and millimetre atmospheric windows for $z>4.5$, it has become one of the most popular line at high $z$. Pointing on known objects, with e.g. ALMA, NOEMA, APEX/FLASH, \[CII\] is now detected in a large number of galaxies at high $z$ ($>$150 at $z>4.5$, with a large contribution from the ALMA ALPINE survey, e.g. @bethermin2020). Such observations are a tremendous step forward but we also need to look at the overall population, i.e. observe large volume and unbiased surveys. First observations with ground-based interferometers e.g., with ALMA (“ALMA Spectroscopic Survey in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field” large program - ASPECS, @walter2016) or JVLA (CO Luminosity Density at High Redshift survey - COLDz, @riechers2019) offer a three-dimensional view of the molecular gas content of galaxies. The covered areas are about 5-60 square arcminutes.\
Intensity mapping complements these efforts beautifully [e.g @kovetz2019] providing an unbiased view of the distribution of the gas that is difficult to assemble from targeted measurements of individual galaxies, and probing cosmological volumes, with maps on several-degree scale and large frequency (and thus redshift) coverage. Intensity mapping exploits the confusion-limited regime and measures the integrated light emission from all sources, including unresolved faint galaxies.\
We will conduct with CONCERTO a major survey of about one square degree with 1,200hours of APEX telescope time. The survey will provide a data cube in which intensity is mapped as a function of sky position and redshift. Our main target is the \[CII\] line emission at $z\ge5.3$. But CONCERTO will also observe the CO intensity fluctuations arising from $0.3<z<2$ galaxies, giving the spatial distribution and abundance of molecular gas over a broad range of cosmic time. The 3-D fluctuations will be studied in Fourier space with the power spectrum.\
To compute the expected SNR on the \[CII\] power spectrum at high $z$, we used the \[CII\] model presented in [@Serra2016]. Using measurements of the Cosmic Infrared Background (CIB) angular power spectra from Herschel/SPIRE together with star formation rate density (SFRD) measurements, they constrain the galaxy FIR luminosity as a function of dark-matter halo mass at all relevant redshifts, in the halo model framework. By using scaling relations from [@Spinoglio2012] to link the intensity of emission lines to the galaxy infrared luminosity, they compute 3D emission line power spectra for all relevant lines, including \[CII\]. They compute the expected SNR of cross-power spectra between \[CII\] and other emission lines, that will constrain the mean amplitude of each signal, and thereby gain insight into the mean properties of the ISM of high-$z$ galaxies. Note that in their paper, they use for CONCERTO a constant sensitivity for all redshifts of $\sigma_{array}$= 155mJysec$^{1/2}$, while we have here $\sigma_{array}$=\[156, 206, 230, 250, 250\] mJy s$^{1/2}$ at z=\[11.2, 8.0, 7.0, 6.0, 5.3\].\
We follow [@gong2012] to compute uncertainties on the power spectra. The observing time per map voxel (considering one pixel equals one beam) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\mathrm{voxel}} &=& t_{\mathrm{survey}} \frac{\Omega_{\mathrm{beam}} N_{\mathrm{KIDS}}}{A}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with A the survey area, $t_{\mathrm{survey}}$ the on-sky survey time (i.e. 1200$\times$0.7=840hours in our case, considering 30% of overheads), $\Omega_{\mathrm{beam}}$ the solid angle of the beam (Table\[Tbl\_sens\]) and $N_{\mathrm{KIDS}}$, the number of pixels (we consider 80% of valid KIDS, thus $N_{\mathrm{KIDS}}$=1720).
Assuming a spherically averaged power spectrum measurement, and a directionally independent on sky sensitivity, the variance of the power spectrum is: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{var}[\bar{P}_{CII}(k)] = \frac{[P_{CII}(k)+
\bar{P}_{CII}^{\mathrm{N}}(k)]^2}{N_{\mathrm{m}}(k,z)},
\label{eqn:avg_spectrum}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{N_m(k,z)}$ is the number of modes that leads to the power spectrum measurement at each $k$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{P}_{CII}^{\mathrm{N}}(k) = V_{\mathrm{voxel}} \frac{\sigma_{voxel}^2}{t_{\mathrm{voxel}}}\,,
\label{PCII}\end{aligned}$$ with $V_{\mathrm{voxel}}$ the volume surveyed by each voxel. In the case of CONCERTO, each KIDS gets a spectrum, and considering one KID per beam, we have $\sigma_{voxel}$ = $\sigma_{array}$.
The number of modes at each $k$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
N_m(k,z) = 2\pi\,k^2\Delta\,k\frac{V_s(z)}{(2\pi)^3}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{\Delta\,k}$ is the Fourier bin size, and V$_\mathrm{s}$(z) the survey volume, expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
V_s(z) = \chi(z)^2 y_{CII} B_{\nu} A\,,
\label{Vs}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
y_{CII}(z) &=& \lambda_{CII}(1+z)^2/H(z),\end{aligned}$$ being the factor to convert the frequency intervals to the comoving distance at the wavelength $\lambda_{CII}$ (rest frame wavelength of the \[CII\] line). In Eq.\[Vs\], $B_{\nu}$ is the considered bandwidth of the measurement. The volume surveyed by each voxel ($V_{\mathrm{voxel}}$ in Eq.\[PCII\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{voxel}}&=&\chi(z)^2 y_{CII}(z)\Omega_{\mathrm{beam}}\delta_\nu \,.\end{aligned}$$
We consider measurements spanning a redshift range $\mathrm{\Delta\,z\sim0.6}$ which corresponds to a frequency range of $\mathrm{B_{\nu}}\sim20$ GHz at $z=6.1$ for the \[CII\] line. Note that [@gong2012] give useful relations for computing $V_s$ and $V_{\mathrm{voxel}}$ for the \[CII\] line.\
Table\[SNR\_PK\_CII\] gives the numbers derived from the above computations and Fig.\[fig\_pk\] shows the predicted \[CII\] power spectrum with its error bars. Because such predictions are very uncertain, we assumed two extreme models, giving respectively low and high SFRD at z$>$3 (see Fig.3 of @Lagache2018_proc). Low SFRD is the pessimistic prediction as it corresponds to the lowest UV-driven SFRD; high SFRD is the optimistic prediction as it corresponds to the CIB-driven SFRD derived from the halo modelling of Planck CIB measurements [@PlanckXXX].\
![Predicted \[CII\] power spectrum at z=6. Three cases are shown, corresponding to three scenarios of SFRD at high $z$ [see @Lagache2018_proc]: High SFRD (dark blue), Low SFRD (light blue) and the geometrical mean of the two (red). Only points with SNR$>$1 are shown. SNRs have been computed considering A=1.4 square degrees, $t_{survey}$=840 hours (which corresponds to a total observation time of 1200 hours taking into account the overheads) and sensitivities as estimated in Sect.\[sec4\]. \[CII\] power spectra have been derived from the modelling of CIB power spectra [@Serra2016], using a conversion from SFR to \[CII\] that conservatively underestimates the \[CII\] luminosity by a factor 6 at z=5 compared to recent semi-analytical models [e.g., @Lagache2018] or ALMA ALPINE measurements [@Schaerer2020]. Our estimates of \[CII\] power spectra are thus likely to be underestimated. Also shown are the predicted \[CII\] power spectra from @yue2019 (using the local SFR-\[CII\] relation, black line) and @chung2020 (dashed black line).[]{data-label="fig_pk"}](Pk_CII_z6.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Redshift $z$ 5.5 6.2 7 8
------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------------
SNR P$^{CII}$ mean SFRD 23 \[14-44\] 12 \[6.9-24\] 5.7 \[3.1-12\] 2.0 \[1.0-4.1\]
SNR P$^{CII}$ low SFRD 4.5 \[2.6-9.8\] 1.9 \[1.1-4.3\] 0.78 \[0.48-1.7\] 0.23 \[0.12-0.48\]
SNR P$^{CII}$ high SFRD 79 \[57-112\] 55 \[36-87\] 34 \[21-60\] 16 \[8.5-29\]
{width="19cm"}
Covering an area of 1.4 square degrees, our survey will provide the first measurements of the \[CII\] power spectrum up to z$\sim$7, considering the mean SFRD and average sensitivity estimate, and up to z$\sim$8 in the best case of sensitivity estimate. Note that the low SFRD case is unlikely as it gives low shot-noise levels for the CIB, not compatible with the Planck and Herschel measurements, and not compatible with current SFRD measurements at high-z based on \[CII\] or far-infrared measurements. Moreover, on top of the exact level of the SFRD at high $z$, the relation used to convert SFR to \[CII\] luminosity is another capital ingredient of such model. [@Serra2016] used the relation of [@Spinoglio2012], which gives, for a given SFR, a \[CII\] luminosity 6 times lower than that obtained with the \[CII\]-SFR relations of [@Lagache2018] or observed with the ALMA ALPINE survey [@Schaerer2020]. Our power spectra are thus very likely to be underestimated. In terms of point source sensitivities, our survey will reach 1$\sigma$=\[14.4, 14.9, 19.7, 22.0, 23.9, 23.9\]mJy, for a spectral element $\delta \nu$=1.5GHz, at $\nu$=\[131.0, 156.0, 211.0, 238.0, 272.0, 302\]GHz, respectively.\
Finally, one major difficulty in intensity mapping surveys is the problem of foregrounds. For \[CII\], the main foregrounds will be the contamination from emission lines from lower redshifts, in particular emission from CO rotation transitions . [@silva2015] and [@breysse2015] showed that this contamination can be partially removed by masking out the brightest pixels in the survey, or the low-redshift galaxies selected from other surveys. For that, CONCERTO will highly benefit from the extensive visible-IR photometry and spectroscopy galaxy survey data that are available in the chosen field (i.e. the COSMOS field). In addition, one of the strengths of CONCERTO is in its wide frequency range: several CO lines are simultaneously observed at the same redshift for all redshifts $z>0.35$. Cross-correlation between these lines will be a very powerful method to remove the contamination. This will be specifically addressed for CONCERTO in a future paper.
\[SZ\] Observing galaxy clusters with CONCERTO
----------------------------------------------
Cluster of galaxies are the largest gravitationally bound objects in the Universe and so they are key for understanding the hierarchical large scale structure [@Kravtsov2012]. The study of galaxy clusters and in particular of their number as a function of mass and redshift allows us to constrain cosmological parameters [@Allen2011]. In the frequency range covered by CONCERTO, cluster of galaxies will be mainly detected via the thermal and kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovitch (SZ) effect [@Sunyaev1972; @Sunyaev1980]. The thermal SZ (tSZ) effect [@Sunyaev1972] refers to the interaction of the hot electrons in clusters with the CMB photons, and results in a distortion in the CMB spectrum at the position of the cluster. In the case of hot clusters, it will be also affected by relativistic corrections named rSZ . The kinetic SZ (kSZ) [@Sunyaev1980] is a Doppler shift of the CMB photons induced by the proper motion of clusters of galaxies along the line-of-sight.\
Observations of the tSZ effect have been successfully performed at high angular resolution using continuum cameras based on KIDs, such as NIKA and NIKA2 at the IRAM 30-m telescope [@Adam2014; @Adam2015; @Adam2016a; @Adam2017; @Ruppin2016; @Ruppin2018]. For the kSZ effect, also observed with e.g. NIKA2 [@Adam2016b], a multi-wavelength spectrometer as CONCERTO would be an unique tool to separate the tSZ and kSZ as well as the different foreground components (CIB, CMB and the Galactic emission) and extract information about the cluster physics. Indeed, with sufficiently precise spectroscopy measurements [@Birkinshaw1999], we can measure the cluster mass (from the tSZ effect), proper motion along the line-of-sight (from the kSZ), and temperature (from the relativistic corrections to the tSZ).\
Particularly, considering the angular resolution and the mapping speed of CONCERTO, we expect to perform a precise estimate of the shape of the SZ spectrum for clusters of galaxies for redshifts between 0.2 and 0.8. As an illustration we present in Fig.\[concerto\_sz\] a simulation of a typical cluster that could be observed with CONCERTO. In this simulation the mass of the cluster is equal to 10$^{15}$M$_{\sun}$ and the cluster is located at a redshift z = 0.4. We assume an universal pressure profile model from to compute the cluster Compton parameter map. From left to right we present the cluster SED as expected to be measured by CONCERTO at different radial distances from the center of the cluster. We have considered 6 bands in frequency with typical bandwidths of 10 to 25GHz. We explored both the sensitivity to the relativistic SZ effect (blue points) assuming a cluster temperature of 20 keV, and to the kinetic SZ (red points) assuming the cluster is moving towards the observer with a velocity of 1000km/h. Uncertainties were computed from the sensitivity estimates given in Sect. \[sec4\] assuming a mapping area of 310arcmin$^2$ and a total integration time of 30 hours. We also show in the Fig.\[concerto\_sz\] the individual tSZ, kSZ and rSZ effect contributions.\
We find that for reasonable observation times (tens of hours) CONCERTO would provide first spectral 2D mapping of the intracluster medium of high redshift clusters and should be able to measure cluster velocities via the kSZ effect. CONCERTO should also be able to detect the relativistic SZ effect and measure cluster temperature. A more detailed mapping of the cluster temperature would require observation times of about hundreds of hours.
Conclusions {#sec6}
===========
We have presented the design of the CONCERTO instrument, a novel spectrometer to be installed on the APEX telescope. CONCERTO is based on the development of new arrays in the millimetre using Kinetic Inductance Detectors. It will contain two arrays of 2152 KIDS, mounted in a dilution cryostat that has a base temperature of 0.1K. Spectra are obtained by a fast Martin-Puplett interferometer located in front of the cryostat. Frequency resolution can be up to $\delta_{\nu}$=1GHz. The technological choices leading to the final instrument design have been explained in detail. Promising detectors characterisation have been obtained. Estimates of expected sensitivity are given, based mostly on the NIKA2 experience, i.e. an instrument on sky subject to similar constraints as CONCERTO. The expected sensitivity, combined with the large field-of-view (20arcminute diameter) will provide an unprecedented mapping speed for such an instrument.
CONCERTO will cover the frequency range 130-310GHz, allowing in particular the observation of the \[CII\]-emission line at high redshift and the SZ signal from galaxy clusters. These two main science drivers for CONCERTO have been detailed in the paper. CONCERTO is particularly well suited for these two objectives since i) the \[CII\] line intensity mapping requires a combination of sensitivity, large field-of-view and spectral resolution R$\geq$100 and ii) the study of galaxies clusters via the SZ effect, requires a multi-frequency analysis (to separate the different SZ signals, as well as the SZ signals from CIB, CMB and Galactic dust), the angular resolution of the 12-meters telescope and R$\approx$10.\
CONCERTO is at present in advanced stage of fabrication. The installation and technical commissioning at the APEX telescope is scheduled for the first semester of 2021. The commissioning, science verification and observations are foreseen by the end of 2022.
Besides the authors, the technicians and engineers more involved in the experimental setup development have been Maurice Grollier, Olivier Exshaw, Anne Gerardin, Gilles Pont, Guillaume Donnier-Valentin, Philippe Jeantet, Mathilde Heigeas, Christophe Vescovi, and Marc Marton. We acknowledge the crucial contributions of the whole Cryogenics and Electronics groups at Institut Néel and LPSC. The arrays described in this paper have been produced at the PTA Grenoble microfabrication facility. We warmly thank the support from the APEX staff for their help in CONCERTO pre-installations and design. The flexible pipes, in particular, have been routed under the competent coordination of Jorge Santana and Marcelo Navarro. We acknowledge support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (project CONCERTO, grant agreement No 788212) and from the Excellence Initiative of Aix-Marseille University-A\*Midex, a French “Investissements d’Avenir” programme. GL warmly thanks Matt Bradford, Jamie Bock and Tzu-Ching Chang for insightful discussions on CONCERTO sensitivity computation and J.-G. Cuby for his help and support for the ERC proposal. We are grateful to our administrative staff in Grenoble and Marseille, in particular Patricia Poirier, Mathilde Berard, Lilia Todorov and Valérie Favre, and the Protisvalor team. We acknowledge the crucial help of the Institut Néel and MCBT Heads (Etienne Bustarret, Klaus Hasselbach, Thierry Fournier, Laurence Magaud) during the COVID-19 restriction period.
[^1]: https://almascience.eso.org
[^2]: https://www.sil-tronix-st.com/en/
[^3]: SubMiniature version A
[^4]: http://thz.asu.edu/products.html
[^5]: In this context, the field-of-view has to be expressed in number of beams. The number of beams is around 2,000 for CONCERTO and 300 for KISS, to be compared to few tens at maximum for the previous instruments.
[^6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroTCA
[^7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactRIO
[^8]: 32 $\mu$K/$\sqrt{Hz}$ is equivalent to 22.6 $\mu$K$\, \mathrm{sec}^{1/2}$.
[^9]: A voxel represents a value on a regular grid in three-dimensional space.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown, with the aid of the Bogoliubov inequality, that a Bose-Einstein condensate has the Bloch form and represents a self-organized supersolid provided the interaction between the condensate atoms is nonlocal and of infinitely long-range.'
author:
- Moorad Alexanian
bibliography:
- 'basename of .bib'
title: 'Infinitely-long-range nonlocal potentials and the Bose-Einstein supersolid phase'
---
Introduction
============
The existence of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) in an ideal 3D quantum Bose gas served as a useful physical concept in the study of theoretical models for superfluidity, which are usually associated with the presence of a BEC. It is interesting that the physical realization of a BEC in a dilute gas has given impetus to the study of BEC for its own sake with a view of understanding many-body systems [@EJM96]. In addition, the confinement of photons and molecules in thermal equilibrium in an optical cavity reveals a BEC even for photons [@KS10]. The existence of superflow [@EK04] in solid helium $^4 \textup{He}$ has stimulated the search of a BEC in solid helium thus establishing the existence of BECs in all three states of matter–gas, liquid, and solid. The emergence of a self-organized supersolid phase, both a superfluid with crystalline order simultaneously, formed by a BEC coupled to an optical cavity has been observed [@BG10]. The quantum phase transition describing the supersolid, which is associated with a spontaneous broken spatial symmetry, is in quantitative agreement with the Dicke model of superradiance and is driven by an infinitely long-range interaction between the condensed atoms [@BG10]. A nonlocal potential is found to favor a crystalline BEC for the ground state of two-dimensional interacting bosons [@LLL11]. Numerical techniques have been used to predict a novel supersolid phase for an ensemble of Rydberg atoms in the dipole-blocked regime confined to two dimensions, interacting via a repulsive dipole potential softened at short distances [@CJB10]. It is claimed that the superfluid droplet-crystal phase does not crucially depend on the dipolar form of the interaction at long distances [@CJB10].
In this work, we use the Bogoliubov inequality to establish the properties of the interparticle potentials that allow for a BEC in crystalline order that can be regarded as a supersolid. It is shown that a local, two-particle potentials cannot result in a BEC with crystalline order in 2D and what is needed are nonlocal, two-body potentials of infinite range.
Interacting Bose gas
====================
Consider the Hamiltonian for an interacting Bose gas $$\hat{H}= \int d\textbf{r}\hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r}) (\frac{-\hbar^2 }{2m} \nabla^2) \hat{\psi}(\textbf{r}) + \int d\textbf{r}\hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r}) V_{ext}(\textbf{r}) \hat{\psi}(\textbf{r})$$ $$+ \int d\textbf{r}_{1}\int d\textbf{r}_{2} \int d\textbf{r}_{3} \int d\textbf{r}_{4} \hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r}_{1})\hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r}_{2}) V(\textbf{r}_{1}, \textbf{r}_{2},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4}) \hat{\psi}(\textbf{r}_{4})\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r}_{3}),$$ where $V_{ext}(\textbf{r})$ is a confining, external potential, $V(\textbf{r}_{1}, \textbf{r}_{2},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4})$ is the two-particle interaction potential, and $\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r})$ and $\hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r})$ are bosonic field operators that destroy or create a particle at spatial position $\textbf{r}$, respectively. The two-particle interaction potential $V(\textbf{r}_{1}, \textbf{r}_{2},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4})$ must satisfy the following general conditions: (i) translational invariance, (ii) Galilean invariance, (iii) identical particles, (iv) rotational invariance, (v) space-reflection invariance, (vi) time-reversal invariance, and (vii) hermiticity [@MA71]. Therefore, in general, $$V(\textbf{r}_{1}, \textbf{r}_{2},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4}) = \delta(\textbf{r}_{1} + \textbf{r}_{2} -\textbf{r}_{3} -\textbf{r}_{4}) \langle \textbf{r}_{1} - \textbf{r}_{2}|V| \textbf{r}_{3} - \textbf{r}_{4}\rangle,$$ which is referred to as a nonlocal potential. A mathematically simpler potential can be deduced from Eq. (2) if, in addition, $$\langle \textbf{r}_{1} - \textbf{r}_{2}|V| \textbf{r}_{3} - \textbf{r}_{4}\rangle = \delta(\textbf{r}_{1} - \textbf{r}_{2} -\textbf{r}_{3} +\textbf{r}_{4}) V(|\textbf{r}_{1} - \textbf{r}_{2}|),$$ and so $$V(\textbf{r}_{1}, \textbf{r}_{2},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4}) = \frac{1}{2} \delta(\textbf{r}_{1} -\textbf{r}_{3}) \delta(\textbf{r}_{2} -\textbf{r}_{4}) V(|\textbf{r}_{1} - \textbf{r}_{2}|),$$ which is referred to as a local potential.
Macroscopic occupation in the single-particle state $\psi(\textbf{r})$ result in the non-vanishing [@NNB60] of the quasi-average $\psi(\textbf{r}) = <\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r})>$ and so the boson field operator $$\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r}) =\psi(\textbf{r}) + \hat{\varphi}(\textbf{r}),$$ with $$\psi(\textbf{r}) = \sqrt{\frac{N_{0}}{V(D)}}\sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime} \xi_{\textbf{k}^\prime} e^{i \textbf{k}^\prime \cdot\textbf{r}} \equiv\sqrt{\frac{N_{0}}{V(D)}} f(\textbf{r}) ,$$ and $$\sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|\xi_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2 =1,$$ where $N_{0}$ is the number of atoms in the condensate and $V(D)$ is the D-dimensional “volume" and $<\hat{\varphi}(\textbf{r})> =0$. The operator $\hat{\varphi}(\textbf{r})$ has no Fourier components with momenta $\{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$ that are macroscopically occupied and so $\int d\textbf{r} \hat{\varphi}^\dag(\textbf{r}) \psi(\textbf{r}) = 0$. The separation of $\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r})$ into two parts gives rise to the following (gauge invariance) symmetry breaking term in the Hamiltonian (1) $$\hat{H}_{symm} = \int d\textbf{r}_{1} \hat{\varphi}^\dag(\textbf{r}_{1}) \int d\textbf{r}_{2}\int d\textbf{r}_{3}\int d\textbf{r}_{4} \psi^*(\textbf{r}_{2}) [ V(\textbf{r}_{1}, \textbf{r}_{2},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4}) + V(\textbf{r}_{2}, \textbf{r}_{1},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4}) ]\psi(\textbf{r}_{3})\psi(\textbf{r}_{4}) + h. c.$$ $$\equiv \int d\textbf{r}_{1} \hat{\varphi}^\dag(\textbf{r}_{1}) \chi(\textbf{r}_{1}) + h. c.$$
The presence of this nonzero $\hat{H}_{symm}$ in the Hamiltonian gives rise to further macroscopic occupation in states other than the original state given by $\psi(\textbf{r})$ and so the condensate wavefunction $\psi(\textbf{r})$ gets modified by augmenting the single-particles states where macroscopic occupation occurs. In such a case, macroscopic occupation in the state $b$ would give rise to macroscopic occupation in the states $a$, such that $a\neq b$, whenever the matrix element $<ab|\hat{V}|bb>$ of the potential $\hat{V}$, which is the last term in Eq. (1), does not vanish. For instance, macroscopic occupation only in the single-particle state with momentum $\textbf{p}$, which corresponds to a uniform condensate, does not give rise to macroscopic occupation in any other momentum state since the matrix element in the momentum representation $<\textbf{q}\textbf{p}| \hat{V}|\textbf{p}\textbf{p}>$ vanishes by momentum conservation unless $\textbf{q}= \textbf{p}$. This consistency proviso requires that the correct condensate wavefunction $\psi(\textbf{r})$ corresponds to that which gives rise to no symmetry breaking term in the Hamiltonian. That is to say, $\hat{H}_{symm}$ vanishes for the correct condensate wavefunction $\psi(\textbf{r})$.
For instance, macroscopic occupation in the single-particle states with momenta $\textbf{k}, \textbf{k} \pm\textbf{q}_{1}, \textbf{k} \pm\textbf{q}_{2} $ gives rise, with the aid of the symmetry breaking term $\hat{H}_{symm}$ and owing to linear momentum conservation, to additional macroscopic occupation in single-particle momenta states. Therefore, for $\hat{\varphi}^\dag(\textbf{r})$ to be orthogonal to both $\psi(\textbf{r})$ and $\chi(\textbf{r})$ and so $\hat{H}_{symm}=0$, one must have macroscopic occupation in all the momentum states $\textbf{k} + n_{1}\textbf{q}_{1} + n_{2}\textbf{q}_{2}$, with $n_{1}, n_{2} = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2, \cdots.$ Accordingly, $$\psi_{\textbf{k}}(\textbf{r}) = \sqrt{\frac{N_{0}}{V(D)}} \sum_{n_{1}, n_{2} = - \infty}^{\infty} \xi_{\textbf{k}+ n_{1} \textbf{q}_{1} + n_{2} \textbf{q}_{2} } \hspace{0.1in} e^{i (\textbf{k}+ n_{1} \textbf{q}_{1} + n_{2} \textbf{q}_{2} )\cdot\textbf{r}} \equiv e^{i \textbf{k}\cdot \textbf{r}} u_{\textbf{k}}(\textbf{r}).$$ Note that the BEC (9) generates a real-space, crystalline distribution of atoms since $u_{\textbf{k}}(\textbf{r}) = u_{\textbf{k}}(\textbf{r} +\textbf{t}_{m})$ for any primitive lattice translation vector $\textbf{t}_{m}$ with $e^{\textbf{q}_{i}\cdot \textbf{t}_{m}} =1$ for $i=1, 2$ and so (9) is of the Bloch form. For D = 2, the vector $\textbf{t}_{m} = m_{1} \textbf{a} + m_{2} \textbf{b}$, where $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ can take all integer values and $\textbf{a}$ and $\textbf{b}$ are the edges of the unit cell, which form parallelograms given by the five Bravais lattices. Note that $\textbf{a} \cdot \textbf{q}_{1} =2 \pi$, $\textbf{a} \cdot \textbf{q}_{2}= 0$, $\textbf{b} \cdot \textbf{q}_{1} = 0$, and $\textbf{b} \cdot \textbf{q}_{2}=2 \pi$.
Bogoliubov inequality
======================
The absence or presence of a BEC in spatial dimensions $D \leq 2$ is based on Bogoliubov’s inequality $$\frac{1}{2}\langle\{\hat{A},\hat{A}^{\dag}\}\rangle \geq k_{B}T |\langle[\hat{C},\hat{A]}\rangle|^2 / \langle[[\hat{C}, \hat{H}], \hat{C}^{\dag}]\rangle,$$ where $\hat{H}$ is the Hamiltonian (1) of the system, the brackets denote thermal averages, and the operators $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{C}$ are arbitrary provided all averages exist. Consider first the case that $\hat{H}$ has arbitrary local interparticle and external potentials, that is, $V(\textbf{r}_{1}, \textbf{r}_{2},\textbf{r}_{3},\textbf{r}_{4})$ is given by Eq. (4).
Consider the following operators, $$\hat{C} = \int d\textbf{r} e^{i\textbf{k}\cdot \textbf{r}} \hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r})\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r})$$ and $$\hat{A} = \int d \textbf{r} \int d \textbf{r}^{\prime} e^{-i\textbf{k}\cdot \textbf{r}} f(\textbf{r}) f^{\ast}(\textbf{r}^\prime) \hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r})\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r}^\prime),$$ where $\textbf{k}$ is arbitrary. Now, $$\langle [A^\dag,A]\rangle = V(D)\langle[\hat{C},\hat{A}]\rangle = V^2(D)\{ N_{0} - N_{0} |A_{\textbf{k}}|^2 -\sum_{\textbf{q}}\langle \hat{a}^\dag_{\textbf{q}} \hat{a}_{\textbf{q}}\rangle | \xi_{\textbf{q}+ \textbf{k}}|^2 \},$$ $$\langle[[\hat{C}, \hat{H}], \hat{C}^{\dag}]\rangle = \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{m} N,$$ with $$A_{\textbf{k}} = \sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime} \xi_{\textbf{k}^\prime} \xi^{*}_{\textbf{k}^\prime + \textbf{k}}
= \frac{1}{N_{0}} \int \textup{d} \textbf{r} |\psi(\textbf{r})|^2 e^{i \textbf{k}\cdot \textbf{r}}$$ with the aid of Eq. (6), where $N$ is the total number of particles. Now, $|A_{\textbf{k}}| \leq 1$ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality where the equality holds for $\textbf{k} = \textbf{0}$, that is, $A_{0}=1$ with the aid of Eq. (7). The vector $\textbf{q} \notin \{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$, where $\{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$ is the set of condensate vectors for which $\xi_{\textbf{k}^\prime} \neq 0$. For a BEC at rest, $|\xi_{\textbf{k}}|^2 = |\xi_{- \textbf{k}}|^2$. Note that $\xi_{\textbf{q} + \textbf{k}}\neq 0$ for $(\textbf{q} + \textbf{k}) \in \{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$ and $\xi_{\textbf{q} + \textbf{k}}= 0$ for $\textbf{q}\notin \{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$ and $ \textbf{k} \in \{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$.
It is important to remark that Eq. (14) holds for local interparticle potentials but need not hold true for the general case of nonlocal potentials [@MA71]. Therefore, for a BEC to exist in spatial dimensions $\textup{D} \leq 2$, the $1/k^2$-singularity that results from the Bogoliubov commutator in the denominator of Eq. (10) must me removed. For local interparticle potentials this can be accomplished only provided the origin $\textbf{k} =\textbf{0}$ is a limit point (or point of accumulation) of condensates. This would correspond to both momenta $\textbf{q}_{1}$ and $\textbf{q}_{2}$ in Eq. (9) approaching zero. Of course, in this case the BEC (9) ceases to be of the Bloch form, albeit, remaining nonuniform. The case where the interparticle potential is nonlocal is discussed in Section IV.
We sum the Bogoliubov inequality (10) over the single-particle momentum states in the set $\{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$ constituting the condensate, which includes an arbitrary neighborhood of the point of accumulation of the condensate at $\textbf{k}^\prime = \textbf{0}$ that corresponds to a condensate at rest. We want to find an upper bound of the anticommutator $\langle\{\hat{A},\hat{A}^{\dag}\}\rangle = 2\langle \hat{A}\hat{A}^{\dag}\rangle + \langle [\hat{A}^{\dag},\hat{A}]\rangle$. We extend the sum over the first term $\langle \hat{A}\hat{A}^{\dag}\rangle$ over all values of $\textbf{k}$ thus obtaining a larger upper bound $$M N_{0}N V^2(D) \geq \sum_{\textbf{k}}\langle \hat{A}\hat{A}^{\dag}\rangle,$$ where the condensate wavefunction $\psi(\textbf{r})$ is orthogonal to the operator $\hat{\varphi}^\dag(\textbf{r})$ and we assume that the condensate density is bounded from above by $|f(\textbf{r})|^2 \leq M$ with $1 \leq M <\infty$ since $\int d \textbf{r}|f(\textbf{r})|^2 =V(D)$. In (16) use has been made of the completeness relation for the momentum eigenstates and a negative term resulting from a single commutation has been dropped. Note that we are considering a condensate where all the single-particle states with momentum $\textbf{k}^\prime$ are occupied macroscopically with $\textbf{k}^\prime = \textbf{0}$ a point of accumulation. In addition, we are supposing that the number of particles in the “volume" $V(D)$ is fixed, that is, we are employing a canonical ensemble and so $\int d\textbf{r}\hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\textbf{r})\hat{\psi}(\textbf{r}) = \sum_{\textbf{k}} \hat{a}^\dag_{\textbf{k}} \hat{a}_{\textbf{k}} = \hat{N}$ is actually the c-number $N$.
Consider next the sum over $\textbf{k}^\prime$ of the commutator $\langle[\hat{A}^\dag,\hat{A]}\rangle$, $$\sum _{\textbf{k}^\prime} \langle[\hat{A}^\dag,\hat{A]}\rangle = N_{0} V^2(D) \sum _{\textbf{k}^\prime} [ 1 - |A_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2],$$ with the aid of (13) and where $\xi_{\textbf{q} + \textbf{k}} =0$ for $\textbf{q}\notin \{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$ and $\textbf{k}\in \{\textbf{k}^\prime\}$. This sum over the commutator is bounded from above provided the sum is restricted to values of $\textbf{k}^\prime $ that have a finite, upper bound. Now the right-hand side (RHS) of inequality (10) becomes $$k_{B}T |\langle[\hat{C},\hat{A]}\rangle|^2 / \langle[[\hat{C}, \hat{H}], \hat{C}^{\dag}]\rangle = \frac{m k_{B}T}{\hbar^2} \frac{ V^2(D) N_{0}^2}{N} \sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime}\Bigl ( \frac{1 - |A_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2}{k^\prime} \Bigr )^2$$ with the aid of Eqs. (13) and (14). Note that the RHS is bounded in the upper limit of the sum; however, it is the lower limit as $\textbf{k}^\prime \rightarrow \textbf{0}$ for $D \leq 2$ where the sum may diverge which would result in no BECs, viz., $N_{0}=0$ for $T>0$. Combining Eqs. (16)–(18), we have for the Bogoliubov inequality, $$M N + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime}( 1 - |A_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2) \geq \frac{m k_{B}T }{\hbar^2} \frac{ N_{0}}{N} \sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime}\Bigl( \frac{1 - |A_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2}{k^\prime} \Bigr) ^2.$$ Therefore, the existence of a BEC for $T>0$ requires the convergence of the sum on the RHS of (19) over the macroscopically occupied single-particle momentum states $\textbf{k}^\prime$ of the condensate. Note that the sums in (19) over the condensate momenta can be approximated by integrals according to $\sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime} \rightarrow V(D) \int \textup{d} \textbf{k}^\prime$ and so $$M \frac{ N}{V(D)} + \frac{1}{2} \int \textup{d} \textbf{k}^{\prime}( 1 - |A_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2) \geq \frac{m k_{B}T }{\hbar^2} \frac{ N_{0}}{N} \int \textup{d} \textbf{k}^{\prime} \Bigl( \frac{1 - |A_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2}{k^\prime} \Bigr) ^2.$$ The integral on the RHS has no infrared divergence since by (15), $(1 -|A_{\textbf{k}^\prime}|^2)$ vanishes quadratically as $\textbf{k}^\prime \rightarrow \textbf{0}$ and so the $1/k^2$–singularity is removed thus allowing the existence of a BEC for $D\leq 2$.
Supersolid BEC
==============
The analysis of the possible existence of BEC for $D\leq 2 $ in the previous section was based on two-particle, local interactions. Clearly, local interparticle potentials cannot give rise to a BEC of the Bloch form for $D=2$ since the $1/k^2$–singularity in the Bogoliubov inequality (10), owing to the $k^2$–behavior of the Bogoliubov commutator (14), cannot be removed and still preserve the Bloch form for the BEC. For local interparticle potentials, the Bogoliubov commutator is given solely by the kinetic energy term of the Hamiltonian (1). This need not be so for nonlocal, long-range interparticle potentials [@MA71].
The $k^2$–behavior of the double commutator (14) follows from the kinetic energy term of the Hamiltonian since local interparticle potentials $\hat{V}$ do not contribute to the Bogoliubov commutator, viz., $\langle[[\hat{C}, \hat{V}], \hat{C}^{\dag}]\rangle = 0$. It is interesting that the latter is not the case for nonlocal potentials [@MA71]. If, for instance, the two-particle potential is a sum of a local and a nonlocal potential, then the former potential does not contribute to the Bogoliubov commutator while the latter does and if the decay of the nonlocal potential with distance is sufficiently slow, then $\langle[[\hat{C}, \hat{V}], \hat{C}^{\dag}]\rangle \propto k^{2-\epsilon} $ with $\epsilon > 0$ as $k\rightarrow 0$ [@MA71]. Accordingly, the behavior of the Bogoliubov commutator in the limit $k\rightarrow 0$ is dominated by the nonlocal term rather than the kinetic energy term as is the case in the local case. Therefore, the symmetry breaking term (8) allows a BEC of the Bloch form for $D=2$ provided the potential between the condensate atoms are given by an infinitely long-range nonlocal potential.
Recently, a Dicke quantum phase transition was realized in an open system formed by a BEC coupled to an optical cavity that gives rise to a self-organized supersolid phase [@BG10]. It is interesting that the phase transition is driven by infinitely long-range interactions between the condensed atoms. The analogy of that work to the Dicke model is based on the interaction Hamiltonian that gives rise to a coupling of the pump and cavity fields to the zero-momentum states of the atoms to the symmetric superposition of atomic states that carry an additional unit of photon momentum. This is quite analogous to our dynamically generated symmetry breaking term that allows condensation in atomic states that are integer multiples of a given condensate momentum. Note, however, that only one additional unit of photon momentum along the $x$ and $z$ directions are consider [@BG10]. Higher-order momentum states must be included in order to describe atomic localization at the sites of the emergent checkerboard pattern, that is, to represent a true BEC Bloch form [@BG10].
Summary and conclusion
======================
We use the Bogoliubov inequality to establish necessary conditions for the existence of two-dimensional BECs of the Bloch form and show that the interparticle potential must be of sufficiently long range and nonlocal. It has been shown experimentally that such a quantum phase transition occurs in an almost pure $^{87}\textup{Rb}$ gas resulting in the onset of self-organization into a supersolid [@BG10]. This behavior is equivalent to a dynamical version of the normal-to-superradiant quantum phase transition of the Dicke model [@BG10].
[8]{} J. R. Ensher, D. S. Jin, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 4984 (1996). J. Klaers, J. Schmitt, F. Vewinger, and M. Weitz, Nature (London) **468**, 545 (2010). E. Kim and M. H. W. Chan, Nature (London) **427**, 225 (2004). K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger K. Baumann *et al.*, Nature (London) **464**, 1301 (2010). X. Li, W. V. Liu, and C. Lin, Phys. Rev. A **83**, 021602(R) (2011). F. Cinti, P. Jain, M. Boninsegni, A. Micheli, P. Zoller, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 135301 (2010). M. Alexanian, Phys. Rev. A **4**, 1684 (1971). N. N. Bogoliubov, Physica (Amsterdam) **26**, S1 (1960).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Neural networks (NNs) normally do not allow any insight into the reasoning behind their predictions. We demonstrate how influence functions can unravel the black box of NN when trained to predict the phases of the one-dimensional extended spinless Fermi-Hubbard model at half-filling. Results are the first indication that the NN correctly learns an order parameter describing the transition. Moreover, we demonstrate that influence functions not only allow to check that the network trained to recognize known quantum phases can predict new unknown ones but even discloses information about the type of phase transition.'
author:
- Anna Dawid
- Patrick Huembeli
- Michał Tomza
- Maciej Lewenstein
- Alexandre Dauphin
bibliography:
- 'influence\_functions\_bib.bib'
title: 'Phase Detection with Neural Networks: Interpreting the Black Box'
---
Machine learning (ML) influences everyday life in multiple ways with applications like letter and voice recognition software, fingerprint identification, e-mail spam filtering, self-driving cars, and many others. These versatile algorithms, dealing with big and high-dimensional data, also have a prominent impact on science, as neural networks (NNs) have been harnessed to solve problems of quantum chemistry, material science, and biology [@Behler07PRL; @Ward16; @Christiansen18; @Wong18]. Physics is no different in exploring ML methods, encompassed already by astrophysics, high-energy physics, quantum state tomography, and quantum computing [@Carleo19RevMod; @Naul18; @Baldi14; @Torlai18NatPhys; @Carrasquilla19; @Torlai18; @Bukov18]. Especially abundant is the use of ML in phase classification which is not surprising if one considers that determining the proper order parameters for unknown transitions is no trivial task, on the verge of being an art. It includes the search in the exponentially large Hilbert space and the examination of symmetries existing in the system, guided by the intuition and educated guess. The alternative route was shown, when NNs, used commonly for high-dimensional data analysis, located the phase transitions for known systems without a priori physical knowledge [@Carrasquilla17NatPhys; @Nieuwenburg17NatPhys]. However, the resulting models were agnostic, largely opaque, and ’intelligence’ was provided by extracting it from data, which is in stark contrast with a physicists’ main driving force: the need to understand the underlying mechanisms of the process. At the same time, it is undeniable that ML often produces surprisingly good results.
Deep fully connected and convolutional neural networks (CNN) have been applied to detect phase transitions in a variety of physical models, for classical [@Carrasquilla17NatPhys; @Schafer19; @Tanaka17; @Li18], quantum [@Nieuwenburg17NatPhys; @Liu17; @Broecker17; @Huembeli19; @Chng18; @Theveniaut19; @Wetzel17; @kottmann2020unsupervised], and topological phase transitions [@Deng17; @Huembeli18; @Zhang18PRL; @Tsai19; @Greplova19] with supervised [@Carrasquilla17NatPhys; @Dong18; @Zhang18PRL; @Broecker17; @Tsai19; @Theveniaut19] and unsupervised [@Schafer19; @Nieuwenburg17NatPhys; @Liu17; @Wetzel17; @Chng18; @Greplova19; @kottmann2020unsupervised] approaches. Other examples include ML models that do not leverage deep architectures [@Wang16; @Vargas18b].
![(a) Visual explanation of leave-one-out training and its approximation, the influence function. (b) Schematic phase diagram of the extended one-dimensional half-filled spinless Fermi-Hubbard model with the schemes of the corresponding states: LL - Luttinger liquid, BO - bond order, CDW-I and II - charge density wave type I and II. The arrows indicate the transitions studied in this work.[]{data-label="fig:intro"}](images/intro.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Next to all these successful applications, there are open problems, for instance ones concerning topological models and many-body localization (MBL), which include the need for pre-engineered features [@Kim17; @Beach18; @Richter18], disagreement of predicted critical exponents [@Huembeli19], and high sensitivity to hyperparameters describing the training process [@Theveniaut19]. Moreover, even in the models described by Landau’s theory, so far, these approaches have mostly enabled only the recovery of known phase diagrams or the location of phase transitions in qualitative agreement with more conventional approaches based, for instance, on order parameters and/or theory of finite-size scaling. Nonetheless, ML achieved this at a much lower computational cost, e.g. using fewer samples or smaller system sizes [@Huembeli19; @Theveniaut19].
Additionally, used ML techniques are mostly black boxes, i.e., systems with internal logic not obvious at all to a user [@Guidotti18]. The missing key element is the model interpretability, i.e., the ability to be explained or presented to a human in understandable terms [@DoshiVelez17]. The research on this crucial property is at heart of a booming field of ML interpretability [@Baehrens10; @Ribeiro16; @Zhou16; @Selvaraju17; @Chattopadhyay18; @Zhang18review] aiming at designing methods that discover the internal logic of commonly used black boxes. They are needed for a plethora of reasons. Given the ML presence in everyday life, it is no surprise that already legal measures have been taken to assure that any individual can obtain meaningful explanations of the logic involved when automated decision-making takes place [@GDPR]. Next to the legal motivations, there is ethics. The worrying fact was revealed that learning machines inherit biases from humans preparing data [@Songul18]. Also, deep NNs were shown to perfectly fit random labels [@Zhang16], and that a group of local features can be their good approximation [@Brendel18]. These studies prove that the learning process sometimes goes against our intuition, and indicate that the predictions should be accompanied by a justification understandable by humans to be trusted.
Moreover, an overwhelming need for ML interpretability was born after first successful uses of ML in physics. Its numerical power cannot be denied, but its frequent automatic use contradicts the primary motivation of physical research, namely the desire to know and understand the underlying mechanisms of the process. Instead, with black boxes, we stop at reproducing the process. Even in phase classification problems, where NNs have been often used, we cannot be fully confident that NNs learn order parameters. Hence, in this work, we show how interpretability methods can be used in the classification of physical phase transitions to understand what characteristics are learned by a ML algorithm. This approach unravels if a relevant physical concept was indeed learned or if the prediction cannot be trusted. We also present that interpretable NN can give additional information on the phase transitions, not provided to the algorithm explicitly.
*Supervised learning.* We consider supervised learning problems with labeled training data $\mathcal{D} = \{z_i\}_{i=0}^n$, with $z_i = (x_i, y_i)$. The input data is coming from some input space $x_i \in \mathcal{X}$, and the model predicts the outputs coming from some output space $y_i \in \mathcal{Y}$. In our setup, the inputs $x_i$ are the state vectors for a given physical system, and $y_i$ are the corresponding phase labels. The model is determined by the set of parameters $\theta$. In the training process, the parameters’ space is being searched for the final parameters $\hat{\theta}_{\mathcal{D}} \equiv \hat{\theta}$ of the ML model, which minimize the training loss function $\mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}, \theta) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{z \in \mathcal{D}} \mathcal{L}(z, \theta)$, where $n$ is the training data set size, which tends to be of the order of thousands. After training, a model can make a prediction for an unseen test point $z_{\text{test}}$ with the test loss function value $\mathcal{L}(z_{\text{test}}, \hat{\theta})$ related to the model certainty of this prediction.
*Interpreting neural networks.* An intuitive way of unraveling the logic learned by the machine is retraining the model after removing a single training point $z_\text{r}$ (starting from the same minimum, if a non-convex problem is analyzed), and checking how it changes the prediction of a specific test point $z_{\text{test}}$. Such a leave-one-out training (LOO) [@Cook77] studies the change of the parameters $\theta$, now shifted to a new minimum $\hat{\theta}_{\mathcal{D} \setminus \{z_\text{r}\} }$ of the loss function, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:intro\](a). An analysis of the test loss change, $\Delta \mathcal{L} \equiv \mathcal{L}(z_{\text{test}}, \hat{\theta}) - \mathcal{L}(z_{\text{test}}, \hat{\theta}_{\mathcal{D} \setminus \{z_\text{r}\} })$, enables the indication of the most influential training points for a given test point $z_{\text{test}}$ being the ones whose removal causes the largest change. Influential examples can be both helpful ($\Delta \mathcal{L} > 0$) and harmful ($\Delta \mathcal{L} < 0$). Such an analysis gives the notion of a similarity used by the machine in a given problem, as training points being the closest in the $\Delta \mathcal{L}$ space can be understood as the most similar. Once the most influential points are indicated, we can decode what characteristics are being looked at by comparing ’similar’ points in the machine ’understanding’. It can be especially useful in phase classification problems where the analysis of $\Delta \mathcal{L}$ enables the recovery of patterns being crucial for distinguishing the phases. The use of this technique to check the influence of every training point in $\mathcal{D}$ on a given test point is, however, prohibitively expensive, as the model has to be retrained for each removed $z$.
To circumvent this problem, one can make a Taylor expansion of the loss function $\mathcal{L}$ with respect to the parameters around the minimum $\hat{\theta}$, and approximate $\Delta \mathcal{L}$ resulting from the LOO training. This method was proposed for regression problems already forty years ago [@Cook77; @Cook80; @Cook82] and named influence functions. Not only this interpretability method is computationally feasible, but also it treats a model as a function of the training data instead of assuming that the training data set is fixed. The influence function reads $$\mathcal{I}(z_\text{r}, z_{\text{test}}) = \frac{1}{n} \nabla_{\theta} \mathcal{L}(z_{\text{test}}, \hat{\theta})^T H^{-1}_{\theta} (\hat{\theta}) \nabla_{\theta} \mathcal{L}(z_\text{r}, \hat{\theta})\,,$$ and it estimates $\Delta \mathcal{L}$ for a chosen test point $z_{\text{test}}$ after the removal of a chosen training point $z_{\text{r}}$. $\nabla_{\theta} \mathcal{L}(z_\text{test}, \hat{\theta})$ is the gradient of the loss function of the single test point, $\nabla_{\theta} \mathcal{L}(z_\text{r}, \hat{\theta})$ is the gradient of the loss function of the single training point whose removal’s impact is being approximated, and $H^{-1}_{\theta} (\hat{\theta})$ is the inverse of Hessian, $H_{i,j} (\hat{\theta}) = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial_{\theta_i} \partial_{\theta_j}} \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}, \theta) |_{\theta = \hat{\theta}}$. All derivatives are calculated w.r.t. the model parameters $\theta$, evaluated at $\hat{\theta}$ corresponding to the minimum of the loss, $\mathfrak{L} (\mathcal{D}, \hat{\theta})$. We can only ensure the existence of the inverse of the Hessian if it is positive-definite. However, it was shown [@Koh17; @Koh19] that this method could be generalized to non-convex problems and therefore applied to ML. The example code can be found in [@OurRepo].
*Physical model.* We apply influence functions to a small CNN (described in detail in appendix \[app:CNN\]) trained to recognize phases in the extended Hubbard model, namely a one-dimensional (1D) system consisting of spinless fermions at half filling with hopping between neighboring sites with amplitudes $J$, interacting with nearest neighbors with strength $V_1$ and next-nearest neighbors with strength $V_2$ $$\hat{H} = - J \sum_{{\langle}i,j {\rangle}} c_i^{\dagger} c_j + V_1 \sum_{{\langle}i,j {\rangle}} n_i n_j + V_2 \sum_{{\langle}{\langle}i,j {\rangle}{\rangle}} n_i n_j\,.$$ The competition between the system parameters $J$, $V_1$, and $V_2$ leads to four different phases: gapless Luttinger liquid (LL), two gapped charge-density-wave phases with density patterns 1010 (CDW-I) and 11001100 (CDW-II), and bond-order (BO) phase, as seen in Fig. \[fig:intro\](b) [@Hallberg90; @Mishra11]. The order parameter describing the transition to the CDW-I (-II) phase is the average difference between (next-)nearest-site densities, while the BO phase is characterized by staggered effective hopping amplitudes. Detailed description is included in appendix \[app:PD\]. We feed the CNN with ground states expressed in the Fock basis, labeled with their appropriate phases, calculated for a 12-site system with QuSpin and SciPy packages [@Weinberg17; @SciPy]. To lift the degeneracy of the ground state, we use guiding fields favoring one symmetry. We define the phase transition position where the order parameter’s value is ten times larger than the corresponding guiding field (see appendix \[app:PD\]). The hopping amplitude, $J$ is set to 1 throughout the paper.
*Transition between LL and CDW-I.* We train a CNN to classify ground states into two phases: LL and CDW-I based on the transition line marked with the arrow (1) in Fig. \[fig:intro\](b) for $V_2=0$. We plot the influence functions of all training examples for a chosen test point (marked with orange line) in Fig. \[fig:J0\]. The order parameter describing the transition here is the average difference between nearest-site densities, which is zero in the LL phase and non-zero (growing to one) in the CDW-I phase. The panels (a)-(b) present how influential training points are for test points from the LL phase. The test state (a) is the ground state located deeply in the LL phase, while (b) is closer to the transition.
If the CNN learns an order parameter, all training points, i.e., ground states from the LL phase exhibiting a zero order parameter, should be similarly positively influential, and that is exactly what we observe. They form an almost flat line in panels (a), (b), and (d). In panel (c), however, for the test point close to the transition, their influence changes linearly. This divergence from expected behavior is because in our exact diagonalization calculations, the order parameter in the LL phase is not exactly constant and equal to zero. Instead, it is growing very slowly, that is why finally the most helpful points are the ones near the transition - they are the most unique from the training points labeled as LL, and the information they provide is the most valuable. The nonzero order parameter is caused by three phenomena: the finite-size effect, use of the guiding fields, and the numerical arbitrariness of choosing the transition point. In the perfect scenario (observed, for example, for training on states obtained from mean-field calculations), the five most influential points should be randomly distributed over the whole LL phase. The most harmful training points are, in both cases, the ones closest to the transition, but on the CDW-I side of it. These states are the most similar (with the smallest order parameter value), but already labeled differently.
On the side of the CDW-I phase, the influence pattern is significantly different. The curvature of influential points corresponds to the growth of the order parameter, and the most influential helpful points are the ones closest to the test point in the order parameter space, slightly shifted towards the transition point, as they provide more information. Panel (c) shows the influence functions of training points for the test states on the CDW-I side, close to the transition. The most harmful examples are, as in the previous test points, the ones closest to the transition, but on the other side of it. Panel (d), however, presents a distinct behavior of the most harmful examples being the closest to the transition, but on the same side. All the training points are similarly influential with small values of influential functions resulting in the almost flat line. It is a signature of the CNN’s high certainty regarding the prediction made in panel (d) manifesting with a small test loss function $\mathcal{L}(z_{\text{test}}, \hat{\theta})$. Also, the analyzed test point is deeply in the CDW-I phase with all neighboring states being almost identical with the order parameter close to 1. The most harmful examples are the ones that are labeled as the CDW-I phase, but very different, so the ones closest to the transition.
![Influence functions of all training examples i.e., ground states calculated for the transition line between LL and CDW-I for $V_2=0$ for chosen test points marked with an orange line. Blue dots are influence function values for training examples from the LL phase; purple ones are from the CDW-I phase. Larger green (red) dots are five the most influential helpful (harmful) training examples. The light grey background indicates $V_1/J$ values of the LL phase, dark grey - the CDW-I phase. A symmetric log scale is used both in $x$ and $y$ axis with 3 and $|10^{-3}|$ chosen as threshold points, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:J0"}](images/IF_fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The expected behavior of the most influential points indicates not only that the CNN correctly learned the order parameter, but also that this tool enables distinguishing between the phase transition types. In particular, the curvature of the line drawn by influence functions’ values is different for the transitions characterized by continuous and discontinuous change of the order parameter.
*Transfer learning.* With a similar approach, we validate the transfer learning to another transition line. We take the trained CNN from Fig. \[fig:J0\] and in Fig. \[fig:J025\] we apply it to test states coming from the transition line for $V_2=0.25 \, V_1$, where the phase transition position is shifted to higher values of $V_1/J$. Therefore the training and test states come from different transition lines, $V_2= 0$ and $0.25 \, V_1$, marked in Fig. \[fig:intro\](b) with the arrows (1) and (2), respectively.
![Influence functions of all training examples i.e., ground states calculated for the transition line between LL and CDW-I for $V_2=0$ for chosen test states from transition line for $V_2=0.25\, V_1$ marked with an orange line. Blue dots are influence function values for training examples from the LL phase for $V_2=0$; purple ones are from the CDW-I phase. Larger green (red) dots are five the most influential helpful (harmful) training examples. The light grey background indicates $V_1/J$ values of the LL phase for $V_2=0.25\, V_1$ line, dark grey - the CDW-I phase. A symmetric log scale is used both in $x$ and $y$ axis with 3 and $|10^{-3}|$ chosen as threshold points, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:J025"}](images/IF_fig3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Panels (a) and (b) of Fig. \[fig:J025\] show the influence function values of training data set for test states from the LL phase, while (c) and (d) - from the CDW-I phase. Due to the shifted transition point for the test line, compared to the training line, we see the same shift in the behavior of the most influential points on the CDW-I side. This shift corresponds to the fact that no longer the same value of $V_1/J$ yields the same value of the order parameter, and that the ML algorithm still as the most influential points regards the states with the most similar order parameter.
![Influence functions of all training examples i.e., ground states calculated for the transition line between LL, BO, and CDW-II for $V_1/J = 1$ labeled as (a)-(b) LL - not LL and (c)-(d) CDWII - not CDWII for chosen test points marked with an orange line. Blue dots are influence function values for training examples from (a)-(b) the LL phase, (c)-(d) the LL and BO phases, while purple ones (a)-(b) from the BO and CDW-II phases, (c)-(d) from the CDW-II phase. Larger green (red) dots are five the most influential helpful (harmful) training examples. The light background indicates $V_1/J$ values of the LL, light grey - BO, and dark grey - CDW-II phase. In all subplots, a symmetric log scale is used in $x$ axis with 2 chosen as a threshold point. A symmetric log scale with $|10^{-4}|$ as a threshold is used in $y$ axis in panels (a)-(b), while in panels (c)-(d) the scale is linear.[]{data-label="fig:LL-BO-CDWII"}](images/IF_fig4.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
*Inferring the existence of the third phase.* This time we analyze the transition line crossing three phases, LL, BO, and CDW-II, which is indicated by the arrow (3) in Fig. \[fig:intro\](b). Two order parameters are needed to describe this transition. One is the average difference of the next-nearest neighbor density, which equals zero in the LL and BO phases, and grows to 1 in the CDW-II phase. The other is the staggering of effective nearest-neighbor hoppings, being 0 in the LL phase, non-zero in the BO phase, and slowly decaying to 0 in the CDW-II phase. In the studied range of parameters, two phases (BO and CDW-II) co-exist (see appendix \[app:PD\]). It is crucial to note that in this section, we train on the mentioned transition line crossing three phases, but we label ground states only as belonging to one out of two phases.
In the first set-up, with results presented in the panels (a)-(b) of Fig. \[fig:LL-BO-CDWII\], we label ground states as belonging to the LL (blue dots, label 0) or belonging to the BO and CDW-II phases (purple dots, label 1). Independently on the test point location, within purple training points belonging to BO and CDW-II two similarity regions, understood as two groups of points with similar influence within the group, can be distinguished. The ML algorithm apparently learns two different patterns (order parameters) to classify the data correctly, and as such, it notices the existence of the third phase within the incorrectly labeled data. This would be impossible to notice without the use of interpretability methods, which in this sense pave the way towards unknown phases detection.
The second set-up consists of labeling the same data as belonging either to the LL and BO phases (blue dots, label 0) or to the CDW-II phase (purple dots, label 1). The influence functions values, resulting from this classification, are in the panels (c)-(d) of Fig. \[fig:LL-BO-CDWII\]. The pattern they form is starkly different. First of all, no longer two similarity regions within training points from the LL and BO phases are distinguished. It is because this transition can be fully described with one order parameter, which is zero in the LL and BO phases, and non-zero in the CDW-II phase. The behavior is then more similar to the one seen in Fig. \[fig:J0\] with the transition between LL and CDW-I. It is not identical, though, as in the phase LL+BO the most helpful training points are always distributed randomly, but deep in the LL phase, avoiding the BO phase. The most helpful points on the CDW-II side are also those deep in the CDW-II phase in contrast to Fig. \[fig:J0\], where they mostly follow the test point. The difference comes mostly from the fact that the deeper in the CDW-II phase, the smaller the BO order parameter, which is making CDW-II predictions less difficult. We claim that the observed pattern is the sign of not learning correctly the order parameter and potentially overfitting.
Finally, we trained a CNN on the same data, but with three labels correctly corresponding to all three phases. The influence patterns seen in Fig. \[fig:J0\] and panels (c)-(d) of Fig. \[fig:LL-BO-CDWII\] are repeated, indicating that CNN correctly learns both appropriate order parameters.
*Conclusions.* We used the influence functions, being the interpretability method aiming at approximating the LOO training, on the CNN trained to classify ground states of the extended 1D half-filled spinless Fermi-Hubbard model. We acknowledge significant finite-size effects, but we see that achieved results do not depend on the system size. We provided for the first time a strong indication that the ML algorithm indeed learned a relevant order parameter. Moreover, we showed that the influence functions, applied to the trained NN, were able to detect an unknown phase as well as distinguish between types of transitions. Two aspects impacted which training points were the most important for a given test point: how similar they were to the test state and how unique in the training data set. Together they gave a notion of distance or similarity used by the CNN in the phase classification problem and indicated that the patterns relevant for the test states coincided with the order parameters.
The next step is to address open problems of topological models and MBL with NNs, whose logic can be finally discovered by influence functions. Even though this work concerned quantum phase transitions, this method may be easily applied to classical models as well. Moreover, influence functions proved to be very sensitive to outliers existing in the data set and may serve for anomaly detection. As such, it can be useful for analysis of experimental noise in the data on which various models are built and allow to judge how strongly it affects them.
*Acknowledgements.* An.D. acknowledges the financial support from the Polish National Science Centre within the Preludium grant No. 2019/33/N/ST2/03123. This project has also received funding from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 665884 (P.H.). M.T. acknowledges the financial support from the Foundation for Polish Science within the Homing and First Team programmes co-financed by the EU Regional Development Fund. We also acknowledge the Spanish Ministry MINECO (National Plan 15 Grant: FISICATEAMO No. FIS2016-79508-P, SEVERO OCHOA No. SEV-2015-0522, FPI), European Social Fund, Fundació Cellex, Fundació Mir-Puig, Generalitat de Catalunya (AGAUR Grant No. 2017 SGR 1341, CERCA/Program), ERC AdG NOQIA, EU FEDER, MINECO-EU QUANTERA MAQS, and the National Science Centre, Poland-Symfonia Grant No. 2016/20/W/ST4/00314. Al.D. is financed by a Juan de la Cierva fellowship (IJCI-2017-33180).
——————————————————————————
Convolutional neural network {#app:CNN}
============================
![Scheme of used architecture. Length scale does not apply.[]{data-label="fig:CNN"}](images/tiny_CNN.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We use a neural network (NN) (see Fig \[fig:CNN\]) consisting of 3 one-dimensional convolutional layers with 5 filters on the input vector, 8 filters on the first hidden layer and 10 filters for the last convolution layer. After the first 2 convolutions we apply a max pooling layer to reduce the dimension, and the last convolutional layer is followed by a global average pooling (GAP) layer. The GAP architecture has been introduced in [@Lin13] and has found applications in discriminative localization of objects in image data [@Zhou16]. It reduces each filter of the final convolution to a single value. After the GAP we have one fully connected layer with two output neurons that predict the labels. The GAP makes sure that most of the weights of the NN are contained in the convolutional part. We use this technique here to reduce the amount of weights in the fully connected part of the NN. For the training of the NN we use state vectors from each phase as an input and label them with 0 or 1 for each phase. The state vectors are obtained via exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian \[eq:ham\].
We use $L_2$ regularization during the training to effectively decrease the certainty of the NN’s predictions. Actually, the undertrained NN with imperfect accuracy can provide the better intuition behind the problem than overtrained one, whose predictions are impacted by overfitting. Used CNNs had accuracy between 89 and 96%.
For the results in Fig. \[fig:J025\] we apply transfer learning, which means that we use a NN that was trained with a training set that comes from a different domain than the test data. In our case the domains are different trajectories through the phase space indicated in Figure \[fig:intro\] with the arrows (1) and (2) where the phase transition appears for different values of $V_1/J$.
Phase diagram of the extended 1D half-filled spinless Fermi-Hubbard model {#app:PD}
=========================================================================
We study the 1D system consisting of spinless fermions at half filling with hopping between neighboring sites with amplitudes $J$, interacting with nearest neighbors with strength $V_1$ and next-nearest neighbors with strength $V_2$:
$$\label{eq:ham}
\hat{H} = - J \sum_{{\langle}i,j {\rangle}} c_i^{\dagger} c_j + V_1 \sum_{{\langle}i,j {\rangle}} n_i n_j + V_2 \sum_{{\langle}{\langle}i,j {\rangle}{\rangle}} n_i n_j\,.$$
The model exhibits four different phases, two of them co-exist in the limited range of parameters. Without the next-nearest-neighbor interaction, $V_2$, the system can follow only patterns of the gapless liquid Luttinger (algebraic) phase (LL) or the charge-density wave of the type I (CDW-I) with the degenerated density pattern 101010. The CDW-I order parameter describing this transition reads $O_{\text{CDW-I}}=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{{\langle}i,j {\rangle}} |n_{i} - n_{j}|$, where ${\langle}{\rangle}$ symbolizes nearest neighbors. The next-nearest-neighbor interaction, $V_2$ competes with $V_1$, so for non-zero $V_2$ but still smaller than $V_1$ the transition between LL and CDW-I shifts towards bigger $V_1$. For sufficiently strong $V_2$ the bond-order (BO) phase emerges with the order parameter $O_{\text{BO}}=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{i}(-1)^{i} B_{i}$, where $B_{i}=\left{\langle}c_{i}^{\dagger} c_{i+1}+c_{i+1}^{\dagger} c_{i}\right{\rangle}$. It turns into the charge-density wave of the type II (CDW-II) with the degenerated density pattern 11001100 for large $V_2$ values, with $O_{\text{CDW-II}}=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{{\langle}{\langle}i,j {\rangle}{\rangle}} |n_{i} - n_{j}|$, where ${\langle}{\langle}{\rangle}{\rangle}$ symbolizes next-nearest neighbors.
To calculate the ground states and order parameters of the model, we use QuSpin package [@Weinberg17] to write the Hamiltonian for 12-site system in the Fock basis, resulting in 924 basis states. We assume periodic boundary conditions. The exact diagonalization is done with the SciPy package [@SciPy]. The ground states belonging to BO, CDW-I and II phases are degenerated. In order to lift the degeneracy, we apply symmetry breaking fields that favor one of the patterns. This approach results in non-zero corresponding order parameters independently of the phase, therefore we define transition points as such parameters of the system that correspond to the order parameter being 10 times bigger than the corresponding symmetry breaking fields. As such, due to the guiding fields of values $10^{-7}$, $10^{-5}$, and $10^{-4}$ for 101010 and 11001100 density patterns and 1010 hopping pattern, respectively, the order parameters of values $10^{-6}$, $10^{-4}$, and $10^{-3}$ signal the transition to the CDW-I, CDW-II, and BO phase, respectively. It is interesting to note that the results presented in this work stay the same without the symmetry breaking fields, and also do not depend on the size of the system.
Within this work we train the convolutional neural network on three transition lines indicated with arrows (1)-(3) in Fig. \[fig:intro\](b). The first transition line leads from the LL to the CDW-I phase, and is calculated for constant $V_2=0$ and $V_1/J = {\langle}0, 40 {\rangle}$. It is a source of training data for both Figs. \[fig:J0\] and \[fig:J025\], and test data for Fig. \[fig:J0\]. It is symbolized in Fig. \[fig:intro\](b) with the arrow (1), and the values of corresponding order parameter $O_{\text{CDW-I}}$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig:OP\](a). The transition, defined as above, occurs for $V_1/J=1$. The second transition line is calculated for $V_2=0.25 \, V_1$ and $V_1/J = {\langle}0, 80 {\rangle}$. Indicated with the arrow (2), it is the source of test data for Fig. \[fig:J025\]. Corresponding order parameter CDW-I is plotted in Fig. \[fig:OP\](b), and the transition takes place for $V_1/J=1.85$. Final transition line cuts three phases: LL, BO, and CDW-II. It is marked with the arrow (3) and provides both training and test data for Fig. \[fig:LL-BO-CDWII\]. It is calculated for constant $V_1=1/J$ and $V_2 = {\langle}0, 8 {\rangle}\, V_1$. Transition between LL and BO occurs for $V_2 = 0.51 \, V_1$, and between BO and CDW-II for $V_2 = 1.7 \, V_1$. It is important to notice that for the chosen range of parameters $V_2 = {\langle}1.7, 8 {\rangle}\, V_1$, two phases co-exist what can be seen in Fig. \[fig:OP\](c).
. (a)-(b) CDW-I order parameter for the transition line between the LL and the CDW-I phase for $V_2=0$ and $0.25 V_1$, respectively. (c) CDW-II and BO order parameters for the transition line between LL, BO, and CDW-II for $V_1=1/J$. Note the logarithmic scale of $y$-axis, and the symmetric log scale of $x$-axis with threshold points chosen to be 3, 3, and 2, respectively. Cusps in the lines are artificial and result from the symmetric log scale of $x$-axis.[]{data-label="fig:OP"}](images/OP.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The average stellar mass ($M_*$) of high-mass galaxies ($\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.5$) is expected to grow by $\sim$30% since $z \sim 1$, largely through ongoing mergers that are also invoked to explain the observed increase in galaxy sizes. Direct evidence for the corresponding growth in stellar mass has been elusive, however, in part because the volumes sampled by previous redshift surveys have been too small to yield reliable statistics. In this work, we make use of the Stripe 82 Massive Galaxy Catalog ([[s82-mgc]{}]{}) to build a mass-limited sample of 41,770 galaxies ($\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.2$) with optical to near-IR photometry and a large fraction ($>$55%) of spectroscopic redshifts. Our sample spans 139 deg$^2$, significantly larger than previous efforts. After accounting for a number of potential systematic errors, including the effects of $M_*$ scatter, we measure galaxy stellar mass functions over $0.3 < z < 0.65$ and detect no growth in the typical $M_*$ of massive galaxies with an uncertainty of 9%. This confidence level is dominated by uncertainties in the star formation history assumed for $M_*$ estimates, although our inability to characterize low surface-brightness outskirts may be the most important limitation of our study. Even among these high-mass galaxies, we find evidence for differential evolution when splitting the sample by recent star formation (SF) activity. While low-SF systems appear to become completely passive, we find a mostly sub-dominant population of galaxies with residual, but low rates of star formation ($\sim$1 [$M_{\odot}$]{}/yr) number density does not evolve. Interestingly, these galaxies become more prominent at higher M$_*$, representing $\sim$10% of all galaxies at $10^{12} {M_{\odot}}$ and perhaps dominating at even larger masses.'
author:
- 'Kevin Bundy, Alexie Leauthaud, Shun Saito, Claudia Maraston, David A. Wake, Daniel Thomas'
bibliography:
- '/Users/kbundy/Documents/bibliographies/references.bib'
title: 'The Stripe 82 Massive Galaxy Project III: A Lack of Growth Among Massive Galaxies'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Hierarchical growth, by which increasingly larger structures are built through the assembly of smaller ones, is a major feature of the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm. Its imprint on the evolving abundance of galaxy clusters is an important cosmological probe [e.g., @vikhlinin09] and evidence for hierarchical growth has also been reported among group-scale halos [@williams12]. Because galaxies reside in dark matter halos, one also expects patterns of hierarchical growth in observables that trace galaxy mass such as stellar mass, $M_*$ [@stringer09], or assembly history [e.g., @gu16], including morphology [@wilman13] and size [@zhao15].
Indeed, recent galaxy formation models employing both hydrodynamic simulations and semi-analytic recipes predict a galaxy stellar mass function that grows substantially at the high-mass end, tracking to some degree the dark matter halo mass function [e.g., @de-lucia07; @guo11; @furlong15; @torrey17]. While various but still uncertain mechanisms limit star formation among both low- and high-mass galaxies [@benson03], thus working to decouple $M_*$ from $M_{\rm halo}$, late-time growth in $M_*$ among the most massive galaxies (with no ongoing star formation) is still expected as a result of galaxy mergers [e.g., @lee13; @qu17].
The role of such mergers in driving high-mass galaxy growth at $z \lesssim 2$ has been the subject of recent observational work [e.g., @bundy09; @lotz11; @casteels14; @mundy17] and the basis of theoretical explanations for how massive compact spheroidals at $z \approx 2$ grow significantly in size by the present day [e.g., @hopkins10a; @nipoti12; @hilz13; @welker17]. Comparisons of the predicted growth in diffuse outer components required to drive increasing size estimates appear to be consistent with observed (minor) merger rates, at least for $z \lesssim 1$ [@newman12; @lopez-sanjuan12; @ownsworth14].
The rate of merging required to grow high-mass galaxies sufficiently in size should also add significantly to their stellar mass [e.g., @lidman13]. An implied $\sim$30% growth in $M_*$ since $z \sim 1$ is typical and should be reflected in derived $M_*$ growth rates from evolving galaxy stellar mass functions. Recent observational results, however, have largely indicated little or no evolution in the total mass function and a lack of $M_*$ growth from $z
\sim 1$ to today [e.g., @brammer11; @moustakas13; @ilbert13; @muzzin13; @davidzon13]. How can hierarchical assembly explain the growth in galaxy sizes but not simultaneously yield growth in galaxy masses?
One answer is that we are only beginning to survey the large volumes required to detect the expected signal. @stringer09 argue that tens, if not hundreds, of deg$^2$ are required to statistically confirm hierarchical growth in galaxy mass functions. In this regime, attention to systematic uncertainties is critical [e.g., @marchesini09]. Much recent work on galaxy number densities has prioritized reaching higher redshifts with “pencil-beam” surveys that sample combined areas of only a few deg$^2$. @moustakas13, which is based on the 5.5 deg$^2$ PRIMUS survey [PRIsm MUlti-object Survey, @coil11] and @davidzon13, which analyzes early data obtained over 10.3 deg$^2$ from the VIPERS survey [The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey, @guzzo14], represent early attempts to extend $M_*$-complete redshift surveys to larger areas.
To reach larger cosmic volumes, the challenge of building complete spectroscopic samples makes photometric redshifts ([photo-$z$s]{}) attractive, especially as wide-and-deep imaging surveys become more prevalent. @moutard16 exploit VIPERS PDR-1 [@garilli14] spectroscopic redshifts ([spec-$z$s]{}), CFHT, and GALEX photometry obtained over the VIPERS footprint to construct a [photo-$z$]{}-based galaxy sample with $0.2 < z < 1.5$ that is complete to $\approx 10^{10} {M_{\odot}}$ at $z=1$. This sample is used to study the evolving mass function over 22 deg$^2$ in @moutard16a. Some years earlier, @matsuoka10 combined and reanalyzed imaging data from the SDSS Stripe 82 Coadd [see @annis14] and the UKIDSS Large Area Survey [LAS, @lawrence07] in order to derive photometric redshifts and study galaxy mass functions over 55 deg$^2$ at $z < 1$. The analysis we present in this work utilizes these same data sets, which have become more complete since @matsuoka10 and can be combined with a substantial number of [spec-$z$s]{} to yield an $M_*$-complete sample comprising 139 deg$^2$ with $z < 0.7$, part of what we term the Stripe 82 Massive Galaxy Catalog [the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}, @bundy15a].
With tens of square degrees surveyed, both @matsuoka10 and @moutard16 claim to detect growth in the number density of the most massive galaxies although the amplitude of detected evolution is inconsistent. At $\log
M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.5$, @matsuoka10 find nearly an order of magnitude increase in number density from $z \sim 1$ to $z \sim 0.3$ while @moutard16 measure only a factor of 2 increase. Meanwhile, initial work by @capozzi17 exploits 155 deg$^2$ of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Science Verification Data to report a modest *decrease* in $M_*$ at the highest masses since $z \approx 1$.
This discrepancy highlights the challenge of this measurement and raises concerns about uncertain (perhaps catastrophically uncertain) [photo-$z$s]{} as well as possibly larger-than-expected contributions from “cosmic variance.” Both issues can be addressed by turning to very wide [spec-$z$]{} surveys designed to constrain cosmological parameters via angular clustering. The drawback of these surveys, which can span thousands of deg$^2$, is the difficulty accounting for incompleteness owing to the selection criteria. Relevant here is early work by @wake06 that detected no evolution in the number density of “luminous red galaxies” as measured at $z \sim 0.55$ by the 2SLAQ survey and at $z
\sim 0.2$ by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Finding a consistent luminosity function as that measured in the magnitude-limited COMBO17 survey, @wake06 argue that the no evolution conclusion applies broadly to the high-mass galaxy population.
@maraston13 present a more recent example of this approach, using [spec-$z$s]{} from the SDSS-III BOSS survey [Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, @dawson13] taken from the $0.43 < z < 0.7$ CMASS (“constant mass”) sample. Instead of correcting for incompleteness in the CMASS sample, @maraston13 apply the same CMASS selection cuts to simulated data from a semi-analytic model. Doing so indicates that at least for $z \lesssim 0.6$, CMASS reaches high completeness ($>$90%) at the highest masses (a conclusion that is confirmed and quantified in @leauthaud16). In agreement with the earlier @wake06 result, the CMASS mass function at the highest masses shows no evolution over $0.45 < z < 0.7$. The @maraston13 analysis is based on 283,819 galaxies spanning 3275 deg$^2$.
The question of whether the total mass function evolves has implications for the separate evolution in the numbers of star-forming and passive galaxies. At masses below 10$^{11} {M_{\odot}}$, there is broad agreement that the number of “quenched” galaxies increases with time [e.g., @bundy06; @borch06; @drory09; @ilbert10; @moustakas13], but some controversy remains over whether the star-forming population remains constant [e.g., @ilbert10; @moutard16a] or declines [e.g., @moustakas13], especially at $M_* > 10^{11}$. A constraint from the total mass function would help distinguish the extent to which star-formers shut down and transform into quenched galaxies versus the rate of new arrivals (from lower $M_*$) that either replenish the star-forming population [e.g., @peng10] or add to the increasing number of quiescent galaxies.
The purpose of this work is to study number density evolution at the highest masses using a sample that combines well-understood completeness functions typical of magnitude-limited surveys with large spectroscopic datasets designed to constrain cosmological parameters. In @bundy15a (hereafter [Paper I]{}), we build such a sample by combining SDSS Coadd $ugriz$ photometry in the “Stripe 82” region [@annis14], reaching $r$-band magnitudes of $\sim$23.5 AB, and near-IR photometry in $YJHK$ bands to 20$^{\rm th}$ magnitude (AB) from the UK Infrared Deep Sky Survey Large Area Survey [UKIDSS-LAS, @lawrence07] with 70,000 [spec-$z$s]{} from the SDSS-I/II and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey. We refer to the combined data set as the Stripe 82 Massive Galaxy Catalog ([[s82-mgc]{}]{}) and make it publicly available at [[MassiveGalaxies.com](http://www.massivegalaxies.com)]{}. [Paper II]{} in this series, @leauthaud16, uses the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} to investigate the $M_*$ completeness limits of BOSS [spec-$z$]{} samples. The [[s82-mgc]{}]{} was also used in @saito16 to constrain the relationship between high-mass galaxies and their dark matter halos. In this paper, [Paper III]{}, we use an $M_*$-complete sub-sample of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}, comprising 139 deg$^2$ and sampling [$0.3$]{} Gpc$^3$, to measure galaxy mass functions with unprecedented precision at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.3$ over $0.3 < z < 0.65$. Finding no apparent evolution, we place particular emphasis on how scatter in $M_*$ measurements, biases resulting from assumptions underlying $M_*$ estimates, and other uncertainties limit the interpretation of our results.
A plan of the paper is as follows. We begin in Section \[data\] by summarizing the key components of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} and its construction. Full details can be found in [Paper I]{}. The various $M_*$ estimates used in this work are described in Section \[mstar\]. We discuss potential biases in derived mass functions for large samples including the impact of various forms of measurement scatter in Section \[sec:methods\]. Our results are presented in Section \[results\], where we study how the adoption of different priors (Section \[MF:priors\]) and stellar population synthesis models (Section \[MF:models\]) affect the degree of evolution we infer. The mass functions of galaxies with different levels of residual star formation are presented in Section \[MF:SFH\] and made available at [MassiveGalaxies.com](http://www.massivegalaxies.com). We discuss the significance of our results and their limitations as well as comparisons to other work in Section \[discussion\]. Section \[summary\] provides a summary. Throughout this paper, we use the AB magnitude system and adopt a standard cosmology with $H_0$=70 $h_{70}$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M$=0.3 and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7.
The Stripe 82 Massive Galaxy Catalog {#data}
====================================
Full details of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} catalog construction are presented in [Paper I]{}. We summarize key aspects here with a focus on the final [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ukwide</span>]{} sample that we use for our mass function analysis.
$ugrizYJHK$ Photometry {#photometry}
----------------------
The “SDSS Coadd” provides the primary source catalog for the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}. This data set refers to repeated $ugriz$ imaging in Stripe 82 (-50 $<$ $\alpha_{\rm J2000}$ $<$ +60) first presented in @abazajian09 and further described in @annis14. The point-source 50% completeness limit for the Coadd is $r \sim 24.4$ (AB). The Coadd photometric catalog is queried as described in [Paper I]{} to define a unique sample which is then cross matched to overlapping near-IR data from the Large Area Survey (LAS) component of UKIDSS [@lawrence07] Data Release 8 (DR8). The LAS aims to reach AB magnitude depths of $Y = 20.9$, $J=20.4$, $H=20.0$, and $K=20.1$, but we provide field-dependent measures of the achieved depth in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} and use these to define an areal footprint that satisfies specific depth requirements in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ukwide</span>]{} selection described below.
PSF-matched $ugrizYJHK$ photometry in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} is obtained with the [[synmag]{}]{} software [@bundy12] which uses SDSS surface brightness profile fits to predict the SDSS $r$-band magnitude that would have been obtained using the same aperture and under the same atmospheric seeing as magnitudes measured in each UKIDSS filter. For total $H$- and $K$-band magnitudes, which form the basis of our $M_*$ estimates, we overcome biases resulting from blended sources in the UKIDSS photometry by building a new flux estimator referenced to the SDSS $z$-band `CModelMag` magnitude. After correcting for the aperture-matched optical-to-near-IR color (e.g., $(z-K)$), we define `HallTot` magnitudes by adjusting the reported Hall magnitudes to match `CModelMag_z` on average. For blended sources, which are known to have biased Hall magnitudes, we set the `HallTot` magnitude to `CModelMag_z` and apply the color correction. Further details are given in [Paper I]{}.
Spectroscopic and Photometric Redshifts
---------------------------------------
The SDSS-III program [@eisenstein11] BOSS program provides 149,439 spectroscopic redshifts for the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}. Redshifts from the LOWZ, CMASS, and “Legacy” samples, as collated in the SDSS-III SpecObj-dr10 catalog, are all included. We combine photometric redshifts from a number of sources to supplement the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} when [spec-$z$s]{} are not available. For the bright galaxies we study in this work ($i \lesssim 22.5$), we define [$z_{\rm best}$]{} to be the spectroscopic measurement, if available. If a [photo-$z$]{} is required, we first check if the galaxy resides in a cluster with a redshift assigned by the red-sequence Matched-filter Probabilistic Percolation [[[*redMaPPer*]{}]{}, @rykoff14]. Defining $\sigma_z$ as the 3$\sigma$-clipped standard deviation of $\Delta z =
z_{\rm spec} - z_ {\rm phot}$ (note that we do not divide by $1+z$) and catastrophic outliers as those with $\abs{\Delta z} > 0.1$, the [[*redMaPPer*]{}]{} [photo-$z$s]{} have $\sigma_z \sim 0.02$ and a catastrophic rate of less than 1%. For field galaxies on the red sequence, we adopt estimates from the red-sequence Matched filter Galaxy Catalog [[[*redMaGiC*]{}]{}, @rozo15]. These are only slightly worse in terms of [photo-$z$]{} quality. If neither the [[*redMaPPer*]{}]{} nor [[*redMaGiC*]{}]{} [photo-$z$s]{} are available, we assign [$z_{\rm best}$]{} to the neural network results derived in @reis12. The @reis12 redshifts have $\sigma_z \sim 0.03$ and a 5% outlier fraction at $z \sim 0.5$. Comparisons of these three [photo-$z$]{} estimators to available [spec-$z$s]{} are presented in Figure \[fig:photoz\_specz\] and refer the reader to [Paper I]{} for further discussion of redshift reliability and completeness.
At $\log{M_*/{M_{\odot}}} > 11.4$ and $z \sim 0.6$, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ukwide</span>]{} sample we define below has a [spec-$z$]{} completeness of 80%. Of the remaining galaxies without [spec-$z$s]{}, $\sim$8% have [[*redMaGiC*]{}]{} [photo-$z$s]{}. A roughly equal number have @reis12 [photo-$z$s]{}, and a few percent come from [[*redMaPPer*]{}]{}. The [spec-$z$]{} completeness improves towards lower redshifts and higher $M_*$ ([Paper II]{}). We also note that @pforr13 found little bias ($\sim$0.02 dex) when comparing $M_*$ estimates based on [photo-$z$s]{} compared to [spec-$z$s]{} for passive galaxies.
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ukwide</span>]{} sample {#sec:ukwide}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
\[sample\]
The mass functions discussed below are derived using a subset of 517,714 galaxies in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} called the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ukwide</span>]{} sample. The selection criteria are described in detail in [Paper I]{} and include star-galaxy separation, the application of rejection masks in all bands, photometry quality flags, and 5$\sigma$ $YJHK$ imaging depths of $[20.32, 19.99, 19.56, 19.41]$ in AB magnitudes. The resulting [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ukwide</span>]{} sample spans [$139.4$]{} deg$^2$, and is complete above $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\approx 11.3$ at $z = 0.7$.
Stellar Mass Estimates {#mstar}
======================
As we show in Section \[results\], systematic uncertainties in $M_*$ estimates dominate conclusions about high mass galaxy growth in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} sample. In this section, we present a set of $M_*$ estimates based on the same photometric data set, and study systematic offsets that arise when different priors, models, and variants of the photometry are used. In Section \[results\], we will show how $M_*$ offsets translate into systematics in the recovered stellar mass function. For comparisons with publicly available BOSS $M_*$ estimates[^1], please see [Paper I]{}.
The [[s82-mgc]{}]{} Fiducial $M_*$ Estimates
--------------------------------------------
We recount the description of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} $M_*$ estimates presented in [Paper I]{}. These fiducial $M_*$ estimates (we will distinguish them with the label, [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{}) are derived using the Bayesian code developed for mass function work in @bundy06 and @bundy10. The observed SED of each galaxy is compared to a grid of 13440 @bruzual03 (BC03) population synthesis models, including 16 fixed age values and 35 fixed exponential timescales, $\tau$. Ages are drawn randomly from a uniform distribution between 0 and 10 Gyr and are restricted to less than the cosmic age at each redshift. Values for $\tau$ are also random in the linear range between 0.01 and 10 Gyr. No bursts are included and the dust prescription follows @charlot00. See Table \[tab:fits\]. We assume a Chabrier IMF [@chabrier03], $\Omega_M$=0.3, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7, and a Hubble constant of 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
At each grid point, the [reddest band]{} $M_*/L_K$ ratios (corresponding to the “current” mass in stars and stellar remnants), inferred $M_*$, and probability that the model matches the observed SED is stored. This probability is marginalized over the grid, giving an estimate of the stellar mass probability distribution[^2]. We take the median as the final estimate of $M_*$. The 68% width of the distribution provides an uncertainty value which is typically $\sim$0.1 dex.
$M_*$ Estimates from [`iSEDfit`]{}
----------------------------------
We also produce $M_*$ estimates ([$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{}) using the Bayesian [`iSEDfit`]{} package presented in @moustakas13. The [`iSEDfit`]{} code has several advantages. In addition to performing a refined grid search of the $M_*$ posterior distribution and enabling priors with non-flat probability distributions, [`iSEDfit`]{} can return $M_*$ estimates for multiple stellar population synethsis models, including FSPS [@conroy09], BC03 [@bruzual03], and Maraston [@maraston05] models.
The basic set of [`iSEDfit`]{} priors is similar to those used for the [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} estimates and are based on a set (randomly generated for each run of [`iSEDfit`]{}) of 25000 declining exponential models. The [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{} estimates additionally include a prescription for bursts described below. Unlike the [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} models whose parameters fall on a grid, the parameters for each [`iSEDfit`]{} model vary independently, better sampling the range of each prior. The [`iSEDfit`]{} ages are restricted by the cosmic age at each redshift and drawn linearly from the range, 0.1–13 Gyr. The exponential $\tau$ prior is drawn from the linear range, 0.1–5 Gyr. The metallicity and dust assumptions are similar to the [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} estimates. The [`iSEDfit`]{} code is designed to work with flux measurements which we take directly from a conversion of SDSS “Luptitudes” for $ugriz$ and via a transformation to AB magnitudes for the UKIDSS photometry.
In the case of the [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{} fits, stochastic bursts are added randomly to the star formation histories. For every 2 Gyr interval over the lifetime of a given model, the cumulative probability that a burst occurs is 0.2. Each bursts’ SFH is Gaussian in time with an amplitude set by, $\mathcal{F}_b$, the total amount of stellar mass formed in the burst divided by the underlying mass of the smooth SFH at the burst’s peak time. $\mathcal{F}_b$ is drawn from the range 0.03–4.0. The allowed burst duration ranges from 0.03–0.3 Gyr.
Table \[tab:fits\] lists several [`iSEDfit`]{} runs we have performed. The impact of the resulting $M_*$ estimates on the derived mass function is discussed in Sections \[MF:priors\] and \[MF:models\].
[lcccc]{}
[$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} & BC03 & @bundy06 & none & [reddest band]{}\
[$M_{*{\rm MGC}}^{\rm opt}$]{} & BC03 & @bundy06 & none & $z$-band\
[$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{} & FSPS & PRIMUS [@moustakas13] & $P_{\rm burst}=0.2$ & average\
[$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm FSPS}$]{} & FSPS & PRIMUS [@moustakas13] & none & average\
[$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm BC03}$]{} & BC03 & PRIMUS [@moustakas13] & none & average\
[$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm Ma05}$]{} & Maraston & PRIMUS [@moustakas13] & none & average\
\[tab:fits\]
Optical vs. Near-IR Photometry
------------------------------
Providing photometric coverage in the near-IR, which is more sensitive to older stellar populations that typically dominate $M_*$, was one of the motivations for assembling the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} [@bundy15a]. We can test the impact of near-IR photometry by comparing the standard [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} estimates, which are based on $ugrizYJHK$, to those using solely the $ugriz$ bands (we label these [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}^{\rm opt}$]{}). We use the [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} mass estimator in both cases. Figure \[fig:masscomp\_opt\] tracks the mass difference, [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{}$ - $[$M_{*{\rm MGC}}^{\rm opt}$]{}, as a function of several parameters. For masses above ${\ensuremath{M_{*{\rm MGC}}}}> 10^{9} {M_{\odot}}$ the top-left panel reveals a small offset of -0.07 dex with a scatter of 0.06 dex but no strong dependencies on [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{}. The difference in mass estimates systematically changes for lower redshift galaxies with apparent magnitudes brighter than $\sim$17 AB (top-right and bottom-left panels). The final panel in Figure \[fig:masscomp\_opt\] investigates the dependence on [$b_{1000}$]{}, a measure of recent star formation composed of the ratio of the star formation rate (SFR) averaged over the last 1000 Myr to the average SFR over the galaxy’s lifetime. This panel shows that across mass and redshift, galaxies in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} with higher [$b_{1000}$]{} values, implying more recent star formation, deviate from the -0.07 dex offset that defines [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{}$ - $[$M_{*{\rm MGC}}^{\rm opt}$]{} for most of the sample. These galaxies show offsets that are $\sim$0.1 dex larger and have $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\lesssim 11.5$.
The systematic differences in $M_*$ that are evident in Figure \[fig:masscomp\_opt\] arise from two sources. First, near-IR photometry provides additional constraints on galaxy SEDs that should yield better estimates of mass-to-light (M/L) ratios. Errors from photometric matching across many bands could also degrade the SED fit quality, however. Figure \[fig:masscomp\_opt\] shows that for the redshifts relevant to this work ($z > 0.2$), including near-IR constraints has little or no effect on $M_*$ estimates, suggesting that $ugriz$ photometry alone provides similar estimates for massive galaxies at $z < 0.8$ as does optical plus near-IR photometry. Perhaps not surprisingly, however, the role of near-IR data becomes important for the modest number of massive galaxies with recent star formation (bottom-right panel). Here, assuming that the near-IR masses are more accurate, the optical-only estimates may be biased low by -0.1 dex with deviations as high as -0.5 dex in individual cases.
The second factor behind systematic differences in Figure \[fig:masscomp\_opt\] is the use of different total flux estimators. The [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} estimates are the result of multiplying the M/L derived for the observed-frame $K$-band[^3] by `KHallTot`, a non-parametric total magnitude estimate. As discussed [Paper I]{}, the `KHallTot` measurements are less biased by blended sources compared to other flux estimators in the UKIDSS photometry. However, `KHallTot` must be adjusted globally to match the $z$-band `CModelMag` estimates. The [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}^{\rm opt}$]{} estimate, on the other hand, is the direct product of the observed-frame $z$-band M/L and the $z$-band `CModelMag`. The `CModelMag` estimator combines total flux measures from SDSS-derived, 2D fits of an exponential and a de Vaucouleurs surface brightness profile. Differences in the way `CModelMag` and `HallTot` account for the “total light” in a surface brightness profile can therefore impact the $M_*$ measurements.
Figure \[fig:magcomp1\] explores this by comparing the flux corresponding to `KHallTot` to that from the $z$-band `CModelMag`$_z$ as a function of `CModelMag`$_z$ (left panel). The effect of $(z-K)$ color (derived from PSF-matched photometry) has been removed. The flux difference remains flat until `CModelMag`$_z$ $\sim$ 19 AB, at which point the near-IR flux estimator grows slightly in comparison to `CModelMag`$_z$. `KHallTot` is 0.1-0.2 dex brighter at the faintest magnitudes in the sample. This trend seems to be expressed in the direct $M_*$ comparison against `CModelMag`$_i$ (Figure \[fig:masscomp\_opt\], bottom-left). But systematic differences in total flux cannot explain the increasing $M_*$ discrepancy at `CModelMag`$_i < 17$ AB and, correspondingly, $z < 0.2$. In this very bright regime, changes in the M/L inferred from SED fits to the multi-band photometry must be responsible. We do not pursue these $M_*$ offsets further because, for the mass function analysis that follows, we restrict ourselves to higher redshifts.
A final test is provided in the right-hand panel of Figure \[fig:magcomp1\] which compares `CModelMag` estimates from the SDSS Coadd (used in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}) to those from the single-epoch SDSS photometry. There is an expected increase in scatter at fainter magnitudes (because the Coadd is much deeper) but no evidence for systematic trends. Given that `CModelMag`$_i$ is the dominant, and often sole, total magnitude used to normalize other $M_*$ estimates provided by the BOSS team, the good agreement shown here makes the Coadd-based [[s82-mgc]{}]{} a valuable anchor for understanding $M_*$ systematics in studies exploiting the full BOSS data set [e.g., @maraston13].
Methods: Number density distributions in large-volume surveys {#sec:methods}
=============================================================
One of the goals of this paper is to use the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} to explore the new “large-volume” regime for *complete* studies of galaxy number density distributions, such as the mass and luminosity functions. For samples spanning more than $\sim$100 deg$^2$ and a significant redshift baseline, several considerations arise. An obvious point is that making use of the statistical precision afforded by large volumes requires careful control of the error budget. Ideally, we would restrict ourselves to using only spectroscopic redshifts for this reason, but in the near term, obtaining [spec-$z$s]{} for the tens of millions of sources that current imaging surveys now detect (e.g., to $i < 23$ AB)is infeasible.
Even if we limit ourselves (as we do in the next section) to brighter subsamples where spectroscopic follow-up is possible, we are left with the challenge of determining the completeness of the sample at a level of precision on par with that of the number density measurements themselves. One must either additionally commit significant spectroscopic resources to defining the completeness limit (i.e., “throwing away” a large number of hard-earned [spec-$z$s]{}), estimate the completeness by applying the selection criteria to simulated samples [see @maraston13], or turn to photometric redshifts as we do in this work to supplement redshift information where the [spec-$z$s]{} are incomplete. In the sample we use below, the fraction of galaxies with $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.4$ (Chabrier IMF) and $z < 0.6$ that require [photo-$z$s]{} is roughly 20% [@leauthaud16].
The introduction of [photo-$z$s]{} adds sources of both random and systematic error that must be accounted for [e.g., @etherington17]. At the same time, a new tool for diagnosing such errors becomes available when the expected, random statistical fluctuations (including sample variance) are negligible. That tool is essentially a prior that dictates that the shape and normalization of actual number density distributions should evolve smoothly with redshift. A stronger version would assume that evolution in the average properties of the galaxy distribution is both smooth and monotonic. A particular redshift bin, for example, with a clear excess number density can be a sign post of systematic errors that preferentially affect those redshifts.
Biases from Photometric Redshifts
---------------------------------
While the mass functions derived here rely on a sample with $\gtrsim$80% [spec-$z$]{} completeness, the use of [photo-$z$s]{} can introduce errors in a number of ways. These include biases in the binned redshift distribution itself, scatter in the luminosity distance used to normalize $M_*$, and errors on the recovered rest-frame SED.
To first order, [photo-$z$s]{} introduce a Gaussian redshift uncertainty, blurring out structure in the true redshift distribution and creating contamination between adjacent redshift bins. The effect of contamination is reduced as the bin size increases above the 1-$\sigma$ [photo-$z$]{} uncertainties. If the [photo-$z$]{} uncertainty depends on redshift, the bin-to-bin contamination will vary with $z$ as well. Defined $z$-bins at the limits of the full range accessible will also have true redshift distributions that are asymmetric. These effects are typically small because [photo-$z$]{} uncertainties of $\sigma_z \sim 0.03$–0.07 can often be achieved and are usually smaller than the redshift baselines probed ($\Delta z > 0.3$). These uncertainties also depend weakly on $z$ across most samples. Finally, biases in the mean [photo-$z$]{} are often much smaller than $\sigma_z$.
The larger impact of roughly Gaussian [photo-$z$]{} uncertainties is the contribution of an additional random error on the $M_*$ (or $L$) estimates as a result of their dependence on the now-uncertain luminosity distance. The resulting [photo-$z$]{}-induced scatter in $\log M_*$, which we refer to as $\sigma_{M_*,z}$, as a result of the [photo-$z$]{} uncertainty, $\sigma_z$, can be estimated as $\sigma_{M_*,z} \approx
\sigma_z/z$. Among the worst [photo-$z$s]{} ($\sigma_z = 0.04$) in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} at $z \approx 0.6$, for example, the [photo-$z$]{} uncertainty adds 0.07 dex in quadrature to the $M_*$ errors, which exhibit $\sigma_{M_*} = 0.1$–$0.2$ dex when $z$ is perfectly known. We will discuss how random errors in $M_*$ can be addressed in the next section.
In addition to making luminosity distances more uncertain, the [photo-$z$]{} error shifts the inferred rest-frame wavelength of the SED, thereby degrading the quality of the fit and derived M/L ratio. This effect is small. Tests applied to the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} neural-network [photo-$z$s]{}, which have $\sigma_z \approx 0.02-0.03$, indicate that this restframe color uncertainty adds 0.02 dex in quadrature to $\sigma_{M_*}$.
A more subtle but extremely important problem occurs when the [photo-$z$]{} scatter increases over a specific range in redshift. A look at the [photo-$z$]{}-[spec-$z$]{} comparison in Figure \[fig:photoz\_specz\] shows an often-seen degradation in [photo-$z$]{} quality at $z \approx 0.35$ that corresponds to the 4000 Å break falling between the $g$ and $r$ bands. With only a few thousand [spec-$z$s]{} to compare against, this feature is hardly noticeable. Furthermore, because the additional scatter appears roughly symmetric, it is tempting to believe that any effect on the mass or luminosity function would cancel out.
When tens of thousands of [spec-$z$s]{} are available, as in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}, this [photo-$z$]{} feature reveals itself to be much more prominent, with a noticeable tail. The key point is that the *direction* of [photo-$z$]{} scatter can have a profound impact on derived number density functions. Up-scattering yields a greater distance for a galaxy, shifting it into a higher [photo-$z$]{} bin and assigning a higher $M_*$ or $L$ than it deserves. Because more massive and intrinsically luminous galaxies are significantly rarer than their low-mass counterparts, up-scattering can create a significant bias in the reported number density evolution. Even when [photo-$z$]{} down-scattering is symmetric, it has a less significant impact because the true number of lower-mass galaxies significantly outweighs the number of contaminants.
Similar arguments apply to the location of catastrophic [photo-$z$]{} outliers. For these and other kinds of [photo-$z$]{} behavior, it may be possible to influence [photo-$z$]{} codes so that they fail in preferred ways. In others, the choice of redshift bins can be designed to avoid regions of worrisome contamination. It may also be possible to model [photo-$z$]{} effects and account for them, although this is beyond the scope of the current paper.
Accounting for scatter in $M_*$ or $L$ {#method:scatter}
--------------------------------------
Even with [spec-$z$]{}-only samples, random errors in the $M_*$ (or $L$) estimates introduce Eddington bias in the derived galaxy mass functions as a result of the steep decline in the number of galaxies at the bright end. The contamination from intrinsically lower-mass galaxies scattering upwards outweighs the down-scattering of higher mass galaxies because there are many more lower-mass galaxies subject to random $M_*$ errors. The result is that scatter in $M_*$ “inflates” the observed mass function at the high-mass end, a bias that becomes worse as the scatter increases (e.g., from additional [photo-$z$]{}-related error terms). The goal in this work is to study evolution in the number density distribution. If the scatter term evolves with redshift, as would be expected because the S/N of observations degrades with redshift, then the observed evolution may be biased by the changing importance of Eddington bias.
If the various $M_*$ error terms can be estimated, one solution is to perturb the final $M_*$ values until the scatter is uniform across the sample. For the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}, we estimated the $M_*$ error for each galaxy resulting from the uncertainty in the total magnitude estimate (which normalizes $M_*$). If no [spec-$z$]{} was available, we added in quadrature to this value the expected $M_*$ error resulting from the assigned [photo-$z$]{} (according to the redshift-dependent performance of the associated [photo-$z$]{} estimator as compared to [spec-$z$s]{}). Based on the maximum errors obtained for galaxies in our sample, we set a target for the final uncertainty of all galaxies at $\sigma_{M_*}
= 0.115$ dex. We used a Gaussian kernel with a width equal to the difference in quadrature between this target error and the estimated error for each galaxy to describe the degree of perturbation required to make the final scatter uniform for each $M_*$ estimate. In other words, random draws from these kernels were added to each $M_*$ estimate to obtain a set of perturbed $M_*$ estimates. The scatter resulting from magnitude and redshift errors is uniform for these perturbed values. We did not account for the additional error term that arises from model-fitting uncertainties in $M_*$ because these indicated no redshift dependence and are, themselves, uncertain. The resulting mass functions derived with the perturbed sample of $M_*$ values is presented in Section \[MF:scatter-normalized\].
A second solution to accounting for a varying Eddington bias is to assume an intrinsic shape for the $M_*$ or $L$ function and forward-model the data while accounting for the estimated uncertainties [e.g., @moutard16]. As described in @leauthaud16 we consider the same sources of error on a per-galaxy basis as described above. We assume a double Schechter function [@baldry08] of the following form:
$$\phi(M_{*}) = (\ln 10)\exp\left[-\frac{M_{*}}{M_{0}}\right] \times
\hspace{0.65\columnwidth}$$
$$\quad
\left\{ \phi_{1}10^{(\alpha_{1}+1)(\log M_{*} -\log M_{0})}
+ \phi_{2}10^{(\alpha_{2}+1)(\log M_{*} -\log M_{0})} \right\}$$
where $\alpha_{2}>\alpha_{1}$ and the second term dominates at the low mass end. We generate Monte Carlo realizations of this function that sample various parameter ranges as described below. A mock sample is drawn from each realization and the individual scatter terms are added to $M_*$. The mock samples are binned identically as the data and compared to the observed number density distributions in an iterative approach that allows the input parameters to be constrained.
Sample Variance {#cosmic_variance}
---------------
\[sample\_variance\]
Large volume surveys significantly mitigate the impact of sample variance (often called “cosmic variance”) which arises from large-scale fluctuations in the spatial distribution of galaxies in the universe [see @moster11]. @stringer09 show, for example, that galaxy surveys spanning more than $\sim$100 deg$^2$ are needed to overcome sample variance on measurements of evolution in the mass function at $z < 1$.
An estimate of the sample variance in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} can be made using an abundance-matched mock catalog . The volume of the mock, 1 Gpc$^3~h^{-3}$, can be divided into multiple sub-volumes corresponding to 0.1-width redshift slices of the 139.4 deg$^2$ [[s82-mgc]{}]{}. In each redshift bin, we study the mass function distribution contributed from 4–5 mock sub-volumes with a similar volume to Stripe 82. Additional observational errors as well as redshift evolution are ignored. In the $0.3 < z < 0.4$ bin (0.02 Gpc$^3~h^{-3}$), this experiment yields a 1-$\sigma$ error of 0.014 dex at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\sim 11.0$, rising to 0.02 dex at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\sim 11.6$. For $0.3 < z < 0.4$ (0.04 Gpc$^3~h^{-3}$), the value is 0.008 dex at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\sim 11.0$ but remains at 0.02 dex for $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\sim 11.6$. The errors rise further towards 0.1 dex at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\sim 12.0$ where Poisson errors from the limited number of massive mock halos also contribute.
Our adopted sample variance and Poisson error estimates come from bootstrap resampling the derived number densities. We divide the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} into 214 roughly equal area regions and recompute number density functions after resampling with replacement. This technique yields consistent results as the mock catalog analysis with the benefit of allowing us to map covariance matrices (see Appendix \[sec:covar\]) that facilitate comparisons to theoretical predictions [see @benson14]. Given the correlations in the large-scale clustering of dark matter halos across halo mass, one expects strong covariance across $M_*$ and $L$ in galaxy number densities as inferred from this analysis.
Results
=======
Assumption-averaged estimate of the stellar mass function {#MF:best}
---------------------------------------------------------
We begin with estimates for the evolving galaxy $M_*$ functions derived from the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} dataset after averaging a set of four $M_*$ estimates made using different sets of priors and stellar population models. In the sections that follow, we will examine how these functions change under different assumptions. Following @bundy15a, we use the most accurate redshift available for each galaxy, $z_{\rm best}$, which is dominated by [spec-$z$s]{} for the majority of the sample. Given subtle differences among $M_*$ estimates which we investigate below, we define the “assumption-averaged” mass function from the average[^4] of results from four different sets of 9-band $M_*$ estimates: [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} (original [[s82-mgc]{}]{} estimates), [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{} (FSPS with bursts), [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm BC03}$]{} (BC03 models, no bursts), and [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm Ma05}$]{} (Maraston models, no bursts). These four estimates encompass the range of $M_*$ values obtained by adopting currently uncertain priors. Without more information about how to set accurate priors or which models to favor, the assumption-averaged result represents a compromise among differing approaches.
Figure \[fig:mfn:best\] plots the “as observed” results with shaded regions corresponding to bootstrap errors (i.e., both Poisson and sample variance errors are included). No $M_*$ scatter normalization has been applied. The redshift bins are defined as $z = [0.3,0.4], [0.4,0.5], [0.5,0.6], [0.6,0.65]$ and we indicate the $M_*$ completeness limit of $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}= 11.3$ derived in @bundy15a with the vertical dotted line.
We have also forward-modeled the observed number densities to account for Poisson errors and scatter in $M_*$ uncertainties arising from SED fitting (fixed at 0.07 dex), [photo-$z$]{} uncertainty for galaxies without [spec-$z$s]{}, and total flux errors, all of which are assumed to be Gaussian and are added in quadrature on a per-galaxy basis. A set of intrinsic fitted models are indicated as dotted lines with the same $z$-dependent colors. Because the modeling involves random draws from estimated error distributions, the intrinsic models can vary from run to run with a scatter consistent with the error bars indicated on the raw mass functions in Figure \[fig:mfn:best\].
The modeling assumes the double-Schechter form described in Section \[method:scatter\] and allows $\phi_{1}$, $\phi_{2}$ and $M_{0}$ to vary, while fixing $\alpha_{1}=-0.1$ and $\alpha_
{2}=-1.0$. The choice of faint-end slopes and derived model parameters are degenerate and are not meant to convey physical insight. We have selected this model form because it accurately describes the data under our forward-modeling analysis. The results are given in Table \[tab:totalsmf\_params\]. Tabulated data points are available from [MassiveGalaxies.com](http://www.massivegalaxies.com).
As in [Paper II]{}, we can extend our characterization of galaxy stellar mass function to lower $M_*$ by including data from other surveys. For $M_* > 10^{10.4} {M_{\odot}}$, but below the completeness limit of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}, our forward model fits include results from the PRIMUS mass functions [@moustakas13] observed at similar redshifts. While the PRIMUS data do not impact the derived mass functions at $M_* > 10^{11.3} {M_{\odot}}$, their inclusion makes the intrinsic mass functions in Table \[tab:totalsmf\_params\] broadly representative of the galaxy population with $M_* > 10^{10.4} {M_{\odot}}$ and $z < 0.6$.
Within the statistically tight error bars from the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} sample, we detect no redshift evolution over most of the mass range probed. At the lowest masses, there is a hint of positive growth (either in $M_*$ at fixed number density or in number at fixed $M_*$), although this could likely reflect incompleteness at the faint-end, which would produce a similar trend. We will discuss the appropriate confidence level of our no-evolution result in Section \[disc:noevol\].
The grey data points in Figure \[fig:mfn:best\] represent the $z \approx 0$ mass function from SDSS as derived by @li09. With smaller redshift surveys, comparisons to SDSS have been subject to systematic offsets in the assumptions between $M_*$ estimates [e.g., @moustakas13]. In the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}, however, there are sufficient numbers of galaxies that overlap with the @li09 sample that we can characterize systematic offsets in $M_*$ and statistically remove them. The @li09 $M_*$ estimates are taken from the Petrosian Kcorrect quantities which use BC03 models and are provided in the NYU-VAGC [@blanton07]. After adjusting the Hubble parameter to $h=72$, we compare these [$M_{*{\rm VAGC}}$]{} values to [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} for 3515 galaxies with $11.0 < \log M_*/{M_{\odot}}< 11.8$ and $0 < z < 0.2$. We fit a line to the mass difference ($\Delta \log M_* = {\ensuremath{M_{*{\rm VAGC}}}}- {\ensuremath{M_{*{\rm MGC}}}}$) as a function of [$M_{*{\rm VAGC}}$]{}, referenced to $\log
{\ensuremath{M_{*{\rm VAGC}}}}/{M_{\odot}}= 11.3$, and adjust the @li09 mass functions to account for the difference. The fit’s zeropoint offset is 0.1 dex with a slope of -0.08.
Finally, we convolve the SDSS @li09 mass function with additional scatter in $M_*$ to approximate the Eddington bias in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} that results from larger photometric errors in both the total magnitudes and colors of the higher-$z$ sample. The convolution follows the approximation given in @behroozi10. With typical total $K$-band uncertainties of 0.05 mag, a reasonable estimate for the additional $M_*$ scatter in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} is $\sigma = 0.12$ dex. Applying $\sigma = 0.12$ dex to the SDSS mass function results in the solid grey data points plotted in Figure \[fig:mfn:best\]. The mass-adjusted @li09 mass function with this additional scatter falls almost directly on the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} results, with a hint of lying on the more massive side of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass functions.
However, our uncertainty in the correct amount of additional scatter to apply limits a precise comparison between the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} and SDSS $z \approx 0$ mass functions. If we slightly reduce the applied scatter to $\sigma = 0.09$, still a reasonable approximation to the true value, the resulting SDSS mass function falls significantly (0.1-0.2 dex) below the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} results. We conclude that the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} and SDSS $z \approx 0$ mass functions are in agreement, with no detected differences at the 0.1 dex level. This comparison includes a careful attempt to normalize the $M_*$ estimates, a process that should also remove biases from different estimators of total luminosity [e.g., @bernardi13]. However, a more precise treatment of $M_*$ scatter, let alone further assessments of systematic biases in $M_*$ estimates (see below), is needed before these data sets can be used to measure growth in $M_*$ with the needed sub-10% level precision.
[@lccccc]{}
$[0.30, 0.40]$ & -5.92 $\pm$ 0.03 & -2.50 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.88 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.10 & -1.00\
$[0.40, 0.50]$ & -6.00 $\pm$ 0.03 & -2.46 $\pm$ 0.01 & 10.87 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.10 & -1.00\
$[0.50, 0.60]$ & -5.63 $\pm$ 0.01 & -2.60 $\pm$ 0.01 & 10.91 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.10 & -1.00\
$[0.60, 0.65]$ & -5.90 $\pm$ 0.02 & -2.64 $\pm$ 0.01 & 10.93 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.10 & -1.00\
\[tab:totalsmf\_params\]
Scatter-normalized mass functions {#MF:scatter-normalized}
---------------------------------
The assumption-averaged [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass functions, both in raw form and from forward model fitting, show no evidence for redshift evolution. While the forward model should account for the effect of scatter, we provide a second test here using perturbed $M_*$ estimates. Following the methodology in Section \[method:scatter\], we perturb the $M_*$ values in order to normalize the scatter from [photo-$z$s]{} and luminosity errors, aiming for a uniform $\sigma_{M_*}$ uncertainty resulting from these two terms of 0.115 dex. The mass functions using these perturbed $M_*$ values are shown in Figure \[fig:mfn:pert\]. As expected, the number densities are inflated with respect to Figure \[fig:mfn:best\], but in a way that impacts all redshift bins equally. The fraction of [photo-$z$s]{} is relatively small in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} and increases somewhat towards lower redshifts. The combination of [photo-$z$]{} and luminosity error in the $M_*$ uncertainties is thus roughly balanced as a function of redshift in the raw mass functions presented in Figure \[fig:mfn:best\].
Confirming results from the previous section, no redshift evolution is apparent using the scatter-normalized $M_*$ values from the combined set of mass estimates.
Dependence on priors {#MF:priors}
--------------------
The mass function results from the previous sections average estimates from four different sets of $M_*$ measurements that include different star formation history priors and different stellar synthesis models. These assumption-averaged mass functions show no evidence for redshift evolution, but redshift differences do appear when specific sets of $M_*$ estimates are used, underlying the importance of systematic errors in $M_*$ values when measuring precise growth rates at these masses.
We find that different priors in the star formation history lead to the largest discrepancies, both in terms of absolute $M_*$ differences but more importantly in terms of the implied redshift evolution. Figure \[fig:mfn:priors\] shows raw mass functions based on three sets of $M_*$ estimates: [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{}, [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{}, and [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm FSPS}$]{}. The [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} mass functions (left panel) exhibit an apparent decrease of 0.1 dex in the $M_*$ values of massive galaxies over the sampled redshift range. Results with bursty star formation histories, ([$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{}, middle panel) show a mild reversal of this trend, while the burst-free [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm FSPS}$]{} estimates (right panel) imply little to no evolution. We show in the next section that the impact on evolutionary signals of different stellar synthesis models is modest, so while [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} estimates are based on BC03 and the other estimates in Figure \[fig:mfn:priors\] on FSPS, we ascribe most of the differences observed to star formation history priors.
The bursty [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{} mass functions (middle panel) not only suggest mild growth in $M_*$ with time—the opposite conclusion of the [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} results in the left-hand panel—but feature a more significantly elevated result at high masses in the $z \approx 0.35$ bin compared to the [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm FSPS}$]{} number densities (right panel). The [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm FSPS}$]{} results are consistent with no evolution over the majority of the mass range probed. The difference at higher masses likely reflects the impact of priors that control the burst histories.
While we leave a detailed investigation of the role of specific SFH priors and their optimization for this sample to future work, we conclude from Figure \[fig:mfn:priors\] that the resulting uncertainties introduce a systematic error of 0.03 dex in the $M_*$ [*growth*]{} histories that we can determine from our combined assumption-averaged mass function (absolute $M_*$ differences can be somewhat larger). This level of systematic uncertainty resulting from $M_*$ modeling is similar to that cited by @moustakas13.
Impact of stellar synthesis models {#MF:models}
----------------------------------
Figure \[fig:mfn:models\] allows us to evaluate how three choices for the stellar population models underlying the [`iSEDfit`]{} $M_*$ estimates impact constraints on stellar mass growth. In all cases, models without bursts are compared. The FSPS [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm FSPS}$]{} mass functions are repeated from Figure \[fig:mfn:priors\] in the left-hand panel. Mass functions based on BC03 masses, [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm BC03}$]{}, are shown in the middle panel, while the right-hand panel uses [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm Ma05}$]{}, based on models from @maraston05.
From one panel to the next, *absolute* differences in the mass estimates manifest in changes to the derived set of mass functions. But the implied differential redshift evolution within each panel is nearly identical, and again consistent with no detectable growth with redshift. At least among the set of stellar population synthesis models used here, model differences are less important than star formation history priors in affecting conclusions about the average growth rates in massive galaxy populations.
Dependence on star formation history {#MF:SFH}
------------------------------------
In this section, we partition the high-mass [[s82-mgc]{}]{} galaxy population into different sub-samples based on the inferred levels of recent star formation and investigate how the mass functions of these sub-samples evolve with time. Our information regarding each galaxy’s star formation history (SFH) comes from fitting its SED to the 9-band [[s82-mgc]{}]{} photometry. At the lowest redshifts we consider, $z=0.3$, the SDSS $u$-band samples the restframe near-UV, allowing us to constrain the presence of young stars in a similar way as SDSS-I $z \approx 0.1$ studies employing UV data from GALEX [e.g., @salim07]. The near-IR bands help discriminate between reddening due to dust extinction versus the red colors of aging stellar populations (see [Paper I]{}).
Figure \[fig:dist\_SFH\] plots the redshift-dependent distribution of derived star-formation rates for [[s82-mgc]{}]{} galaxies with $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.3$ using medians of the SFR posteriors reported by [`iSEDfit`]{}. The distribution of specific star formation rates (sSFR) is qualitatively similar because of the narrow $M_*$ range of our sample, but is uniformly low (these are passive galaxies). We therefore focus on the un-normalized SFR given our interest on low-level, residual star formation and the negligible impact such star formation has on $M_*$ growth for our sample. With the majority of SFR values below 1 [$M_{\odot}$]{}/yr, their accuracy likely depends strongly on the SFH priors we have adopted, which include a (poorly-constrained) prescription for bursts. This is acceptable if our goal is to use these SFR estimates as a proxy for examining broad differences in recent SFH across the high-mass population. Other expressions of these differences, such as the birth parameter, [$b_{1000}$]{}, or stellar age, yield similar behavior. With this in mind, we divide the SFR distribution into three sub-samples. We label galaxies with $\log {\rm SFR} < -2.7$ as having “no star formation.” Those with $-2.7 < \log {\rm SFR} < -0.5$ are interpreted as having experienced trace amounts of recent star formation and labeled as “minimally” star-forming, while those with $\log {\rm SFR} > -0.5$ are considered to have ongoing star formation.
The evolution of the $\log {\rm SFR}$ distribution suggests that our classification scheme may have physical meaning. At $z \approx 0.6$, Figure \[fig:dist\_SFH\] suggests that most high-mass galaxies are quiescent but had some minimal recent star formation. As time advances, this population declines and the majority of our sample falls into the non-star-forming category. It is interesting that this evolution suggests an exchange between two modes of behavior as opposed to a smooth decrease in inferred SFR with time. Meanwhile, a star-forming sub-sample remains present and relatively consistent across the full redshift range.
We can gain further insight by studying how the stellar mass functions of these SFH sub-samples evolve with time. The three panels in Figure \[fig:mfn:SFH\] correspond to the “no SF”, “minimal SF”, and “on-going SF” populations. Here we see that the evolutionary signal apparent in Figure \[fig:dist\_SFH\] is driven by galaxies at the “lower-mass” end of our sample, that is with $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\lesssim 11.8$. The increase in the no-SF sample coupled with the decline of the minimally star-forming populations at similar masses suggests an exchange, especially given that the total mass function remains essentially fixed. At the highest masses, $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\gtrsim 11.8$, most galaxies remain in the minimally star-forming category at all redshifts.
The right-most panel of Figure \[fig:mfn:SFH\] reveals the mass function of the star-forming population to be nearly constant with time. Its shape does not follow the total mass function but looks more like a power-law. Remarkably, we see that the fraction of galaxies with ongoing star formation *increases* at the highest masses, and while the statistical uncertainties in our highest mass bin, $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}= 12.2$, are too large to draw firm conclusions, there is a hint that the majority of galaxies with such extreme $M_*$ estimates harbor a degree of ongoing star formation at all redshifts.
Discussion
==========
Confidence in Detecting No Evolution {#disc:noevol}
------------------------------------
Even after accounting for $z$-dependent scatter, our assumption-averaged estimate of the high-$M_*$ mass function is consistent with no evolution over $0.3 < z < 0.65$. Here we summarize how different uncertainties affect this conclusion and limit the degree of confidence associated with our claim of a lack of $M_*$ growth in the present analysis.
Poisson errors are essentially negligible, especially because any measure of $M_*$ growth would average the several mass bins we sample at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.3$, while Poisson statistics are independent in each bin. This is not the case for remaining sample (“cosmic”) variance uncertainties which are highly covariant between mass bins (see Figure \[fig:covar\]). Our mock [[s82-mgc]{}]{} catalog suggests a 0.02 dex number density uncertainty for the mass function in the smallest-volume, low-$z$ bin. A number density deviation in one redshift bin at this level could be misinterpreted as an 0.005 dex evolution in the average $M_*$. It is unlikely that all four of our redshift bins would suffer systematically increasing sample variance offsets, thereby conspiring to hide underlying $M_*$ growth. Still, a conservative estimate for the amount $M_*$ evolution that could be hidden would be a 2-$\sigma$ trend across redshift amounting to 0.01 dex.
We have spent significant effort addressing concerns over the use of photometric redshifts, particularly their impact on $M_*$ scatter (Section \[method:scatter\]). Regarding conclusions over global evolution, it is important to emphasize that the spectroscopic completeness of these mass functions reaches 80% above $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\approx 11.6$ (Chabrier IMF) even at the highest redshifts. Systematic losses due to completeness are therefore an unlikely contributor to our overall uncertainties. The more general challenge of estimating the $M_*$ scatter could be important, however. In other words, it would be helpful to quantify the error on our error estimates. In our effort to make comparisons with the $z=0$ mass function, we noticed that the difference in assuming a total $M_*$ measurement scatter of $\sigma = 0.12$ dex versus $\sigma = 0.09$ leads to changing mass function that could be misinterpreted as implying 0.07 dex of $M_*$ evolution. However, a $\sim$30% systematic offset in our estimates of $\sigma$ versus their true values seems unlikely over the well-detected high-mass galaxies in our redshift range. A more reasonable estimate for a potential systematic would be 0.02 dex.
In comparison to those above, the most significant systematic error we have studied so far are the potentially $z$-dependent biases in $M_*$ estimates under different assumptions for star formation history (Section \[MF:SFH\]). Of the four different $M_*$ we combine in our assumption-averaged mass functions, the fiducial [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} estimates (used alone) would indicate a significantly measured decrease in $M_*$ over the redshift range. The [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}$]{} estimates employing bursts would indicate a slight growth, while the BC03 [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm BC03}$]{} and Maraston [$M_{*{\rm iSED}}^{\rm Ma05}$]{} (neither with bursts) would give no evolution. Although a bursty SFH might be inconsistent with observed alpha-enhanced stellar populations [e.g., @thomas05], our current uncertainty in what priors to adopt leads us to combine these $M_*$ estimates with equal weight and assess the resulting error on derived $M_*$ evolution to be 0.03 dex.
Combining these systematic error terms in quadrature yields 0.037 dex, suggesting that our results are consistent with 9% or less evolution in the typical $M_*$ of high-mass galaxies over our redshift range.
There is one additional source of potential systematic error that will be addressed in future work and could dominant over the 9% estimate we quote above, namely a bias in our estimates of total luminosity. We discuss this uncertainty in more detail below.
Biases from Luminosity Estimators
---------------------------------
Stellar mass estimates ultimately rely on measures of the total luminosity of galaxies. Even with $z \approx 0$ SDSS samples, choices in how surface brightness profiles are fit can have dramatic implications for derived $M_*$ estimates and resulting stellar mass functions [@bernardi13]. At the highest masses, discrepancies in $M_*$ estimates can reach two orders of magnitude, depending on profile fitting assumptions [@bernardi17; @huang17].
Detailed work on nearby galaxies has emphasized the multi-component nature of galaxy light profiles—spheroidal galaxies often exhibit an outer component that, while low in surface-brightness, can contribute significantly to total $M_*$ [@huang13]. There is evidence that the outer components of the most massive central galaxies grow with time even since $z \sim 0.6$ [@vulcani14] and that their rising importance accounts for a degree of claimed size evolution [e.g., @van-der-wel14].
Indeed, studies of the evolving mass-size relation put a premium on deep photometry, often from the Hubble Space Telescope, and pay close attention to biases in 2D profile fitting. Unfortunately, the photometric data sets that underlie galaxy redshift surveys on which number density studies are often based (including this one) are much shallower. Photometry requirements are typically just deep enough to detect galaxies in the sample, not to characterize their low surface-brightness outskirts. @tal11 use stacking analyses, for example, to show that SDSS imaging misses 20% of the total light of luminous red galaxy (LRG) samples. Shallow imaging depths also motivate the use of rather simple total luminosity estimators, such as the Kron and Hall estimators that underlie our $M_*$ estimates in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}.
We therefore consider a major limitation of this work our inability to quantify the stellar content of the outer components of massive galaxies. Future work exploiting deeper data sets like the Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey may reveal significant growth in these components, which remain below the detection level of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} even at the lowest redshifts probed. It is possible that their presence could have a profound affect on conclusions regarding evolution in the total mass function.
Comparisons to Other Results
----------------------------
Figure \[fig:mfn:comp\] presents a comparison of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass functions to both theoretical results (left panel) and recent observational work spanning large volumes (right panel). In both cases, we reproduce from Figure \[fig:mfn:best\] the raw number counts from the assumption-averaged [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass function with associated error bars indicated by shaded regions as well as fits from forward-modeling the raw results (thick, dotted lines). The forward models account for our estimates of various sources of measurement error.
We compare to theoretical results from recent cosmological hydrodynamic simulations (left panel). Stellar mass functions for the EAGLE simulation are taken from fits provided at specific redshifts by @furlong15. For a comparison to the Illustris Simulation results we use the mass function fitting formulae provided in @torrey17 and evaluate the relation at the midpoint of the lowest and highest redshift bins in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} sample. Both simulations predict a $\sim$20–30% growth in $M_*$ at fixed number density at these masses that is not detected in our data. For a direct comparison to Illustris, the raw mass functions may be appropriate as the Illustris output was tuned to reproduce the evolving galaxy stellar mass function, as observed at lower $M_*$ [@torrey14]. These observational results likely included the effects of measurement scatter, which would be expected at $z \gtrsim 0.3$ to be similar to the uncertainties estimated here. We see, however, that the Illustris number densities, while in broad agreement with the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\approx 11.5$, trace a shallower mass function than what we observe and land an order of magnitude too high at 10$^{12}$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}, although they are in closer agreement with @maraston13 (see below). At this $M_*$, @torrey17 warn that Illustris becomes incomplete.
The EAGLE simulation output was tuned to the SDSS-based $z \approx 0.1$ mass function alone which, being at low redshift, suffers from less measurement error. A direct comparison with EAGLE is therefore more appropriately made with our forward model fits in which we have attempted to remove the effects of scatter. Here the agreement with our observations in both shape and normalization is better. If applied to the EAGLE results, a constant $M_*$ offset of +0.05 dex, well within expectations for mass estimator differences, would bring the low-$z$ mass functions into agreement, and @furlong15 speculate that galaxies in their simulation may be over-quenched. Our forward-model results, however, are inconsistent with the smooth redshift evolution predicted by EAGLE (see Section \[disc:noevol\]).
The right-hand panel of Figure \[fig:mfn:comp\] compares our results to other observational efforts. The raw number densities derived from the @maraston13 analysis of the BOSS sample are overplotted with open symbols connected by gold lines. Corrections to $h$ have been applied, but @maraston13 do not account for scatter and so should be compared to the raw number counts from the [[s82-mgc]{}]{}. In [Paper I]{}, we show that [$M_{*{\rm MGC}}$]{} is systematically larger than the @maraston13 $M_*$ estimates, an offset that increases with $M_*$ to 0.1 dex at $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}\sim
11.8$. The higher @maraston13 number densities at fixed $M_*$ in Figure \[fig:mfn:comp\] may owe instead to Eddington bias from larger $M_*$ uncerainties [@bundy15a]. Note the effect of CMASS sample incompleteness in the highest redshift bin from @maraston13.
The DES [photo-$z$]{}-only Schechter fits from the mass functions in @capozzi17 are overplotted as green open symbols. These are fits to raw number counts (no scatter correction) and should be compared to our raw number densities (shaded curves). On top of a global $M_*$ offset[^5], the @capozzi17 results favor a decreasing mass function with time that would be consistent with a decrease in the typical $M_*$ of massive galaxies.
Finally we overplot the forward-model results of @moutard16 (solid blue lines) which are based in part on VIPERS data and should be compared to our forward-model fitting approach (with scatter removed). Acknowledging a global $M_*$ offset, the evolutionary signal claimed by @moutard16 appears to have a similar amplitude as the range in forward-modeled mass functions that we derive. Given the uncertainties in our data, we do not interpret this range to be physically meaningful. Separate modeling runs with different random draws of our error distributions yield different relative orientations of our redshift-dependent mass functions. With 22 deg$^2$ compared to our 139 deg$^2$, the @moutard16 data set may have similar (or greater) uncertainties. The apparent evolution in their mass function fits might therefore arise from differing priors on the mass function shape parameters.
Dependence on Star Formation History {#dependence-on-star-formation-history}
------------------------------------
The SFR distributions presented in Figure \[fig:dist\_SFH\] suggest that massive galaxies can be classified according to the degree of low-level star formation that is present. Figure \[fig:mfn:SFH\] shows that the population with some residual star formation stays constant with time, while the abundance of galaxies with minimal star formation decreases, apparently resulting in a build-up of systems with no star formation at all. These results are based on the optical-near-IR fitting we have performed with [`iSEDfit`]{} and therefore reflect features in broadband SEDs. They are also subject to the adopted priors which, for example, limit derived SFRs to be greater than $\sim$10$^{-3}$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}/yr likely resulting in the apparent peak at this value in Figure \[fig:dist\_SFH\].
Is the apparent decline in the abundance of high-mass galaxies with minimal star formation real? If so, it may be a sign-post of more recent quenching, past merging episodes with smaller, gas-rich galaxies or low levels of residual gas cooling and star formation that become increasingly rare towards the present day. Alternatively, could the global shift towards near-zero SFRs simply reflect passive evolution of exponentially-declining SFHs?
Constraints on star formation histories from detailed analysis of massive galaxy spectra present a complementary view [e.g., @thomas05; @tojeiro07; @thomas10]. For $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}< 11.5$, @choi14 stack $z \sim 0.5$ spectra to argue that more massive quiescent galaxies have older SSP-equivalent ages at all times (for $z \lesssim 1$). However, while this age-mass trend generally evolves towards older ages with time, the lower-mass galaxy populations age less rapidly. This suggests more complex SFHs, possibly resulting from recent red-sequence arrivals which may also contribute to the “minimal” SFR population we identify here.
@choi14 present exponential SFHs that are meant to globally capture the mass and age trends of their stacked samples. The data are broadly consistent with a short burst ($\tau = 0.1$ Gyr) of star formation at $z \sim 1.2$ as well as with longer declining histories ($\tau \sim 2$ Gyr) initiated at $z = 3$. Neither of these global models explain the SFR distributions we see in Figure \[fig:dist\_SFH\]. Short bursts at $z \sim 1$ have completely extinguished by $z \sim 0.5$, and even if our absolute measure of SFR could be made consistent, the longer SFH models predict 0.2-0.3 dex of gradual decline in SFR per 0.1-wide redshift bin. Our estimates suggest a much more dramatic cessation. While the exponential models may provide a useful description for the majority of stars in massive galaxies, we conclude that residual low-level star formation may still be present in ways that shed light on recent assembly history.
We turn now to the more rare phenomenon of very massive galaxies exhibiting significant levels of star formation, with SFR $\gtrsim 1$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}/yr. One concern is that our SED-based SFR estimates are biased by a “UV upturn” which is likely a signature of stellar evolution, not a sign of recent star formation. Figure 13 in [Paper I]{} shows how a related measure of recent star formation, the [$b_{1000}$]{} parameter, varies across the optical-near-IR color space of our sample. This plot demonstrates that the majority of our modestly star-forming galaxies have red optical colors. The near-IR photometry is what allows us to distinguish them as (mildly dust-obscured) star-formers, not a detection of enhanced UV flux. We also reported that the visual morphologies of these galaxies are predominantly disk-like or disturbed.
This star-forming population remains remarkably constant across our redshift range. From $10^{11}$ to $10^{12}$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}, roughly 10% of massive galaxies are in throes of a noticeable star-forming episode. While unlikely to build significant additional stellar mass, these episodes may again be signs of an active (minor) merging history which in some cases may significantly revive quiescent galaxies [e.g., @kannappan09]. At $10^{12}$ [$M_{\odot}$]{} and above, galaxies with significant star formation appear to be far more common. Assuming that most of these systems are Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs), these results are consistent with BCG sample studied by @mcdonald16. They find that 34% of BCGs at $0.25 < z < 1.25$ have SFR$ > 10$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}/yr. At $z < 0.6$, @mcdonald16 use entropy profiles in the hot intracluster medium (ICM) to argue that cooling in relaxed cool-core clusters provides the dominant source of SFR fuel. The rising fraction of star-formers we see in our sample towards higher $M_*$ may signal the increasing role of ICM cooling in triggering high-$M_*$ star formation. Unfortunately, statistical uncertainties limit our ability to study evolution in the abundance of $M_* > 10^{12} {M_{\odot}}$ star-formers, and we do not probe beyond $z
\sim 0.6$ where @mcdonald16 argue ICM cooling no longer correlates with BCG star formation.
Summary and Conclusions {#summary}
=======================
We have exploited optical through near-IR matched photometry in the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} to measure the galaxy stellar mass function in four redshift bins from $z = 0.30$ to $z = 0.65$. While our $M_*$ completeness of $\log M_*/{M_{\odot}}> 11.3$ is relatively shallow, our sample spans a large area of $139$ deg$^2$, delivering exquisite statitical precision on possible evolution at the highest masses.
We pay special attention to sources of random and systematic error and investigate their effects on our derived mass functions through both forward modeling and perturbations to our measurements that result in samples with uniform measurement uncertainties. The two techniques yield consistent results. These techniques also address concerns from the use of photometric redshifts, although our sample has a high degree (80%) of spectroscopic redshift completeness, even at the highest redshifts we probe.
Our key result is shown in Figure \[fig:mfn:best\]. After combining $M_*$ estimates that adopt a range of currently uncertain prior assumptions, we find no evolution in the typical $M_*$ at fixed number density for massive galaxies in our redshift range. Recent simulations predict growth in $M_*$ of 20-30%. Taking account of errors studied in this work, we can rule out evolution in $M_*$ of 9% or more. Among those considered here, the largest contribution to this uncertainty are biases in $M_*$ estimates arising from different SFH priors. However, we speculate that missing light from our adopted total luminosity estimators is of far greater importance and, when accounted for in future work, could strongly impact our conclusions.
Finally, we divide our sample based on the degree of resiudal, low-level star formation as determined from our SED fitting. We find a minimally star-forming population that appears to become completely passive over our redshift range. There is an additional less abundant population with notable, but still low SFR (about 1 [$M_{\odot}$]{}/yr) whose mass function hardly evolves. Interestingly, this population becomes more common at the highest masses and may be associated with brightest cluster galaxies in cool-core clusters.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. This work was supported by a Kakenhi Gant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 24740119 from Japan society for the Promotion of Science. We thank E. Rykoff and E. Rozo for a generous contribution of [*RedMapper*]{} photometric redshift estimates. This publication has made use of code written by James R. A. Davenport.
Covariance Matrices {#sec:covar}
===================
The correlation matrices from the bootstrap resampling are plotted in Figure \[fig:covar\] and made available at [[MassiveGalaxies.com](http://www.massivegalaxies.com)]{}.
![Correlation matrices from the normalized covariance of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass functions as determined from gridding the survey footprint into 214 subregions and resampling with replacement.\[fig:covar\]](\dir_plots/mfn_covar_0.eps "fig:"){height="5cm"} ![Correlation matrices from the normalized covariance of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass functions as determined from gridding the survey footprint into 214 subregions and resampling with replacement.\[fig:covar\]](\dir_plots/mfn_covar_1.eps "fig:"){height="5cm"}\
![Correlation matrices from the normalized covariance of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass functions as determined from gridding the survey footprint into 214 subregions and resampling with replacement.\[fig:covar\]](\dir_plots/mfn_covar_2.eps "fig:"){height="5cm"} ![Correlation matrices from the normalized covariance of the [[s82-mgc]{}]{} mass functions as determined from gridding the survey footprint into 214 subregions and resampling with replacement.\[fig:covar\]](\dir_plots/mfn_covar_3.eps "fig:"){height="5cm"}
[^1]: @tinker17 suggest that the “Wisconsin PCA” $M_*$ estimates have the smallest measurement uncertainties among available BOSS estimates. While they are compared in [Paper I]{}, we do not use them here because they are available only for galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts.
[^2]: Note that we assume the prior grid adequately samples the parameter space of the posterior.
[^3]: In rare cases, the $H$-band is used when $K$-band is not available.
[^4]: In practice, the average number densities are computed by binning a concatenated array of 4 different sets of $M_*$ estimates and dividing by 4 times the corresponding volume of each redshift slice.
[^5]: The $M_*$ estimates in @capozzi17 use a Salpeter IMF, which introduces a +0.25 dex offset compared to the Chabrier-based values in this paper. However, the adopted SF priors in @capozzi17 were shown by @maraston13 to cause a -0.25 dex offset. Since this cancels the offset from the Salpeter IMF compared to our estimates, we plot the @capozzi17 results without any corrections applied.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We perform a numerical investigation of the field evolution in the smooth hybrid inflationary model. We find that for almost all the examined initial values we do get an adequate amount of inflation. Our results show that the model is ”natural” and satisfactory.'
author:
- |
[**G. Lazarides, C. Panagiotakopoulos**]{}\
Physics Division\
School of Technology\
University of Thessaloniki\
Thessaloniki 540 06, Greece\
[**N.D.Vlachos**]{}\
Dept. of Theoretical Physics\
University of Thessaloniki\
Thessaloniki 540 06, Greece
title: Initial Conditions for Smooth Hybrid Inflation
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
= .30in
The hybrid inflationary scenario$^{(1)}$ proposed by Linde in the context of non supersymmetric (SUSY) theories is a realization of chaotic inflation based on a coupled system of two scalar fields one of which may not be a gauge singlet. The great advantage of this scenario is that it produces the observed temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation (CBR) with natural values of the coupling constants. However, inflation terminates abruptly and is followed by a ”waterfall” regime during which topological defects can be easily produced. Recently, two of us have proposed$^{(2)}$ a variant of Linde’s potential which can be derived in a wide class of SUSY grand unified theories (GUTs) based on semi-simple gauge groups by utilizing the first non-renormalizable contribution to the superpotential. Although one gets only a slight variation of Linde’s potential, the cosmological scenario obtained is drastically different. Already since the beginning of inflation, the system follows a particular valley of minima which leads to a particular point of the vacuum manifold. Thus, this inflationary scenario does not lead to production of topological defects. Also the termination of inflation is not as abrupt as in the hybrid case. It is quite smooth and resembles more the cases of new or chaotic inflation. The main advantage of this smooth hybrid inflationary scenario is that the measured value of the temperature fluctuations of CBR can be reproduced with natural values of the parameters and with a GUT scale, $M_X$, consistent with the unification of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) gauge couplings. It is also remarkable that the scale controlling the non-renormalizable terms in the superpotential turns out to be of order 10$^{18}$ GeV. The spectral index of density fluctuations is close to unity.
For an inflationary scenario to be considered fully successful, one has to show that it is obtainable for a wide class of ”natural” initial values of the fields and their time derivatives. In ref.(2), two sets of initial conditions were studied semianalytically and it was argued that they lead to smooth hybrid inflation. These sets, however, cannot be considered completely ”natural” since they require some or even a considerable discrepancy between the initial values of the fields. The purpose of this paper is to identify a wide class of ”natural” initial conditions for smooth hybrid inflation, i.e., comparable initial values of the fields for which the system falls at the bottom of a particular valley of minima. Its subsequent evolution along this valley, then, produces smooth hybrid inflation. To this end, we solve numerically the evolution equations of the system for a wide class of initial conditions. The result is striking and unexpected. We find that, for almost all the examined initial conditions (except a narrow transition region), we do get smooth hybrid inflation with an adequate number of e-foldings. This result together with the other advantages of this inflationary scenario makes it fully satisfying and ”natural”. Our analysis also includes cases with all initial field values being much smaller than the Planck scale. In these cases, our results are expected to be less affected by replacing global by local supersymmetry.
The smooth hybrid inflationary scenario can be realized in the context of a SUSY GUT based on a gauge group $G$ of rank $\geq 5$. We assume that $G$ breaks spontaneously directly to the standard model (SM) group $G_S$ at a scale $M_X\sim 10^{16}$ GeV and that below $M_X$ the only SM non-singlet states of the theory are the usual MSSM states. This guarantees the successful MSSM predictions for $sin^2\theta _w$ and $\alpha _s$. The theory could also possess some global symmetries. The symmetry breaking of $G$ to $G_S$ is obtained through a superpotential which includes the terms $$W=s(-\mu ^2+\frac{(\phi \bar \phi )^2}{M^2}).$$ Here $\phi \,$,$\bar \phi $ is a conjugate pair of left-handed SM singlet superfields which belong to non-trivial representations of the gauge group $G$ and reduce its rank by their vacuum expectation values (vevs), $s$ is a gauge singlet left-handed superfield, $\mu $ is a superheavy mass scale related to $M_X$, whereas $M$ is a mass scale of the order of the ”compactification” scale $M_c\sim 10^{18}$ GeV which controls the non-renormalizable terms in the superpotential of the theory. The superpotential terms in eq.(1) are the dominant couplings involving the superfields $s\,$,$\phi \,$,$\bar \phi $ consistent with a continuous R-symmetry under which $W\rightarrow e^{i\theta }W$,$s\rightarrow e^{i\theta}s$, $\phi \bar \phi \rightarrow \phi \bar \phi $ and a discrete symmetry under which $\phi \bar \phi $ changes sign.
The potential obtained from $W$ in eq.(1), in the supersymmetric limit, is $$V=|\mu ^2-\frac{(\phi \bar \phi )^2}{M^2}|^2+4|s|^2
\frac{|\phi |^2|\bar \phi
|^2}{M^4}(|\phi |^2+|\bar \phi |^2)+\textstyle{D-terms},$$ where the scalar components of the superfields are denoted by the same symbols as the corresponding superfields. Vanishing of the D-terms is achieved along the D-flat directions where $|\bar \phi |=|\phi |$. The supersymmetric vacuum $$<s>=0,\>\><\phi ><\bar \phi >=\pm \mu M,\>\>|<\bar \phi >|=|<\phi >|$$ lies on the particular D-flat direction $\bar \phi ^{*}=\pm \phi $. Restricting ourselves to this direction and performing appropriate gauge,discrete and R-transformations we can bring the complex $s$,$\phi $,$\bar\phi $ fields on the real axis, i.e., $s\equiv \frac \sigma {\sqrt{2}}$, $\>\bar \phi =\phi \equiv \frac 12\chi $, where $\sigma $ and $\chi $ are real scalar fields. The potential in eq.(2) then takes the form $$V(\chi ,\sigma )=(\mu ^2-\frac{\chi ^4}{16M^2})^2+\frac{\chi ^6
\sigma ^2}{16M^4}$$ and the supersymmetric minima correspond to $$|<\chi >|=2(\mu M)^{1/2},\>\><\sigma >=0\,\ .$$ The mass acquired by the gauge bosons is $M_X=g(\mu M)^{1/2}$, where $g$ is the GUT gauge coupling. For any fixed value of $\sigma $, the potential in eq.(4), as a function of $\chi ^2$, has a local maximum at $\chi ^2=0$ and an absolute minimum lying at $$\chi ^2\simeq \frac 43\frac{\mu ^2M^2}{\sigma ^2}
\ ,\>\textstyle{for}\>\sigma^2>>\mu M\ ,$$ and $\chi ^2\simeq 4\mu M$, for $\sigma ^2<<\mu M$. The value of the potential along the maxima at $\chi ^2=0$ is constant, $V_{max}(\chi
^2=0)=\mu ^4$.
Assume for the moment that at some region of the universe the scalar fields $\chi $ and $\sigma $, starting from appropriate initial conditions to be discussed below, evolve in such a way so they become almost uniform with values at the bottom of the valley of minima in eq.(6). One can then show$^{(2)}$ that these fields, at subsequent times, move towards the supersymmetric minima in eq.(5) following this valley and the system inflates till $\sigma $ reaches the value $$\sigma \simeq \sigma _o\equiv (\frac{2M_P}{9\sqrt{\pi }
(\mu M)^{1/2}})^{1/3}(\mu M)^{1/2}\stackrel{_{>}}{_{\sim }}
(\mu M)^{1/2},$$ where $M_P=1.2\times 10^{19}$ GeV is the Planck mass. The number of e-foldings from the moment at which the $\sigma $ field has the value $\sigma $ till the end of inflation is given by $$N(\sigma )\simeq (\frac{3\sqrt{2\pi }}{2\mu MM_P})^2\sigma ^6.$$ This implies that the value of the $\sigma $ field when the present horizon crossed outside the inflationary horizon was $$\sigma _H\simeq (\frac{9N_H}2)^{1/6}\sigma _o\,,$$ where $N_H$ is the number of e-foldings of the present horizon size during inflation. After the end of inflation, the $\sigma $ and $\chi $ fields enter smoothly into an oscillatory phase about the global supersymmetric minimum of the potential in eq.(5) with frequency $m_\sigma =m_\chi =2\sqrt{2}(\mu /M)^{1/2}\mu $. These fields should eventually decay into lighter particles and ”reheat” the universe. Taking $N_H=60$, $M_X=2\times 10^{16}$ GeV, $g=0.7$ (consistent with the MSSM unification),the microwave background quadrupole anisotropy $(\Delta T/T)\simeq 5\times 10^{-6}$ from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) implies that $M\simeq 9.4\times 10^{17}$ GeV and $\mu \simeq 8.7\times 10^{14}$ GeV. With these numbers, which we will use throughout this paper, one estimates the value of $\sigma $ at the end of inflation (see eq.(7)) $\sigma _o\simeq 1.1\times 10^{17}$ GeV $
\simeq 5.4M_X$ and its value when the present horizon size crossed outside the inflationary horizon (see eq.(9)) $\sigma _H\simeq 2.54\sigma _o\simeq 2.7\times 10^{17}$ GeV. An important advantage of the above smooth hybrid inflationary scenario is that inflation takes place at relatively low values of the field $\sigma $ and, therefore, there is hope that it survives even in the context of supergravity theories although it may acquire drastic modifications.
We will now try to specify the initial conditions for the $\sigma $ and $\chi $ fields which lead to the above described inflationary scenario. In other words, we will try to identify the initial conditions for which the system falls at the bottom of the valley of minima in eq.(6) with a value of $\sigma \geq \sigma _H$ so that its subsequent evolution along the valley produces an adequate amount of inflation. We assume that, after ”compactification” at some initial cosmic time, a region emerges in the universe where the scalar fields $\sigma $ and $\chi $ happen to be almost uniform with negligible kinetic energies. (The initial values of $\sigma $ and $\chi $ can always be transformed by appropriate gauge and R-transformations to become positive.) The evolution of the system in this region is governed by the following equations of motion $$\ddot \chi +3H\dot \chi -\frac{\chi ^3}{2M^2}(\mu ^2-
\frac{\chi ^4}{16M^2})+\frac{3\chi ^5\sigma ^2}{8M^4}=0\ ,$$ $$\ddot \sigma +3H\dot \sigma +\frac{\chi ^6\sigma }{8M^4}=0\ ,$$ where overdots denote derivatives with respect to cosmic time and $H$ is the Hubble parameter $$H=(\frac{8\pi }3)^{1/2}M_P^{-1}\varrho ^{1/2}=(\frac{8\pi }%
3)^{1/2}M_P^{-1}(\frac 12\dot \chi ^2+\frac 12\dot
\sigma ^2+V(\chi ,\sigma))^{1/2}$$ ($\varrho $ is the energy density).
The case where initially $\sigma \gg M_P\gg \chi $ was examined in ref.(2).Under these circumstances, the last term in eq.(4) is initially the dominant contribution to the potential energy density of the system (assuming $\chi \stackrel{_{>}}{_{\sim }}
(\mu ^2M^2/\sigma )^{1/3}$). Also, eq.(10) reduces to $$\ddot \chi +3H\dot \chi +\frac{3\chi ^5\sigma ^2}{8M^4}\simeq 0.$$ Let us for the moment assume that $\sigma $ remains almost constant. The frequency of oscillations of the $\chi $ field is then much greater that $H$ and $\chi $ initially performs damped oscillations over the maximum at $\chi=0$. The continuity equation $$\dot \varrho =-3H(\varrho +p),$$ with $p$ being the pressure averaged over one oscillation of $\chi $ becomes $$\dot \varrho =-3H\gamma \varrho ,$$ where $\gamma =3/2$ for a $\chi ^6$ potential$^{(3)}$. This equation together with the fact that $\varrho $ is proportional to $H^2$ gives $$H\simeq \frac 4{9t}.$$ Comparing this result with eq.(12) we can obtain the amplitude of the oscillating $\chi $ field $$\chi _m\simeq (\frac 3{8\pi })^{1/6}(\frac{16M^2M_P}{9\sigma t})^{1/3}.$$ Eq.(11) averaged over one oscillation of $\chi $ then gives $$\ddot \sigma +\frac 4{3t}\dot \sigma +\frac 1{27\pi t^2}(\frac{M_P}
\sigma)^2\sigma \simeq 0.$$ The solutions of this equation are of the form $\sigma =t^\alpha $, where $\alpha $ satisfies the quadratic equation $$\alpha ^2+\frac 13\alpha +\frac 1{27\pi }(\frac{M_P}\sigma )^2\simeq 0.$$ For $\sigma \gg M_P$, the solutions are $$\alpha \simeq -\frac 13+\frac 1{9\pi }(\frac{M_P}\sigma )^2
\quad \mbox{and} \>\>\alpha \simeq -
\displaystyle\frac 1{9\pi }(\frac{M_P}
\sigma )^2.$$ This means that $\sigma $ quickly approaches an extremely slowly decreasing function of time and, thus, our starting assumption that it remains approximately constant is justified. When the amplitude of the $\chi $ field drops to about $(\mu ^2M^2/
\sigma )^{1/3}$, the $\mu ^4$ term dominates the potential in eq.(4) and the Hubble parameter becomes approximately constant and equal to $H=(8\pi /3)^{1/2}\mu ^2/M_P$ and remains so thereafter till the end of inflation. The subsequent evolution of the system has been studied in detail in ref.(2). The overall conclusion is that,in a time interval $$\Delta t\sim 6\pi (\frac \sigma {M_P})^2H^{-1},$$ the $\chi $ field falls into the valley of minima in eq.(6) and relaxes at the bottom of this valley whereas the $\sigma $ field still remains unchanged and much greater than $M_P$. After that, the system follows the valley of minima towards the supersymmetric vacuum and, therefore,the smooth hybrid inflationary scenario is realized for initial values of the fields satisfying the inequality $\sigma \gg M_P\gg \chi $. However,these initial conditions cannot be considered totally satisfying because, assuming that the initial energy density is well below $M_P^4$ , we see that there must be some discrepancy between the initial values of the fields. Also the inclusion of supergravity is expected to invalidate the above discussion of initial conditions which involve values of the field $\sigma \stackrel{_{>}}{_{\sim }}M_P$. To minimize the influence from supergravity one could start with field values much smaller than $M_P$ and, as pointed out in ref.(2),still obtain adequate inflation. However, this required an initial energy density much smaller than $M_P^4$ and an initial value of $\chi $ ”unnaturally” smaller than the initial value of $\sigma $.
For smooth hybrid inflation to be considered as a fully successful inflationary scenario, one must show that it is obtained for a wide class of initial conditions which are more ”natural” than the ones just discussed.This can be done only numerically. To this end, we put $\hat \chi \equiv \chi /M_P$ and $\hat \sigma \equiv
\sigma /M_P$ in eqs. (10) and (11) which become $$\hat \chi ^{\prime \prime }+3\hat H\hat \chi ^{\prime }-
\frac{\hat \chi ^3}{32\hat M^4}(16\hat \mu ^2\hat M^2-
\hat \chi ^4)+\frac{3\hat \chi ^5\hat \sigma ^2}{8\hat M^4}=0\ ,$$ $$\hat \sigma ^{\prime \prime }+3\hat H\hat \sigma ^{\prime }+
\frac{\hat \chi^6\hat \sigma }{8\hat M^4}=0\ ,$$ where $$\hat H\equiv \frac H{M_P}=(\frac{8\pi }3)^{1/2}[\frac 12
(\hat \chi ^{\prime})^2+\frac 12(\hat \sigma ^{\prime })^2+
\hat V(\hat \chi ,\hat \sigma)]^{1/2}$$ with $$\hat V(\hat \chi ,\hat \sigma )\equiv \frac{V(\chi ,\sigma )}
{M_P^4}=(\hat\mu ^2-\frac{\hat \chi ^4}{16\hat M^2})^2+
\frac{\hat \chi ^6\hat \sigma ^2}{16\hat M^4}\ \cdot$$ Here primes denote derivatives with respect to the dimensionless time variable $\tau \equiv M_P\,t$ and $$\hat M\equiv \frac M{M_P}\simeq \frac 1{12.83},\>\>\hat \mu
\equiv \frac \mu{M_P}\simeq \frac 1{13737}.$$ We have conducted numerical integration of eqs.(22) and (23) for an extensive set of initial values of the fields in the ranges $0.01\leq \hat \sigma \leq 1.2$ and $0.01\leq \hat \chi \leq 0.5$ and with vanishing initial velocities. The integration of these two coupled equations was performed by implementing a variant of the Bulrish-Stoer$^{(4)}$ variable step method in a Fortran program run mainly on a number of workstations. As a general rule, the initial step for the dimensionless time variable $\tau $ was chosen to be 10 while the sought accuracy was put to $10^{-12}$. This choice was found to ensure reasonable stability in the cases where $\hat\sigma $ settles down to a constant non-zero value relatively early. In the opposite cases as well as near some transition regions, the initial step was decreased to 5 or less, while the sought accuracy was increased by two or three orders of magnitude depending on the case.
The results of our search are summarized in figures 1 and 2 . Each point shown on the $\widehat{\sigma }$-$\widehat{\chi }$ plane corresponds to a given set of initial conditions and depicts a definite evolution pattern for the $\widehat{\sigma }$- $\widehat{\chi }$ system according to the symbol attributes being used. We have used filled circles to specify the evolution pattern where both fields oscillate and fall rapidly to the supersymmetric minima in eq.(5) without producing any appreciable amount of inflation. Open triangles correspond to the case where $\widehat{\sigma }$ starts-off at relatively large values ($\widehat{\sigma }>\widehat{\chi }$) and decreases slowly tending asymptotically to a constant value $\widehat{\sigma }\geq \widehat{\sigma }_H\approx 0.0225$ . The field $\widehat{\chi }$ oscillates and relaxes at the bottom of the valley in eq.(6). The system then evolves through the valley of minima in eq.(6) giving an adequate amount of inflation. Finally, open circles correspond to the pattern where both fields start oscillating at the beginning. Then, $\widehat{\sigma }$ settles down at large values and the system subsequently follows the valley of minima in eq.(6) as in the preceding case.
The evolution pattern represented by open triangles includes the pattern found in the limiting case $\widehat{\sigma }\gg 1\gg
\widehat{\chi }$ analyzed earlier by means of semianalytic arguments. In general, however, $\widehat{\sigma }$ does not remain frozen as in the limiting case, but its variation over a large period of time is small. The open circles area being the least expected deserves further attention. Here, although $\widehat{\sigma }$ starts at moderate or small values, it appears to increase in amplitude absorbing energy from the fast oscillating field $\widehat{\chi }$ and creates conditions that eventually lead to evolution of the open triangles type. It is a beautiful example of large energy transfer between two strongly-coupled non-linear oscillators.
The points depicted in figs.1 and 2 follow a remarkably regular pattern, although there is some intermingling. This intermingling persisted even when the sought accuracy was increased to a maximum and the step was lowered to a minimum, thus, we have to assume that it really exists. It would, of course,be very desirable to get three distinct regions separated by critical lines but we have no reason to a priori exclude the possibility of intermingling.
The problem to be addressed next concerns the ”naturality” of initial conditions. A closer look at fig.1 reveals that the open triangles area,although leading to successful inflation, cannot be considered as being completely ”natural” since it requires relatively large differences between the initial values of the fields. The open circles region appears to be significantly better since the initial values can be of the same order of magnitude. Considering that the initial kinetic energies for both fields are taken to be zero, the initial energy density equals the potential energy density given in eq.(25). It turns out that, when $\widehat{\textstyle{ }\chi }$ and $\widehat{\sigma }$ are of the same order of magnitude and approximately equal to a few tenths, we get acceptable initial energy densities. Thus,part of the open circles area corresponds to ”natural” initial conditions which lead to successful inflation. Inclusion of supergravity will certainly invalidate the preceding analysis, except for an area where all initial field values are much smaller that the Planck scale. This area is shown in fig.2 and a closer inspection shows that all but one of the points fulfil all the conditions for adequate inflation. In summary, taking into account all the previously stated results, we feel confident to conclude that the smooth hybrid inflationary model appears to be ”natural” and satisfactory.
[*Acknowledgments.* ]{}We would like to express our gratitude to our colleagues of the Astrophysics Department and especially to Prof. K. Kokkotas, for sharing their computer facilities with us. This work is supported in part by the E.U. Science project SC1-CT91-0729.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
1. A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. (1994) 748.
2. G. Lazarides and C. Panagiotakopoulos, Phys. Rev. (1995) R559
3. M. Turner, Phys. Rev. (1983) 1243.
4. Numerical Recipes in Fortran: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press, Second Edition 1992).
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
[[**Fig. 1**]{}: Evolution patterns for the ]{} $\widehat{\sigma }\textstyle{-}\widehat{\chi }$ [system. Filled circles represent points that do not lead to inflation. Open triangles give adequate inflation having only the ]{} $\widehat{\chi }$ [field oscillating. Open circles give adequate inflation with both fields oscillating initially. ]{}
[ ]{}
[[**Fig. 2**]{}: Same as in Fig.1. The initial values are now restricted to lie near the beginning of the axes. ]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent observational studies of intermediate- and high-mass star-forming regions at submillimeter and infrared wavelengths are reviewed, and chemical diagnostics of the different physical components associated with young stellar objects are summarized. Procedures for determining the temperature, density and abundance profiles in the envelopes are outlined. A detailed study of a set of infrared-bright massive young stars reveals systematic increases in the gas/solid ratios, the abundances of evaporated molecules, and the fraction of heated ices with increasing temperature. Since these diverse phenomena involve a range of temperatures from $<100\,$K to 1000 K, the enhanced temperatures must be communicated to both the inner and outer parts of the envelopes. This ‘global heating’ plausibly results from the gradual dispersion of the envelopes with time. Similarities and differences with low-mass YSOs are discussed. The availability of accurate physical models will allow chemical models of ice evaporation followed by ‘hot core’ chemistry to be tested in detail.'
author:
- 'Ewine F. van Dishoeck and Floris F.S. van der Tak'
title: Chemistry in the Envelopes around Massive Young Stars
---
Introduction
============
Massive star-forming regions have traditionally been prime targets for astrochemistry owing to their bright molecular lines (e.g., Johansson et al. 1984, Cummins et al. 1986, Irvine et al. 1987, Ohishi 1997). Massive young stellar objects (YSOs) have luminosities of $\sim 10^4 -
10^6$ L$_\odot$ and involve young O- and B-type stars. Because their formation proceeds more rapidly than that of low-mass stars and involves ionizing radiation, substantial chemical differences may be expected. The formation of high mass stars is much less well understood than that of low-mass stars. For example, observational phenomena such as ultracompact H II regions, hot cores, masers and outflows have not yet been linked into a single evolutionary picture. Chemistry may well be an important diagnostic tool in establishing such a sequence.
Most of the early work on massive star-forming regions has centered on two sources, Orion–KL and SgrB2. Numerous line surveys at millimeter (e.g., Blake et al. 1987, Turner 1991) and submillimeter (Jewell et al. 1989, Sutton et al. 1991, 1995, Schilke et al. 1997) wavelengths have led to an extensive inventory of molecules through identification of thousands of lines. In addition, the surveys have shown strong chemical variations between different sources.
In recent years, new observational tools have allowed a more detailed and systematic study of the envelopes of massive YSOs. Submillimeter observations routinely sample smaller beams (typically 15$''$ vs. 30$''$–1$'$ ) and higher critical densities ($\geq 10^6$ vs. $10^4$ cm$^{-3}$) than the earlier work. Moreover, interferometers at 3 and 1 millimeter provide maps with resolutions of $0.5''$–5$''$. Finally, ground- and space-based infrared observations allow both the gas and the ices to be sampled (e.g., Evans et al. 1991, van Dishoeck et al. 1999). These observational developments have led to a revival of the study of massive star formation within the last few years. Recent overviews of the physical aspects of high-mass star formation are found in Churchwell (1999) and Garay & Lizano (1999).
In this brief review, we will first summarize available observational diagnostics to study the different phases and physical components associated with massive star formation. Subsequently, an overview of recent results on intermediate mass YSOs is given, which are often better characterized than their high-mass counterparts because of their closer distance. Subsequently, we will discuss a specific sample of embedded massive YSOs which have been studied through a combination of infrared and submillimeter data. After illustrating the modeling techniques, we address the question how the observed chemical variations are related to evolutionary effects, different conditions in the envelope (e.g., $T$, mass) or different luminosities of the YSOs. More extensive overviews of the chemical evolution of star-forming regions are given by van Dishoeck & Blake (1998), Hartquist et al. (1998), van Dishoeck & Hogerheijde (1999) and Langer et al. (2000). Schilke et al. (this volume) present high spatial resolution interferometer studies, whereas Macdonald & Thompson (this volume) focus on submillimeter data of hot core/ultracompact H II regions. Ices are discussed by Ehrenfreund & Schutte (this volume).
Submillimeter and Infrared Diagnostics
======================================
The majority of molecules are detected at (sub-)millimeter wavelengths, and line surveys highlight the large variations in chemical composition between different YSOs, both within the same parent molecular cloud and between different clouds. The recent 1–3 mm surveys of Sgr B2 (Nummelin et al. 1998, Ohishi & Kaifu 1999) dramatically illustrate the strong variations between various positions (see Figure 1). The North position is typical of ‘hot core’-type spectra, which are rich in lines of saturated organic molecules. This position has also been named the ‘large molecule heimat’ (e.g., Kuan & Snyder 1994, Liu & Snyder 1999). The Middle position has strong SO and SO$_2$ lines, whereas the Northwest position has a less-crowded spectrum with lines of ions and long carbon chains. A similar differentiation has been observed for three positions in the W 3 giant molecular cloud by Helmich & van Dishoeck (1997), who suggested an evolutionary sequence based on the chemistry.
The availability of complete infrared spectra from 2.4–200 $\mu$m with the [*Infrared Space Observatory* ]{}(ISO) allows complementary variations in infrared features to be studied. Figure 2 shows an example of ISO–SWS and LWS spectra of two objects: Cep A ($L \approx
2.4\times 10^4$ L$_{\odot}$) and S 106 ($L \approx 4.2\times 10^4$ L$_{\odot}$). The Cep A spectrum is characteristic of the deeply embedded phase, in which the silicates and ices in the cold envelope are seen in absorption. The S 106 spectrum is typical of a more evolved massive YSO, with strong atomic and ionic lines in emission and prominent PAH features. A similar sequence has been shown by Ehrenfreund et al. (1998) for a set of southern massive young stars with luminosities up to $4\times 10^5$ L$_{\odot}$.
The most successful models for explaining these different chemical characteristics involve accretion of species in an icy mantle during the (pre-)collapse phase, followed by grain-surface chemistry and evaporation of ices once the YSO has started to heat its surroundings (e.g., Millar 1997). The evaporated molecules subsequently drive a rapid high-temperature gas-phase chemistry for a period of $\sim 10^4 - 10^5$ yr, resulting in complex, saturated organic molecules (e.g., Charnley et al. 1992, 1995; Charnley 1997; Caselli et al. 1993, Viti & Williams 1999). The abundance ratios of species such as CH$_3$OCH$_3$/CH$_3$OH and SO$_2$/H$_2$S show strong variations with time, and may be used as ‘chemical clocks’ for a period of 5000–30,000 yr since evaporation. Once most of the envelope has cleared, the ultraviolet radiation can escape and forms a photon-dominated region (PDR) at the surrounding cloud material, in which molecules are dissociated into radicals (e.g., HCN $\to$ CN) and PAH molecules excited to produce infrared emission. The (ultra-)compact H II region gives rise to strong ionic lines due to photoionization.
[lllll]{} Component & Chemical & Submillimeter & Infrared & Examples\
& characteristics & diagnostics & diagnostics\
Dense cloud & Low-T chemistry &Ions, long-chains &Simple ices & SgrB2 (NW)\
& & (HC$_5$N, ...) & (H$_2$O, CO$_2$)\
Cold envelope & Low-T chemistry, & Simple species & Ices & N7538 IRS9,\
& Heavy depletions & (CS, H$_2$CO) & (H$_2$O, CO$_2$, CH$_3$OH) & W 33A\
Inner warm & Evaporation & High T$_{\rm ex}$ & High gas/solid, High & GL 2591,\
envelope & & (CH$_3$OH) & T$_{\rm ex}$, Heated ices & GL 2136\
& & & (C$_2$H$_2$, H$_2$O, CO$_2$)\
Hot core & High-T chemistry & Complex organics & Hydrides & Orion hot core,\
& & (CH$_3$OCH$_3$, CH$_3$CN, & (OH, H$_2$O) & SgrB2(N),G34.3\
&&vib. excited mol.) && W 3(H$_2$O)\
Outflow: & Shock chemistry, & Si- and S-species & Atomic lines, Hydrides & W 3 IRS5,\
Direct impact &Sputtering & (SiO, SO$_2$) &(\[S I\], H$_2$O) & SgrB2(M)\
PDR, Compact & Photodissociation,& Ions, radicals & Ionic lines, PAHs & S 140,\
H II regions & Photoionization & (CN/HCN, CO$^+$) &(\[NeII\], \[CII\]) & W 3 IRS4\
Table 1 summarizes the chemical characteristics of the various physical components, together with the observational diagnostics at submillimeter and infrared wavelengths. Within the single-dish submillimeter and ISO beams, many of these components are blended together and interferometer observations will be essential to disentangle them. Nevertheless, the single-dish data are useful because they encompass the entire envelope and highlight the dominant component in the beam. Combined with the above chemical scenario, one may then attempt to establish an evolutionary sequence of the sources.
The physical distinction between the ‘hot core’ and the warm inner envelope listed in Table 1 is currently not clear: does the ‘hot core’ represent a separate physical component or is it simply the inner warm envelope at a different stage of chemical evolution? Even from an observational point of view, there appear to be different types of ‘hot cores’: some of them are internally heated by the young star (e.g., W 3(H$_2$O)), whereas others may just be dense clumps of gas heated externally (e.g., the Orion compact ridge). This point will be further discussed in §§4 and 5. Disks are not included in Table 1, because little is known about their chemical characteristics, or even their existence, around high-mass YSOs (see Norris, this volume).
Intermediate-Mass YSOs
======================
Intermediate-mass pre-main sequence stars, in particular the so-called Herbig Ae/Be stars, have received increased observational attention in recent years (see Waters & Waelkens 1998 for a review). These stars have spectral type A or B and show infrared excesses due to circumstellar dust. Typical luminosities are in the range $10^2 -
10^4$ L$_{\odot}$, and several objects have been located within 1 kpc distance. Systematic mapping of CO and the submillimeter continuum of a sample of objects has been performed by Fuente et al. (1998) and Henning et al. (1998). The data show the dispersion of the envelope with time starting from the deeply embedded phase (e.g., LkH$\alpha$234) to the intermediate stage of a PDR (e.g., HD 200775 illuminating the reflection nebula NGC 7023) to the more evolved stage where the molecular gas has disappeared completely (e.g., HD 52721). The increasing importance of photodissociation in the chemistry is probed by the increase in the CN/HCN abundance ratio. This ratio has been shown in other high-mass sources to be an excellent tracer of PDRs (e.g., Simon et al. 1997, Jansen et al. 1995). Line surveys of these objects in selected frequency ranges would be useful to investigate their chemical complexity, especially in the embedded phase.
ISO-SWS observations of a large sample of Herbig Ae/Be stars have been performed by van den Ancker et al. (2000b,c). In the embedded phase, shock indicators such as \[S I\] 25.2 $\mu$m are strong, whereas in the later phases PDR indicators such as PAHs are prominent. An excellent example of this evolutionary sequence is provided by three Herbig Ae stars in the BD+40$^o$4124 region ($d\approx 1$ kpc). The data suggest that in the early phases, the heating of the envelope is dominated by shocks, whereas in later phases it is controlled by ultraviolet photons.
ISO-LWS data have been obtained for a similar sample of Herbig Ae/Be stars by Lorenzetti et al. (1999) and Giannini et al. (2000), and are summarized by Saraceno et al. (1999). The \[C II\] 158 $\mu$m and \[O I\] 63 and 145 $\mu$m lines are prominent in many objects and are due primarily to the PDR component in the large LWS beam ($\sim
80''$). High-$J$ CO and OH far-infrared lines have been detected in some objects and indicate the presence of a compact, high temperature and density region of $\sim$1000 AU in size, presumably tracing the inner warm envelope (see Figure 3). Far-infrared lines of H$_2$O are seen in low-mass YSO spectra, but are weak or absent in those of intermediate- and high-mass YSOs, with the exception of Orion-KL and SgrB2 (e.g., Harwit et al. 1998, Cernicharo et al. 1997, Wright et al. 2000). The absence of H$_2$O lines in higher-mass objects may be partly due to the larger distance of these objects, resulting in substantial dilution in the LWS beam. However, photodissociation of H$_2$O to OH and O by the enhanced ultraviolet radiation may also play a role.
In summary, both the submillimeter and infrared diagnostics reveal an evolutionary sequence from the youngest ‘Group I’ objects to ‘Group III’ objects (cf. classification by Fuente et al. 1998), in which the envelope is gradually dispersed. Such a sequence is analogous to the transition from embedded Class 0/I objects to more evolved Class II/III objects in the case of low-mass stars (Adams et al. 1987). The ISO data provide insight into the relative importance of the heating and removal mechanisms of the envelope. At the early stages of intermediate-mass star formation, shocks due to outflows appear to dominate whereas at later stages radiation is more important.
Embedded, Infrared-Bright Massive YSOs
======================================
Sample
------
The availability of complete, high quality ISO spectra for a significant sample of massive young stars provides a unique opportunity to study these sources through a combination of infrared and submillimeter spectroscopy, and further develop these diagnostics. Van der Tak et al. (2000a) have selected a set of $\sim$10 deeply embedded massive YSOs which are bright at mid-infrared wavelengths (12 $\mu$m flux $>$ 100 Jy), have luminosities of $10^3 - 2\times 10^5$ L$_{\odot}$ and distances $d\leq$4 kpc. The sources are all in an early evolutionary state (comparable to the ‘Class 0/I’ or ‘Group I’ stages of low- and intermediate-mass stars), as indicated by their weak radio continuum emission and absence of ionic lines and PAH features. In addition to ISO spectra, JCMT submillimeter data and OVRO interferometer observations have been obtained. For most of the objects high spectral resolution ground-based infrared data of CO, $^{13}$CO and H$_3^+$ are available (Mitchell et al. 1990, Geballe & Oka 1996, McCall et al. 1999), and occasionally H$_2$ (Lacy et al. 1994, Kulesa et al. 1999). For comparison, 5 infrared-weak sources with similar luminosities are studied at submillimeter wavelengths only. This latter set includes hot cores and ultracompact H II regions such as W 3(H$_2$O), IRAS 20126+4104 (Cesaroni et al. 1997, 1999), and NGC 6334 IRS1.
Physical structure of the envelope
----------------------------------
In order to derive molecular abundances from the observations, a good physical model of the envelope is a prerequisite. Van der Tak et al. (1999, 2000a) outline the techniques used to constrain the temperature and density structure (Figure 4). The total mass within the beam is derived from submillimeter photometry, whereas the size scale of the envelope is constrained from line and continuum maps. The dust opacity has been taken from Ossenkopf & Henning (1994) and yields values for the mass which are consistent with those derived from C$^{17}$O for warm sources where CO is not depleted onto grains.
The temperature structure of the dust is calculated taking the observed luminosity of the source, given a power-law density structure (see below). At large distances from the star, the temperature follows the optically thin relation $\propto r^{-0.4}$, whereas at smaller distances the dust becomes optically thick at infrared wavelengths and the temperature increases more steeply (see Figure 5). It is assumed that $T_{\rm gas}=T_{\rm dust}$, consistent with explicit calculations of the gas and dust temperatures by, e.g., Doty & Neufeld (1997) for these high densities.
The continuum data are sensitive to temperature and column density, but not to density. Observations of a molecule with a large dipole moment are needed to subsequently constrain the density structure. One of the best choices is CS and its isotope C$^{34}$S, for which lines ranging from $J$=2–1 to 10–9 have been observed. Assuming a power-law density profile $n(r)= n_o (r/r_o)^{-\alpha}$, values of $\alpha$ can be determined from minimizing $\chi^2$ between the CS line data and excitation models. The radiative transfer in the lines is treated through a Monte-Carlo method. The best fit to the data on the infrared-bright sources is obtained for $\alpha = 1.0 - 1.5$, whereas the hot core/compact H II region sample requires higher values, $\alpha \approx 2$. This derivation assumes that the CS abundance is constant through the envelope; if it increases with higher temperatures, such as may be the case for hot cores, the values of $\alpha$ are lowered. Note that the derived values of $\alpha=1.0-1.5$ are lower than those found for deeply embedded low-mass objects, where $\alpha\approx 2$ (e.g., Motte et al. 1998, Hogerheijde et al. 1999).
Figure 5 displays the derived temperature and density structure for the source GL 2591, together with the sizes of the JCMT and OVRO beams. While the submillimeter data are weighted toward the colder, outer envelope, the infrared absorption line observations sample a pencil-beam line of sight toward the YSO and are more sensitive to the inner warm ($\sim 1000$ K) region. On these small scales, the envelope structure deviates from a radial power law, which decreases the optical depth at near-infrared wavelengths by a factor of $\sim 3$ (van der Tak et al.1999).
For sources for which interferometer data are available, unresolved compact continuum emission is detected on scales of a few thousand AU or less. This emission is clearly enhanced compared with that expected from the inner “tip” of the power-law envelope, and its spectral index indicates optically thick warm dust, most likely in a dense circumstellar shell or disk. The presence of this shell or disk is also indicated by the prevalence of blue-shifted outflowing dense gas without a red-shifted counterpart on $< 10''$ scales.
Chemical structure: infrared absorption lines
---------------------------------------------
The ISO-SWS spectra of the infrared-bright sources show absorption by various gas-phase molecules, in addition to strong features by ices. Molecules such as CO$_2$ (van Dishoeck et al. 1996, Boonman et al. 1999, 2000a), H$_2$O (van Dishoeck & Helmich 1996, Boonman et al. 2000b), CH$_4$ (Boogert et al. 1998), HCN and C$_2$H$_2$ (Lahuis & van Dishoeck 2000) have been detected (see also van Dishoeck 1998, Dartois et al. 1998).
In the infrared, absorption out of all $J$-levels is observed in a single spectrum. The excitation temperatures $T_{\rm ex}$ of the various molecules, calculated assuming LTE, range from $\ltsim 100$ to $\sim 1000$ K between sources, giving direct information on the physical component in which the molecules reside. While CO is well-mixed throughout the envelopes, H$_2$O, HCN and C$_2$H$_2$ are enhanced at high temperatures. In contrast, CO$_2$ seems to avoid the hottest gas. High spectral resolution ground-based data of HCN and C$_2$H$_2$ by Carr et al. (1995) and Lacy et al. (1989) for a few objects suggest line widths of at most a few km s$^{-1}$, excluding an origin in outflowing gas.
The abundances of H$_2$O, HCN and C$_2$H$_2$ increase by factors of $\gtsim 10$ with increasing $T_{\rm ex}$ (see Figure 7). The warm H$_2$O must be limited to a $\ltsim 1000$ AU region, since the pure rotational lines are generally not detected in the $80''$ ISO-LWS beam (Wright et al. 1997). For CO$_2$, the abundance variation between sources is less than a factor of 10, and no clear trend with $T_{\rm
ex}$ is found. For the same sources, the H$_2$O and CO$_2$ ice abundances show a decrease by an order of magnitude, consistent with evaporation of the ices. However, the gas-phase H$_2$O and CO$_2$ abundances are factors of $\sim 10$ lower than expected if all evaporated molecules stayed in the gas phase, indicating that significant chemical processing occurs after evaporation. More detailed modeling using the source structures derived from submillimeter data is in progress.
Chemical structure: submillimeter emission
------------------------------------------
The JCMT data of the infrared-bright objects show strong lines, but lack the typical crowded ‘hot core’ spectra observed for objects such as W 3(H$_2$O) and NGC 6334 IRS1. Complex organics such as CH$_3$OCH$_3$ and CH$_3$OCHO are detected in some sources (e.g., GL 2591, NGC 7538 IRS1), but are not as prominent as in the comparison sources. Yet warm gas is clearly present in these objects. Is the ‘hot core’ still too small to be picked up by the single dish beams, or are the abundances of these molecules not (yet) enhanced?
To investigate this question, van der Tak et al. (2000b) consider the analysis of two species, H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH. Both species have many lines throughout the submillimeter originating from low- and high-lying energy levels. Given the physical structure determined in §4.2, abundance [*profiles*]{} can be constrained. Two extreme, but chemically plausible models are considered: (i) a model with a constant abundance throughout the envelope. This model is motivated by the fact that pure gas-phase reaction schemes do not show large variations in calculated abundances between 20 and 100 K; (ii) a model in which the abundance ‘jumps’ to a higher value at the ice evaporation temperature, $T_d\approx 90$ K. In this model, the abundances in the outer envelope are set at those observed in cold clouds, so that the only free parameter is the amount of abundance increase.
It is found that the H$_2$CO data can be well fit with a constant abundance of a few $\times 10^{-9}$ throughout the envelope. However, the high $J,K$ data for CH$_3$OH require a jump in its abundance from $\sim 10^{-9}$ to $\sim 10^{-7}$ for the warmer sources. This is consistent with the derived excitation temperatures: H$_2$CO has a rather narrow range of $T_{\rm ex}$=50–90 K, whereas CH$_3$OH shows $T_{\rm ex}$=30–200 K. Moreover, the interferometer maps of CH$_3$OH rule out constant abundance models. The jump observed for CH$_3$OH is chemically plausible since this molecule is known to be present in icy grain mantles with abundances of 5–40% with respect to H$_2$O ice, i.e., $\sim 10^{-7}-10^{-6}$ w.r.t. H$_2$. Similar increases in the abundances of organic molecules (e.g., CH$_3$OH, C$_2$H$_3$CN, ....) are found with increasing $T_{\rm dust}$ for a set of ‘hot–core’ objects by Ikeda & Ohishi (1999).
Comparison with chemical models
-------------------------------
Both the infrared and submillimeter data show increases in the abundances of various molecules with increasing temperature. Four types of species can be distinguished: (i) ‘passive’ molecules which are formed in the gas phase, freeze out onto grains during the cold (pre-)collapse phase and are released during warm-up without chemical modification (e.g., CO, C$_2$H$_2$); (ii) molecules which are formed on the grains during the cold phase by surface reactions and are subsequently released into the warm gas (e.g., CH$_3$OH); (iii) molecules which are formed in the warm gas by gas-phase reactions with evaporated molecules (e.g., CH$_3$OCH$_3$); (iv) molecules which are formed in the hot gas by high temperature reactions (e.g., HCN). These types of molecules are associated with characteristic temperatures of (a) $T_{\rm
dust}<20$ K, where CO is frozen out; the presence of CO ice is thought to be essential for the formation of CH$_3$OH; (b) $T_{\rm
dust} \approx 90$ K, where all ices evaporate on a time scale of $<10^5$ yr; and (c) $T_{\rm gas}>230$ K, where gas-phase reactions drive the available atomic oxygen into water through the reactions O + H$_2$ $\to$ OH $\to$ H$_2$O (Ceccarelli et al. 1996, Charnley 1997). Atomic oxygen is one of the main destroyers of radicals and carbon chains, so that its absence leads to enhanced abundances of species like HCN and HC$_3$N in hot gas.
Water is abundantly formed on the grains, but the fact that the H$_2$O abundance in the hot gas is not as large as that of the ices suggests that H$_2$O is broken down to O and OH after evaporation by reactions with H$_3^+$. H$_2$O can subsequently be reformed in warm gas at temperatures above $\sim$230 K, but Figure 7 indicates that not all available gas-phase oxygen is driven into H$_2$O, as the models suggest. The low abundance of CO$_2$ in the warm gas is still a puzzle, since evaporation of abundant CO$_2$ ice is observed. The molecule must be broken down rapidly in the warm gas, with no reformation through the CO + OH $\to$ CO$_2$ reaction (see question by Minh).
Evolution?
----------
The objects studied by van der Tak et al. (2000a) are all in an early stage of evolution, when the young stars are still deeply embedded in their collapsing envelope. Nevertheless, even within this narrow evolutionary range, there is ample evidence for physical and chemical differentiation of the sources. This is clearly traced by the increase in the gas/solid ratios, the increase in abundances of several molecules, the decrease in the ice abundances, and the increase of the amount of crystalline ice with increasing temperature (Boogert et al. 2000a).
The fact that the various indicators involve different characteristic temperatures ranging from $<$50 K (evaporation of apolar ices) to 1000 K ($T_{\rm ex}$ of gas-phase molecules) indicates that the heating is not a local effect, but that ‘global warming’ occurs throughout the envelope. Moreover, it cannot be a geometrical line-of-sight effect in the mid-infrared data, since the far–infrared continuum (45/100 $\mu$m) and submillimeter line data (CH$_3$OH) show the same trend. Shocks with different filling factors are excluded for the same reason.
Can we relate this ‘global warming’ of the envelope to an evolutionary effect, or is it determined by other factors? The absence of a correlation of the above indicators with luminosity or mass of the source argues against them being the sole controlling factor. The only significant trend is found with the ratio of envelope mass over stellar mass. The physical interpretation of such a relation would be that with time, the envelope is dispersed by the star, resulting in a higher temperature throughout the envelope.
Outstanding questions and future directions
===========================================
The results discussed here suggest that the observed chemical abundance and temperature variations can indeed be used to trace the evolution of the sources, and that, as in the case of low- and intermediate-mass stars, the dispersion of the envelope plays a crucial role. The combination of infrared and submillimeter diagnostics is very important in the analysis. An important next step would be to use these diagnostics to probe a much wider range of evolutionary stages for high-mass stars, especially in the hot core and (ultra-)compact H II region stages, to develop a more complete scenario of high-mass star formation. The relation between the inner warm envelope and the ‘hot core’ is still uncertain: several objects have been observed which clearly have hot gas and evaporated ices (including CH$_3$OH) in their inner regions, but which do not show the typical crowded ‘hot core’ submillimeter spectra. Are these objects just on their way to the ‘hot core’ chemical phase? Or is the ‘hot core’ a separate physical component, e.g., a dense shell at the edge of the expanding hyper-compact H II region due to the pressure from the ionized gas, which is still too small to be picked up by the single-dish beams? In either case, time or evolution plays a role and would constrain the ages of the infrared-bright sources to less than a few $\times 10^4$ yr since evaporation. Interferometer data provide evidence for the presence of a separate physical component in the inner 1000 AU, but lack the spatial resolution to distinguish a shell from any remnant disk, for example on kinematic grounds.
An important difference between high- and low-mass objects may be the mechanism for the heating and dispersion of their envelopes. For low-mass YSOs, entrainment of material in outflows is the dominant process (Lada 1999). For intermediate-mass stars, outflows are important in the early phase, but ultraviolet radiation becomes dominant in the later stages (see § 3). The situation for high-mass stars is still unclear. The systematic increase in gas/solid ratios and gas-phase abundances point to global heating of the gas and dust, consistent with a radiative mechanism. However, a clear chemical signature of ultraviolet radiation on gas-phase species and ices in the embedded phase has not yet been identified, making it difficult to calibrate its effect. On the other hand, high-mass stars are known to have powerful outflows and winds, but a quantitative comparison between their effectiveness in heating an extended part of the envelope and removing material is still lacking. Geometrical effects are more important in less embedded systems, as is the case for low-mass stars, where the circumstellar disk may shield part of the envelope from heating (Boogert et al. 2000b).
To what extent does the chemical evolution picture also apply to low-mass stars? Many of the chemical processes and characteristics listed in Table 1 are also known to occur for low-mass YSOs, but several important diagnostic tools are still lacking. In particular, sensitive mid-infrared spectroscopy is urgently needed to trace the evolution of the ices for low-mass YSOs and determine gas/solid ratios. Also, molecules as complex as CH$_3$OCH$_3$ and C$_2$H$_5$CN have not yet been detected toward low-mass YSOs, although the limits are not very stringent (e.g., van Dishoeck et al. 1995). Evaporation of ices clearly occurs in low-mass environments as evidenced by enhanced abundances of grain-surface molecules in shocks (e.g., Bachiller & Pérez-Gutiérrez 1997), but whether a similar ‘hot core’ chemistry ensues is not yet known. Differences in the H/H$_2$ ratio and temperature structure in the (pre-)collapse phase may affect the grain-surface chemistry and the ice composition, leading to different abundances of solid CH$_3$OH, which is an essential ingredient for building complex molecules.
Future instrumentation with high spatial resolution ($< 1''$) and high sensitivity will be essential to make progress in our understanding of the earliest phase of massive star formation, in particular the SMA and ALMA at submillimeter wavelengths, and SIRTF, SOFIA, FIRST and ultimately NGST at mid- and far-infrared wavelengths.
The authors are grateful to G.A. Blake, A.C.A. Boogert, A.M.S. Boonman, P. Ehrenfreund, N.J. Evans, T. Giannini, F. Lahuis, L.G. Mundy, A. Nummelin, W.A. Schutte, A.G.G.M. Tielens, and M.E. van den Ancker for discussions, collaborations and figures. This work was supported by NWO grant 614.41.003
Adams, F. C., Lada, C. J. & Shu, F. H. 1987, , 312, 788
Bachiller, R. & Pérez-Gutiérrez, M. 1997, , 487, L93
Blake, G.A., Sutton, E.C., Masson, C.R., & Phillips, T.G. 1987, ApJ, 315, 621
Boogert, A.C.A. et al. 2000a, A&A, 353, 349
Boogert, A.C.A., et al. 2000b, A&A, submitted
Boogert, A.C.A., Helmich, F.P., van Dishoeck, E.F., Schutte, W.A., Tielens, A.G.G.M., & Whittet, D.C.B. 1998, A&A, 336, 352
Boonman, A.M.S., Wright, C.M. & van Dishoeck, E.F. 1999, in The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium, ed.V. Ossenkopf et al. (Herdecke: GCA), p. 275
Boonman, A.M.S. et al. 2000a, in preparation
Boonman, A.M.S. et al. 2000b, in preparation
Carr, J., Evans, N.J., Lacy, J.H., & Zhou, S. 1995, ApJ, 450, 667
Caselli, P., Hasegawa, T.I., & Herbst, E. 1993, ApJ, 408, 548
Ceccarelli, C. , Hollenbach, D. J. & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1996, , 471, 400
Cernicharo, J., Lim, T., Cox, P. et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L25
Cesaroni, R., Felli, M., Testi, L., Walmsley, C., & Olmi, L. 1997, A&A, 325, 725
Cesaroni, R., Felli, M., Jenness, T., Neri, R., Olmi, L., Robberto, M., Testi, L., & Walmsley, C. M. 1999, , 345, 949
Charnley, S.B. 1997, ApJ, 481, 396
Charnley, S.B. & Kaufman, M.J. 2000, ApJ, 529, L111
Charnley, S.B., Tielens, A.G.G.M., & Millar, T.J. 1992, ApJ, 399, L71
Charnley, S.B., Kress, M.E., Tielens, A.G.G.M., & Millar, T.J. 1995, ApJ, 448, 232
Churchwell, E.B. 1999, in The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, eds. C.J. Lada and N.D. Kylafis (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 515
Cummins, S.E., Linke, R.A., & Thaddeus, P. 1986, ApJS, 69, 819
Dartois, E., d’Hendecourt, L., Boulanger, F., Jourdain de Muizon, M., Breitfellner, M., Puget, J-L, & Habing, H.J. 1998, A&A, 331, 651
Doty, S.D. & Neufeld, D.A. 1997, ApJ, 489, 122
Ehrenfreund, P., van Dishoeck, E. F., Burgdorf, M., Cami, J., van Hoof, P., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Schutte, W. A. & Thi, W. F. 1998, , 255, 83
Evans, N.J., Lacy, J.H., & Carr, J.S. 1991, ApJ, 383, 674
Fuente, A., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., Bachiller, R., Neri, R. & Palla, F. 1998, , 334, 253
Garay, G. & Lizano, S. 1999, PASP, 111, 1049
Geballe, T.R. & Oka, T. 1996, Nature, 384, 334
Giannini, T. et al. 2000, A&A, 346, 617
Hartquist, T. W., Caselli, P., Rawlings, J. M. C., Ruffle, D. P. & Williams, D. A. 1998, in The Molecular Astrophysics of Stars and Galaxies, eds. T.W. Hartquist and D.A. Williams (Oxford: OUP), 101
Harwit, M., Neufeld, D.A., Melnick, G.J., & Kaufman, M.J. 1998, ApJ, 497, L105
Helmich, F.P. & van Dishoeck, E.F. 1997, A&AS, 124, 205
Henning, Th., Burkert, A., Launhardt, R., Leinert, Ch., & Stecklum, B. 1998, A&A, 336, 565
Hogerheijde, M. R., van Dishoeck, E. F., Salverda, J. M., & Blake, G. A. 1999, , 513, 350
Ikeda, M. & Ohishi, M. 1999, in IAU Symposium 197 Abstract Book, Astrochemistry: from molecular clouds to planetary systems, p. 171
Irvine, W.M., Goldsmith, P.F., & Hjalmarson, Å. 1987, in Interstellar Processes, ed. D. Hollenbach and H.A. Thronson (Kluwer: Dordrecht), p. 561
Jansen, D. J., Spaans, M., Hogerheijde, M. R. & van Dishoeck, E. F. 1995, , 303, 541
Jewell, P.R., Hollis, J.M., Lovas, F.J., & Snyder, L.E. 1989, ApJS, 70, 833
Johansson, L.E.B., Andersson, C., Elldér, J., et al. 1984, A&A, 130, 227
Kuan, Y.J. & Snyder, L.E. 1994, ApJS, 94, 651
Kulesa, C. A., Black, J. H. & Walker, C. K. 1999, BAAS, 194, 4709
Lacy, J., J.H., Evans, N.J., Achtermann, J.M. et al. 1989, ApJ, 342, L43
Lacy, J.H., Knacke, R., Geballe, T.R., & Tokunaga, A.T. 1994, ApJ, 428, L69
Lada, C.J. 1999, in The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, eds. C.J. Lada and N.D. Kylafis (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 143
Lahuis, F. & van Dishoeck, E.F., 2000, A&A, in press
Langer, W.D., van Dishoeck, E.F., Blake, G.A. et al. 2000, in [Protostars & Planets IV]{}, eds. V. Mannings, A.P. Boss and S.S. Russell, (Tucson: Univ. Arizona), in press
Liu, S.-Y. & Snyder, L. E. 1999, , 523, 683
Lorenzetti, D. et al. 1999, A&A, 346, 604
McCall, B.J., Geballe, T.R., Hinkle, K.H. & Oka, T. 1999, ApJ, 522, 338
Millar, T.J. 1997, in Molecules in Astrophysics: Probes and Processes, IAU Symposium 178, ed. E.F. van Dishoeck (Dodrecht: Kluwer), p. 75
Mitchell, G.F., Maillard, J.–P., Allen, M., Beer, R., & Belcourt, K. 1990, ApJ, 363, 554
Motte, F., André, P. & Neri, R. 1998, , 336, 150
Nummelin, A., Bergman, P., Hjalmarson, Å., Friberg, P., Irvine, W. M., Millar, T. J., Ohishi, M. & Saito, S. 1998, , 117, 427
Ohishi, M. 1997, in Molecules in Astrophysics: Probes and Processes, IAU Symposium 178, ed. E.F. van Dishoeck (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 61
Ohishi, M. & Kaifu, N. 1999, in IAU Symposium 197 Abstract Book, Astrochemistry: from molecular clouds to planetary systems, p. 143
Ossenkopf, V. & Henning, Th. 1994, A&A, 291, 943
Saraceno, P., Benedettini, M., Di Giorgio, A.M., et al. 1999, in Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium III, eds.V. Ossenkopf et al. (Berlin: Springer), p. 279
Schilke, P., Groesbeck, T.D., Blake, G.A., & Phillips, T.G. 1997, ApJS, 108, 301
Simon, R., Stutzki, J., Sternberg, A., & Winnewisser, G. 1997, A&A, 327, L9
Sutton, E.C., Jaminet, P.A., Danchi, W.C., & Blake, G.A. 1991, ApJS, 77, 255
Sutton, E.C., Peng, R., Danchi, W.C., et al. 1995, ApJS, 97, 455
Turner, B.E. 1991, ApJS, 76, 617
van den Ancker, M. et al. 2000a, A&A, submitted
van den Ancker, M. et al. 2000b, A&A, in press
van den Ancker, M. et al. 2000c, A&A, submitted
van der Tak, F.F.S., van Dishoeck, E.F., Evans, N.J., Bakker, E.J., & Blake, G.A. 1999, ApJ, 522, 991
van der Tak, F.F.S., van Dishoeck, E.F., Evans, N.J., & Blake, G.A. 2000a, ApJ, in press
van der Tak, F.F.S. & van Dishoeck, E.F. 2000b, A&A, to be submitted
van Dishoeck, E.F. 1998, Far. Disc., 109, 31
van Dishoeck, E.F. & Blake, G.A. 1998, ARAA, 36, 317
van Dishoeck, E. F., Blake, G. A., Jansen, D. J. & Groesbeck, T. D. 1995, , 447, 760
van Dishoeck, E.F. & Helmich, F.P. 1996, A&A, 315, L177
van Dishoeck, E.F., Helmich, F.P., de Graauw, Th. et al. 1996, A&A, 315, L349
van Dishoeck, E.F. & Hogerheijde, M.R. 1999, in Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, eds. C.J. Lada and N. Kylafis (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 97
van Dishoeck, E.F. et al. 1999, in The Universe as seen by ISO, eds. P. Cox and M.F. Kessler (Noordwijk: ESTEC), ESA SP-427, p. 437
Waters, L.B.F.M. & Waelkens, C. 1998, ARAA, 36, 233
Wright, C.M., van Dishoeck, E.F., Helmich, F.P., Lahuis, F., Boogert, A.C.A., & de Graauw, Th. 1997, in First ISO Workshop on Analytical Spectroscopy, ESA SP-419, p. 37
Wright, C.M., van Dishoeck, E.F., Black, J.H., Feuchtgruber, H., Cernicharo, J., González-Alfonso, E., & de Graauw, Th. 2000, A&A, in press
[M. Ohishi]{} I agree with the point you mentioned, that the chemical differences among hot cores is due to a difference of evolutionary stage. Now we have several well-known hot cores such as Orion KL/S, W 3 IRS5/H$_2$O/IRS4, SgrB2 N/M/NW etc. Can you give us your personal view on the evolutionary differences of these sources?
[E.F. van Dishoeck]{} Van der Tak et al. (2000a) argue that the infrared-bright objects such as W 3 IRS5 represent an earlier evolutionary phase than the hot cores, on the basis of an anti-correlation with the radio continuum. The physical picture is that the ionizing UV radiation and stellar winds push the hottest dust in the inner regions further out, decreasing the temperature of the dust and thus the near-infrared continuum. At the same time, the size of the region which can be ionized is increased. The ‘erosion’ of the envelopes thus occurs from the inside out. For other sources, infrared diagnostics are lacking, so that the situation is less clear. It would be great if chemistry could help to tie down the time scales of the various phases.
[W. Irvine]{} How do you interpret the behavior of the PAH features as a function of evolutionary stage in the sources that you discussed?
[E.F. van Dishoeck]{} The absence of PAH features in the early embedded stage can be due either to a lack of ultraviolet radiation to excite the features or to an absence of the carriers. Manske & Henning (1999, A&A 349, 907) have argued for the case of Herbig Ae/Be stars that there should be sufficient radiation to excite PAHs in the envelope/disk system, so that the lack is likely due to the absence of the PAHs themselves. Perhaps the PAHs have accreted into the icy mantles at the high densities in the inner envelope and do not evaporate and/or are chemically transformed into other more refractory species on grains. Alternatively, the region producing ultraviolet radiation (H II region) may be very small in these massive objects, and the photons may not reach the PAH-rich material or have a very small beam filling factor. Once the envelope breaks up and ultraviolet radiation can escape to the less dense outer envelope, the PAH features from those regions will appear in spectra taken with large beams.
[T. Geballe]{} You said that there is little evidence of the effect of ultraviolet radiation on solid-state chemistry. Isn’t the 4.6 $\mu$m XCN feature a good example of that influence?
[E.F. van Dishoeck]{} The ‘XCN’ feature is indeed the best candidate for tracing the ultraviolet processing of ices. If ascribed to OCN$^-$, it likely involves HNCO as a precursor. In the laboratory, HNCO is produced by photochemical reactions of CO and NH$_3$, but in the interstellar medium grain surface chemistry is an alternative possibility which does not necessarily involve ultraviolet radiation (see Ehrenfreund & Schutte, this volume).
[Y.C. Minh]{} Do you have an explanation of the low and constant abundances of CO$_2$ in the gas phase?
[E.F. van Dishoeck]{} Charnley & Kaufman (2000, ApJ, 529, L111) argue that the evaporated CO$_2$ is destroyed by reactions with atomic hydrogen at high temperatures in shocks. This is an interesting suggestion, but needs to be tested against other species such as H$_2$O and H$_2$S which can be destroyed by reactions with atomic hydrogen as well. Also, the amount of material in the envelope that can be affected by shocks is not clear.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The coupled-channel theory is a natural way of treating nonelastic channels, in particular those arising from collective excitations characterized by nuclear deformations. A proper treatment of such excitations is often essential to the accurate description of experimental nuclear-reaction data and to the prediction of a wide variety of scattering observables. Stimulated by recent work substantiating the near validity of the adiabatic approximation in coupled-channel calculations for scattering on statically deformed nuclei, we explore the possibility of generalizing a global spherical optical model potential (OMP) to make it usable in coupled-channel calculations on this class of nuclei. To do this, we have deformed the Koning-Delaroche global spherical potential for neutrons, coupling a sufficient number of states of the ground state band to ensure convergence. We present an extensive study of the effects of collective couplings and nuclear deformations on integrated cross sections as well as on angular distributions for neutron-induced reactions on statically deformed nuclei in the rare-earth region. We choose isotopes of three rare-earth elements (Gd, Ho, W), which are known to be nearly perfect rotors, to exemplify the results of the proposed method. Predictions from our model for total, elastic and inelastic cross sections, as well as for elastic and inelastic angular distributions, are in reasonable agreement with measured experimental data. These results suggest that the deformed Koning-Delaroche potential provides a useful regional neutron optical potential for the statically deformed rare earth nuclei.'
author:
- 'G. P. A. Nobre'
- 'A. Palumbo'
- 'F. S. Dietrich'
- 'M. Herman'
- 'D. Brown'
- 'S. Hoblit'
bibliography:
- 'cc\_PRC.bib'
title: 'Derivation of an optical potential for statically deformed rare-earth nuclei from a global spherical potential'
---
Introduction
============
The optical model has proven over the years to be a powerful method to describe observed nuclear reaction data [@Satchler:1979]. It significantly reduces the complexity of the scattering problem by employing a complex optical potential that implicitly reproduces the loss of flux due to excitation of internal degrees of freedom of the nuclei as well as to the opening of inelastic channels. The parameters of such potentials are often determined by a phenomenological fit to relevant experimental data either on individual nuclei, nuclei within a region, or globally a large portion of the periodic table. Over the last several decades, a number of global optical potentials for neutron and proton scattering have been determined by fitting data on a wide variety of spherical nuclei. A particularly successful spherical global potential, which we employ in the present work, was produced by Koning and Delaroche (KD) [@KD].
Regions of high static nuclear deformation, such as the ones found in the rare earth and actinide nuclei, have in general been excluded in the development of global potentials. Highly deformed nuclei require a coupled channels (CC) treatment that accounts for the direct excitation of the rotational states of the target in order to reproduce experimental data accurately. It has been conventionally assumed that potentials used in CC calculations on rotational nuclei must be significantly altered from those for spherical nuclei, since the inelastic channels treated directly in the CC calculations should no longer be included implicitly in the optical potential used in these calculations. On the other hand, recent work [@Dietrich:2012] has shown that scattering from statically deformed nuclei in the rare-earth and actinide nuclei is very close to the adiabatic limit. That is, the nuclei may be regarded as nearly “frozen" during the scattering process. This suggests that loss of flux through excitation of the rotational degrees of freedom might not play a fundamental role in determining the optical potential. In this paper, we test the hypothesis that a global spherical optical potential, appropriately deformed, can describe neutron scattering observables in the rare earth region without needing a significant alteration of its parameters. An extension of these tests to actinide nuclei will be presented in a later paper [@Dietrich:private].
The KD neutron global optical potential is particularly suitable for these tests because it has been successfully fitted to a wide variety of experimental data over a wide energy range (0–200 MeV) on nuclei with masses both below and above the deformed rare earth region. Since the KD potential is parameterized as a smooth function of target mass $A$ and the asymmetry parameter $(N-Z)/A$, we assume that its interpolation into the rare earths is a useful starting point for the current investigations. We use the KD potential as the bare potential for coupled-channel calculations without any changes in its parameterization, except by a small reduction of the radius of the real central part of the potential to ensure conservation of its volume integral when it is deformed.
We have carried out calculations of neutron-scattering observables on isotopes of Gd, Ho, and W. The results indicate that the deformed KD potential produces a fairly satisfactory representation of the experimental data without further adjustment. This is particularly true for the real potential, which determines the angles of the maxima and minima in angular distributions, as well as the positions of the maxima and minima in the Ramsauer oscillations of the total cross sections. In many cases, the back-angle cross sections of the angular distributions are well reproduced by the calculations, whereas in others they are somewhat underpredicted. We did not find an easy way to alter the potential (in particular, its imaginary part) in a manner that varies slowly with mass and also achieves a fully satisfactory description in all cases. Nevertheless, the prescription described here appears to yield a useful regional potential for the deformed rare-earth region that takes advantage of the extensive physical content already built into the global KD potential.
We note two alternative approaches that have been taken to unify scattering on spherical and deformed nuclei. Kunieda [*et al.*]{} [@Kunieda:2007] have developed a global phenomenological potential in which they considered all nuclei as statically deformed, regardless of their actual deformation. The use of microscopic folding models is promising, since the nuclear densities used in such models may be either spherical or deformed. In fact, a folding model with an interaction based on the nuclear matter optical potential of Jeukenne, Lejeune, and Mahaux (JLM) [@Jeukenne:74; @Jeukenne:77; @Jeukenne:77a], which is usually carried out in spherical nuclei, has been successfully applied to the deformed rare earth Gd isotopes [@Bauge:2000]. Similar extensions to deformed nuclei might usefully be carried out with other microscopic treatments, such as those of Refs. [@Nobre:2010; @Nobre:2011].
Coupled-channel model for rare-earths
=====================================
The process of deforming a spherical OMP to explicitly consider collective excitations within the coupled-channel framework is done in the standard way of replacing the radius parameter $R$ in each Woods-Saxon form factor by the angle dependent expression: $$\label{Eq:DefRadius}
R(\theta)=R_0\left( 1+\sum_\lambda{\beta_\lambda Y_{\lambda0}(\theta)} \right)$$ where $R_0$ is the undeformed radius of the nucleus, and $\beta_\lambda$ and $Y_{\lambda0}(\theta)$ are the deformation parameter and spherical harmonic for the multipole $\lambda$, as described in Ref. [@Krappe:1976], for example. The deformed form factor obtained using Eq. \[Eq:DefRadius\] is then expanded in Legendre polynomials numerically.
We use in our calculations the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Empire</span> reaction code [@Herman:2007; @EmpireManual], in which the direct reaction part is calculated by the code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ecis</span> [@Raynal70; @Raynal72]. In previous works [@Nobre:2014; @Nobre:2014AIP; @Herman:2014], we made preliminary tests of our model by performing coupled-channel calculations, coupling to the ground state rotational band, for neutron-incident reactions on selected rare-earth nuclei, namely $^{152,154}$Sm, $^{153}$Eu, $^{155,156,157,158,160}$Gd, $^{159}$Tb, $^{162,163,164}$Dy, $^{165}$Ho, $^{166,167,168,170}$Er, $^{169}$Tm, $^{171,172,173,174,176}$Yb, $^{175,176}$Lu, $^{177,178,179,180}$Hf, $^{181}$Ta, and $^{182,183,184,186}$W. All of these nuclides have at least 90 neutrons, which is a reasonable indicator for static deformation, therefore making them suitable candidates for testing our model based on the approximate validity of the adiabatic limit. As an initial test, we then compared the coupled-channel results for total cross sections with plain spherical calculations using the undeformed KD optical potential. In this initial step, only quadrupole deformations were considered, with values for the deformation parameters taken from the compilation of experimental values from Raman *et al.* [@Raman]. The overall result, as seen in Refs. [@Nobre:2014; @Nobre:2014AIP; @Herman:2014], is a very significant improvement in the agreement with experimental data, in particular for the lower incident-neutron energies (below about 1 MeV).
Radius correction for volume conservation
-----------------------------------------
When an originally spherical configuration assumes a deformed shape, defined by quadrupole and hexadecupole deformation parameters $\beta_2$ and $\beta_4$, respectively, the volume and densities are not conserved. In Ref. [@Bang:1980], a method to ensure volume conservation was described, implemented by applying a correction to the nuclear radius $R_0$, of the form: $$R'_{0}=R_0 \Delta_R=R_0\left( 1-\sum^{}_{\lambda}{\beta_{\lambda}^{2}/4\pi}\right) ,
\label{Eq:radius}$$ in which $R'_{0}$ is the corrected radius, and where terms of the order of $\beta_{\lambda}^{3}$ and higher have been discarded. In Ref. [@Nobre:2014] we tested the effects of such correction, and showed that while the difference in calculation results is quite small, it is not negligible and seems to bring the integral and differential cross-section calculations into slightly better agreement with the experimental data. As a result of these tests, we adopt the radial correction expressed in Eq. \[Eq:radius\] in the following calculations and further tests of the model.
Compound-nucleus parameterization
---------------------------------
Even though the model being tested in this work probes the direct-reaction mechanism, it is also important to obtain a reliable description of the processes involved after the formation of the compound nucleus, following neutron absorption. Such compound contributions to the elastic and inelastic channels are much smaller than their direct-reaction correspondents (shape elastic and direct inelastic excitation) at sufficiently high energies, but make significant contributions to some of the reactions we consider here at low incident energies (typically in the neighborhood of 1–2 MeV or less).
The models adopted to describe the emissions from the compound nucleus were basically the standard options within the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Empire</span> code, which means standard Hauser-Feshbach model with properly parameterized Enhanced Generalized Superfuid Model (EGSM) level densities [@fade; @DArrigo:1992], modified Lorentzian distribution (version 1) for $\gamma$-ray strength functions [@plu01; @plu02; @plu03], width fluctuation correction implemented up to 3 MeV in terms of the HRTW approach [@HRTW; @HHM], and with transmission coefficients for the inelastic outgoing channels also calculated within the coupled-channel approach (the KD potential was also used in outgoing channels). Pre-equilibrium was calculated within the exciton model [@Griffin:66], as based on the solution of the master equation [@Cline:71] in the form proposed by Cline [@Cline:72] and Ribanský [@Ribansky:73] (using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pcross</span> code [@Herman:2007; @EmpireManual]) with mean free path multiplier set to 1.5.
Tests of the proposed model for scattering from statically deformed rare earth nuclei
=====================================================================================
In this work we present the results of integral and differential cross sections for $^{158,160}$Gd, $^{165}$Ho, and $^{182,184,186}$W obtained by our model, following the preliminary results shown in Refs. [@Nobre:2014AIP; @Herman:2014]. The reason for choosing the three elements (Gd, Ho, W) for the testing of our model is that they approximately span the statically deformed part of the rare-earth region, and there are suitable experimental data available for comparison with calculations. The values for deformation parameters that were adopted for the different isotopes are shown in Table \[Tab:Deformations\], as well as the radius correction used, calculated from Eq. (\[Eq:radius\]). In addition to the $\beta_2$ values extracted from analyses of neutron scattering experiments, we also show the values from the compilation of Raman [*et al.*]{} [@Raman] based on electromagnetic B(E2) data for even-even nuclei. The values obtained from scattering experiments are systematically smaller than those from the Raman [*et al.*]{} compilation, and we have found that they are better in reproducing the magnitudes of inelastic excitations. However, in cases where an independent determination of $\beta_2$ from scattering is not available, the values Raman compilation may be useful if appropriately scaled. Systematics, such as the ones from Refs. [@Chamon:2004; @Nobre:2007], may be useful to retrieve $\beta_\lambda$ values in cases where experimental data are not available. In some cases, particularly at low energies ($\lesssim 1$ MeV), the accuracy of the calculations is strongly dependent on the accuracy of the adopted deformation parameters.
[lcccr]{} Nuclide & $\Delta_R$ & $\beta_2$ & $\beta_4$ & $\beta_2^{\mathrm{Raman}}$\
\
$^{155}$Gd & 0.995 & 0.25 [@Bauge:2000] & +0.07 [@Bauge:2000] &\
$^{156}$Gd & 0.995 & 0.25 [@Bauge:2000] & +0.06 [@Bauge:2000] & 0.3378(18) [@Raman]\
$^{157}$Gd & 0.994 & 0.26 [@Bauge:2000] & +0.05 [@Bauge:2000] &\
$^{158}$Gd & 0.994 & 0.27 [@Bauge:2000] & +0.04 [@Bauge:2000] & 0.3484(17) [@Raman]\
$^{159}$Gd & 0.994 & 0.28 [@Bauge:2000] & +0.03 [@Bauge:2000] &\
$^{160}$Gd & 0.993 & 0.29& +0.02& 0.353 [@Raman]\
$^{165}$Ho & 0.993 & 0.300 [@Smith:2001] & -0.020 [@Smith:2001] &\
$^{182}$W & 0.996 & 0.223 [@Guenther:1982; @Delaroche:1981; @Annand:1985] & -0.055 [@Annand:1985] & 0.2508(24) [@Raman]\
$^{184}$W & 0.996 & 0.209 [@Guenther:1982; @Delaroche:1981; @Annand:1985] & -0.056 [@Guenther:1982; @Delaroche:1981; @Annand:1985] & 0.2362(41) [@Raman]\
$^{186}$W & 0.996 & 0.203 [@Guenther:1982; @Delaroche:1981] & -0.057 [@Guenther:1982; @Delaroche:1981] & 0.2257(39) [@Raman]\
Integral cross sections
-----------------------
As a straightforward test of our model we calculated the total cross sections for the reaction of neutrons scattered by the nuclei presented in Table \[Tab:Deformations\]. To illustrate our results we present in Fig. \[Fig:Total\] the total cross sections for $^{165}$Ho and $^{182, 184, 186}$W. We can immediately see that, while the spherical model poorly describes the measured shape of total cross sections, particularly overestimating the lower-energy region (for some rare-earth nuclei this difference can be of almost an order of magnitude [@Nobre:2014]), our coupled-channel model based on the approximate validity of the adiabatic limit yields very good agreement, from lower- to higher-energy regions. Integral cross sections are presented only up to 200 MeV. This is due to the fact that the global spherical Koning-Delaroche potential was fitted to data at incident energies below 200 MeV, thus only being reliable in this region.
\
\
\
Angular distributions
---------------------
To better assess the quality and effectiveness of our coupled-channel model we compared its predictions to a variety of experimental angular distribution data. Such differential data are typically more sensitive to details of the optical potential and the deformations than the integral cross sections.
### Gadolinium isotopes
We compare our calculations with two sets of angular distributions, those measured by Bauge *et al.* [@Bauge:2000] and by Smith *et al.* [@Smith:2004]. In the former case, it was possible to separate the differential cross sections of the elastic and first two inelastic channels for the two heavier stable isotopes, for two different incident energies; while in the latter one measurements were presented at several incident energies for natural Gadolinium, without being able to resolve the inelastic contributions in most cases.
In Fig. \[Fig:Gd158Gd160Bauge\] we compare the predictions of our model for the elastic and inelastic angular distributions for $^{158}$Gd (Fig. \[Fig:Gd158Bauge\]) and $^{160}$Gd (Fig. \[Fig:Gd160Bauge\]) with the experimental data measured by Bauge *et al.* [@Bauge:2000]. The elastic differential cross sections are presented in the top panels, while angular distributions for the first 2$^+$ and 4$^+$ states are shown in the middle and bottom panels, respectively. These states have excitation energies ($E^*$) of $E^{*}_{2^+}$=79.5 keV and $E^{*}_{4^+}$=261.5 keV for $^{158}$Gd and $E^{*}_{2^+}=75.3$ keV and $E^{*}_{4^+}=248.5$ keV in the case of $^{158}$Gd. It can be clearly seen in Fig. \[Fig:Gd158Gd160Bauge\] that our model succeeds in reproducing very well the observed elastic differential cross section (upper panel) for both Gadolinium isotopes studied. Regarding the predictions of our coupled-channel model for the angular distributions of the first two excited states, as shown in Fig. \[Fig:Gd158Gd160Bauge\] (middle and bottom panels), even though the agreement with experimental data is not as good as in the case of elastic scattering, they still describe reasonably well the measured data, in particular their shape.
Smith *et al.* provides, in Ref. [@Smith:2004], angular distribution data for natural (or elemental) Gadolinium ($^{\mathrm{Nat}}$Gd) for neutron incident energies ($E_{\mathrm{inc}}$) ranging from 0.334 MeV up to 9.99 MeV. For the lower values of incident energy ($E_{\mathrm{inc}}\lessapprox$ 1 MeV) the elastic channel is completely resolved while the data sets with higher incident energies (4.51 MeV $\leqslant E_{\mathrm{inc}} \leqslant$ 9.99 MeV) do not have any separation between elastic and inelastic contributions from members of the ground-state band. Datasets with incident energies around 1 MeV (1.080 MeV $\leqslant E_{\mathrm{inc}} \leqslant$ 1.432 MeV), did have inelastic contributions but it was not clear from Ref. [@Smith:2004] which channels were not resolved from the elastic one. For this reason, we decided not to present comparisons with these data sets. To obtain theoretical predictions for $^{\mathrm{Nat}}$Gd we proportionally combined the results of calculations for $^{155}$Gd (14.80%), $^{156}$Gd (20.47%), $^{157}
$Gd (15.65%), $^{158}$Gd (24.84%), and $^{160}$Gd (21.86%), according to their contribution to the natural occurence of the element, as indicated in parentheses. $^{152}$Gd (0.20%) and $^{154}$Gd (2.18%) were ignored due to their small contribution (less than 3%) and normalization was done accordingly.
Fig. \[Fig:GdNatSmithLow\] shows the predictions of our model for the elastic angular distribution of $^{\mathrm{Nat}}$Gd which are in excellent agreement with the observed data. Very small discrepancies are more apparent only for the highest incident energy ($E_{\mathrm{inc}}$=0.919), probably because those data are beginning to incorporate some inelastic contributions.
We present in Fig. \[Fig:GdNatSmithHigh\] the results of our model for the summed differential cross sections of the elastic channel with the contributions from the first four excited states. That means the first 2$^+$, 4$^+$, 6$^+$ and 8$^+$ in the case of $^{156}$Gd, $^{158}$Gd and $^{160}$Gd. For such even-even nuclei the most significant inelastic contributions come from the 2$^+$ and 4$^+$ while the higher members of the ground state (g. s.) band make successively smaller contributions. For $^{155}$Gd (which has a 1/2$^-$ g. s. state) we added the contributions from the first 3/2$^-$, 5/2$^-$, 7/2$^-$ and 9/2$^-$ states, while in the case of $^{157}$Gd (3/2$^-$ g. s.) we summed up the differential cross sections from the 5/2$^-$, 7/2$^-$, 9/2$^-$ and 11/2$^-$ inelastic channels. For clarification purposes, it is important to state that, even though we considered only the contributions from the first four inelastic channels in Fig. \[Fig:GdNatSmithHigh\], we obviously performed calculations coupling to a much larger number of inelastic states of the g. s. band in order to absolutely ensure convergence regarding the number of channels coupled. The comparisons presented in Fig. \[Fig:GdNatSmithHigh\] show that we successfully predict the observed shape of such summed differential cross sections, even though our calculations tend to slightly underestimate the angular distributions, especially for lower incident energies. Since we can assume, from Figs. \[Fig:Gd158Gd160Bauge\] and \[Fig:GdNatSmithLow\] that we obtain an excellent description of the elastic channel, this small discrepancy may be due to the need of fine tuning of the calculation of the inelastic channels associated with quadrupole and hexadecupole deformations. We did not find that altering the strength of the imaginary potential within reasonable limits ($\pm$15%) significantly improved the overall agreement. Given that there has been no adjustment of the KD optical parameters (other that the radius change to impose volume conservation), nor of the deformations, the results are satisfactory.
### Holmium
The ground state of $^{165}$Ho has spin and parity 7/2$^-$, and consequently a ground-state band level sequence 7/2$^-$, 9/2$^-$, 11/2$^-$, 13/2$^-$, $\cdots$ . Coupled-channel calculations were performed coupling all states of the g.s. band up to 23/2$^-$ to ensure convergence. Due to the experimental difficulties of resolving the elastic channel from the inelastic ones in neutron-induced reactions on $^{165}$Ho, experimental data sets for higher incident energies (above $\approx$ 1 MeV) usually contain inelastic contributions.
Fig. \[Fig:Ho165-Wagner\] shows the experimental data measured by Wagner *et al.* [@Wagner:1965] for the incident energy of 0.350 MeV, which correspond to pure elastic differential cross sections. As can be seen in Figure \[Fig:Ho165-Wagner\], the predictions of our model for the elastic channel (black curve) describe the observed angular distributions very well.
We also assessed the agreement of elastic and elastic plus inelastic angular distributions calculated from our model with early experimental measurements from Meadows *et al.* [@Meadows:1971], done for incident energies between $\approx$ 0.3 to 1.5 MeV. Ref. [@Meadows:1971] presents its results in the form of Legendre expansions of the angular distributions, while Ref. [@Smith:2001] reconstructs the corresponding differential cross sections. In Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Meadows\] we present such comparisons for selected values of incident energy, namely, $E_\mathrm{inc}=0.60$, 0.79, 0.93 and 1.20 MeV. Again, as can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Meadows\], we obtain a very good description of the experimental data with our coupled-channel model. In the case of $E_\mathrm{inc}=1.20$ MeV (lower right-hand panel of Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Meadows\]), for which the experimental data contain inelastic contributions [@Smith:2001], we also show the resulting calculation of summing up elastic and inelastic angular distributions.
\
The accuracy of our model predictions was also tested by comparing with the more recent experimental results of Ref. [@Smith:2001]. In that work, new measurements of angular distributions with unresolved contributions from elastic and inelastic channels for $^{165}$Ho are presented for incident energies $E_\mathrm{inc}$ ranging from 4.51 to 9.99 MeV. In Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Smith\] we present such comparisons for the lowest (top panel) and highest (bottom panel) incident energies of the set. We present in Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Smith\], for comparison purposes, the calculated angular distributions for only the elastic channel as red-dashed curves, while the solid-black curves correspond to calculations with the inelastic contributions added up to the elastic one. In this case, it is seen that, even after adding the contributions from the inelastic states, our predictions consistently fall slightly below the data points. As an indication that our model is reproducing very well the measured shape of angular distributions, we also plot in Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Smith\] the same elastic-plus-inelastic calculations, but multiplied by a factor of 1.5 blue-dotted curves. This leads to a nearly perfect agreement with experimental data.
\
Fig. \[Fig:Ho165-Ferrer\] presents the predictions of our model when attempting to describe the angular distribution data for $^{165}$Ho, at the neutron incident energy of 11 MeV, as measured by Ferrer *et al.* [@Ferrer:1977]. An examination of the experimental conditions of Ref. [@Ferrer:1977] indicates that in that experiment it was not possible to separate the elastic channel from the inelastic ones. Therefore, the data points in Fig. \[Fig:Ho165-Ferrer\] should contain inelastic contributions. For this reason, we plot in Fig. \[Fig:Ho165-Ferrer\] the differential cross sections corresponding to the sum of the elastic and inelastic contributions, as predicted by our coupled-channel model. For the following discussion we also plot, as the red-dashed curve, the same calculation but with the imaginary components (both volume and surface) of the KD optical potential reduced by 10%.
The fact that our model describes very well the observed data from the lower and higher ends of the incident-energy spectrum, as seen in Figs. \[Fig:Ho165-Wagner\] and \[Fig:Ho165-Ferrer\], respectively, and also data in between (Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Meadows\]), except for one particular data set for which the agreement is not as good (Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Smith\]) suggests that there might be an inconsistency between the experiments from Refs. [@Wagner:1965; @Ferrer:1977; @Meadows:1971] and the one from Ref. [@Smith:2001]. The most striking inconsistency is that between the $\approx$10 MeV results of Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Smith\] and the 11 MeV results of Fig. \[Fig:Ho165-Ferrer\], since the optical potential is expected to vary slowly and smoothly over this small interval. We also note that a 10% reduction in the imaginary potential strength, whose effect is shown at 11 MeV in Fig. \[Fig:Ho165-Ferrer\], would be insufficient to bring the 10-MeV calculations and experiment of Fig. \[Fig:Ho165Smith\] into agreement. At present the source of these discrepancies is not understood.
Considering the simplicity of the model assumptions and the lack of fitted parameters, we regard the agreement of the predictions of our model with experimental data as satisfactory.
### Tungsten isotopes
We analyzed the accuracy of our model when describing the observed angular distributions of neutrons scattered by the three most abundant tungsten isotopes: $^{182}$W, $^{184}$W, and $^{186}$W. For this we compared our calculations with experimental data available in the literature. Guenther *et al.* [@Guenther:1982] have measured angular distributions for the elastic and inelastic (associated with the first 2$^+$ and 4$^+$ excited states) channels for several incident neutron energies. A measurement of elastic and inelastic angular distributions at $E_{\mathrm{inc}}$=3.4 MeV was made by Delaroche *et al.* [@Delaroche:1981], while Ref. [@Annand:1985] presents the results from Annand and Finlay for differential cross section data for $^{182}$W and $^{184}$W at $E_{\mathrm{inc}}$=4.87 and 6.0 MeV. The latter experiment also resolved the angular distribution corresponding to the first 6$^+$ states of the two lighter even-even isotopes.
Fig. \[Fig:W182-Elas\] shows the predictions of our model for the elastic angular distributions in the case of $^{182}$W when compared to observed experimental data. Apart from some discrepancies observed at the backward angles for some incident energies in the region $3.35\leqslant E_{\mathrm{inc}} \leqslant 3.90$ MeV, it can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:W182-Elas\] that excellent agreement is obtained.
In Fig. \[Fig:W182-Inel\], we present the results of calculations using our coupled-channel model for the inelastic differential cross sections of $^{182}$W for the 2$^+$ (Fig. \[Fig:W182:2+\]), and 4$^+$ (Fig. \[Fig:W182:4+\]) excited states, which have excitation energies $E^*$ of 100.1 keV, and 329.4 keV, respectively. The agreement with experimental data is very good, for both cases of 2$^+$ and 4$^+$ excitations.
We present in Fig. \[Fig:W184-Elas\] the results obtained for $^{\mathrm{184}}$W elastic angular distributions. The agreement in this case is even better than the one obtained for $^{\mathrm{182}}$W, shown in Fig. \[Fig:W182-Elas\], considering that the discrepancies at backward angles in the $3.35\leqslant E_{\mathrm{inc}} \leqslant 3.90$ region are much smaller for $^{\mathrm{184}}$W than for $^{\mathrm{182}}$W.
The results for inelastic angular distributions of $^{\mathrm{184}}$W are presented in Fig. \[Fig:W184-Inel\]. Fig. \[Fig:W184:2+\] shows the differential cross sections corresponding to the first 2$^+$ state ($E^{*}=111.2$ keV), while Fig. \[Fig:W184:4+\] presents results for the first 4$^+$ state ($E^{*}=364.1$ keV) of $^{\mathrm{184}}$W. Similarly to the case of $^{\mathrm{182}}$W shown in Fig. \[Fig:W182-Inel\], we achieve very good agreement between experimental differential cross-section data with the ones calculated via our model for $^{\mathrm{184}}$W. Larger discrepancies are observed only for a particular incident energy, $E_{\mathrm{inc}}=2.1$ MeV, for both 2$^+$ (Fig. \[Fig:W184:2+\]) and 4$^+$ (Fig. \[Fig:W184:4+\]) cross sections, where we underestimate the experimental data.
\
In Fig. \[Fig:W:6+\], we present the results of calculations within our coupled-channel model for the inelastic differential cross sections for the 6$^+$ state for both $^{182}$W (Fig. \[Fig:W182:6+\]) and $^{184}$W (Fig. \[Fig:W184:6+\]) neutron-induced reactions. The excitation energies of such states are $E^*$ = 680.5 keV and 748.3 keV, respectively. In the case of the 6$^+$ angular distributions, the agreement with experimental data is not as good as in the cases of the 2$^+$ and 4$^+$ channels (Figs. \[Fig:W182-Inel\] and \[Fig:W184-Inel\]). This is not surprising since our calculations do not include a direct excitation of the 6$^+$ state via off-diagonal elements connecting the elastic channel and the 6$^+$ state in the coupling potential.
We have also performed calculations for the elastic and inelastic (2$^+$ and 4$^+$ channels) angular distributions of neutrons scattered by $^{\mathrm{186}}$W nuclide. We do not present them here, as those results are very similar to the ones obtained for $^{\mathrm{182,184}}$W (Figs. \[Fig:W182-Elas\]-\[Fig:W184-Inel\]).
Summary and conclusions {#Sec:Conclusion}
=======================
In this paper we presented extensive results for a coupled-channel model designed to accurately predict differential and integral cross sections of neutron-induced reactions on statically-deformed nuclei, such as those of the rare-earth region. The method consists in statically deforming a spherical optical potential that well describes non-deformed nuclei in the neighboring regions, and then carrying out coupled-channels calculations using a sufficient number of the rotational excited states of the ground state band to achieve convergence. In this particular work we adopted the spherical global Koning-Delaroche [@KD] optical model potential (OMP). We leave the OMP unmodified, except for a small correction in the radii to ensure nuclear volume conservation. The idea behind this model is that, due to the low-lying values of excitation energy and consequent near validity of the adiabatic approximation, we can explicitly treat the degrees of freedom associated with strong deformation while all other degrees of freedom are accounted for by the spherical OMP with its parameters unmodified.
We applied our model to nuclear reactions having $^{\mathrm{158,160,Nat}}$Gd, $^{\mathrm{165}}$Ho, and $^{\mathrm{182,184,186}}$W as targets. Comparison of our calculations with experimental data indicated remarkable agreement, for both total cross sections and angular distributions. Even though the agreement could be further improved by fitting OMP parameters for the individual nuclei, the importance of the present model lies in the achievement of such results *without* any parameter adjustment, using as input only the potential and the experimental quadrupole and hexadecupole deformation parameters. Therefore, the conclusions presented here could reliably be extrapolated to other statically-deformed rare-earth nuclei for which little or no experimental data is available.
Acknowledgments
===============
The work at Brookhaven National Laboratory was sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Physics, Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 with Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss various ways in which the computation of conservative Gravitational Self Force (GSF) effects on a point mass moving in a Schwarzschild background can inform us about the basic building blocks of the Effective One-Body (EOB) Hamiltonian. We display the information which can be extracted from the recently published GSF calculation of the first-GSF-order shift of the orbital frequency of the last stable circular orbit, and we combine this information with the one recently obtained by comparing the EOB formalism to high-accuracy numerical relativity (NR) data on coalescing binary black holes. The information coming from GSF data helps to break the degeneracy (among some EOB parameters) which was left after using comparable-mass NR data to constrain the EOB formalism. We suggest various ways of obtaining more information from GSF computations: either by studying eccentric orbits, or by focussing on a special zero-binding zoom-whirl orbit. We show that logarithmic terms start entering the post-Newtonian expansions of various (EOB and GSF) functions at the fourth post-Newtonian (4PN) level, and we analytically compute the first logarithm entering a certain, gauge-invariant “redshift” GSF function (defined along the sequence of circular orbits).'
author:
- Thibault Damour
date: '*Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, 35, route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France*'
title: Gravitational Self Force in a Schwarzschild Background and the Effective One Body Formalism
---
Introduction
============
The detection of gravitational waves from coalescing binary systems depends upon the prior knowledge of accurate theoretical models of the emitted gravitational waveforms, so as to be able to extract the gravitational wave signal from the noisy output of the detector. There has been much progress, over the past few years, on the development of accurate computational tools for describing the motion and radiation of (comparable-mass) compact binary systems (i.e. systems made of black holes or neutron stars). These computational tools are based either on analytical methods, on numerical ones, or on various combinations of both. The first formalism which made several quantitative and qualitative predictions about the entire coalescence process of comparable-mass circularized black hole binaries (from early inspiral to late ringing) is the analytical Effective One Body (EOB) formalism [@Buonanno:1998gg; @Buonanno:2000ef; @Damour:2001tu]. \[Note that the EOB formalism uses, as essential inputs, the results of high-order post-Newtonian (PN) expanded results (see [@Blanchet:2006zz] for a review). However, it does not use PN results in their original “Taylor-expanded form”, but rather in some suitably [*resummed*]{} form.\] Soon afterwards, a combination of (short) full numerical simulations, with a “close limit approximation” [@Price:1994pm] to the ringing final black hole led to the first, numerical-based, (approximate) description of the coalescence of (comparable mass) circularized black hole binaries [@Baker:2001nu; @Baker:2001sf]. Recently, several breakthroughs in numerical relativity (NR) [@Pretorius:2007nq] have allowed numerical methods to describe, with very high accuracy, the motion and radiation of coalescing black holes. These impressive NR achievements do not, however, render obsolete the development of [*analytical*]{} methods for describing the motion and radiation of coalescing black holes. Indeed, in spite of the high computer power used in NR simulations, the calculation of one sufficiently long waveform (corresponding to specific values of the many continuous parameters describing the considered binary system) takes on the order of several weeks. For detection purposes, one needs to compute tens of thousands of theoretical templates, so as to densely sample the full parameter space. This is a clear motivation for developing accurate analytical models of waveforms. One avenue for doing so is to use the natural flexibility of the EOB formalism (which was emphasized early on [@Damour:2001tu]) to “tune” some of the theoretical EOB parameters representing yet uncalculated, higher-order effects until the EOB waveform “best fits” a sparse sample of high-accuracy NR waveforms. Over the last years, this strategy has been vigorously pursued and has led to an impressive analytical/numerical agreement, with residual differences in phase and amplitude on the order of the current numerical errors [@Buonanno:2007pf; @Damour:2007yf; @Damour:2007vq; @Damour:2008te; @Boyle:2008ge; @Damour:2009kr; @Buonanno:2009qa]. The most recent, and most accurate, implementation of this strategy used [*only two EOB flexibility parameters*]{}, denoted $a_5$ and $a_6$, and found that there is a strong degeneracy between $a_5$ and $a_6$ in the sense that one can find an excellent NR-EOB agreement within a long and thin banana-like region in the $(a_5 , a_6)$ plane [@Damour:2009kr; @Damour:2009ic]. This “good fit region” approximately extends between the points $(a_5 , a_6) = (0,-20)$ and $(a_5 , a_6) = (-36,+520)$ [@Damour:2009ic].
The main purpose of the present work is to study to what extent the computation of gravitational self force (GSF) effects on a point mass moving in a Schwarzschild background can inform us about some of the yet uncalculated higher-order theoretical EOB parameters, such as the just mentionned $a_5$ and $a_6$ parameters. The GSF program aims at describing the motion and radiation of a small compact object (of mass $m_1$) moving around (and eventually inspiralling into) a much larger central black hole (of mass $m_2$). By contrast to the computational tools mentionned above (PN, EOB, NR), which can study binary systems with arbitrary (symmetric) mass ratio[^1] $\nu \equiv m_1 m_2 / (m_1 + m_2)^2$, the GSF program is a priori limited to the extreme mass ratio case, $m_1 \ll m_2$, i.e. $\nu \ll 1$. Roughly speaking, the GSF program is motivated by the planned space-based interferometric gravitational wave detector LISA [@LISA], while the other computational programs are motivated by the higher-frequency ground-based interferometric detectors (such as LIGO [@LIGO]). The GSF program has been under development for a long time (essentially since the classic work of Refs. [@Regge:1957td; @DeWitt:1960fc; @DeWitt:1964de; @Zerilli:1971wd; @Davis:1972ud]), but has started to reach fruition only very recently. \[See [@Barack:2009ux; @Detweiler:2009ah] for recent reviews of the GSF program.\] We have particularly in mind here the recent breakthrough of Barack and Sago (BS), Ref. [@Barack:2009ey], which computed the first-order GSF correction to the frequency of the Last (circular) Stable Orbit (LSO) of a small point mass $m_1$ orbiting around a large (non spinning) black hole of mass $m_2$. \[Another interesting recent result is the computation of the first-order GSF correction to a certain gauge invariant function of the sequence of circular orbits [@Detweiler:2008ft; @Blanchet:2009sd].\] We wish here to relate the published result of [@Barack:2009ey] to the parameters entering the EOB formalism (and notably the parameters $a_5 , a_6 , \ldots$ mentionned above), and suggest further ways of using the GSF program for learning more about the theoretical building blocks of the EOB formalism. Hopefully, such a bringing together of the GSF and EOB programs might benefit both, and might thereby help one to develop better theoretical models of coalescing binaries. Note finally that we shall only consider here the [*conservative*]{} aspects of both the EOB and the GSF. Indeed, the result of [@Barack:2009ey] only concerns the time-symmetric, conservative piece of the GSF. Note that the influence, due to conservative interactions, of a non vanishing symmetric mass ratio $\nu$ (with $0 \leq \nu \leq 1/4$) on the frequency of the LSO was first studied within the EOB formalism in [@Buonanno:1998gg] at the 2PN level, and in [@Damour:2000we] at the 3PN level. As for the influence of time-odd, radiative interactions on the location of the LSO it was first studied in [@Buonanno:2000ef] (for arbitrary $\nu \leq 1/4$) and shown there to lead to a “blurring” of the LSO frequency of fractional order $\nu^{2/5}$. \[See also the work of [@Ori:2000zn], restricted to the small mass ratio case $\nu \ll 1$.\]
Notation, choice of coordinate system, and physical units
=========================================================
Let us start by warning the reader about a conflict of notation, between the standard EOB notation and a usual GSF one, which can bring confusion. We shall here adhere to the standard EOB notation in which the two masses of the binary system are denoted $m_1$ and $m_2$ (with, say, $m_1 \leq m_2$ to fix ideas) and where one then defines $$\label{eq2.1}
M \equiv m_1 + m_2 \, ; \quad \mu \equiv \frac{m_1 m_2}{m_1 + m_2} \, ; \quad \nu \equiv \frac{\mu}{M} = \frac{m_1 m_2}{(m_1 + m_2)^2} \, .$$ By contrast, many GSF works use the letter $M$ to denote the large mass (denoted $m_2$ in our notation), and the letter $\mu$ to denote the small mass ($m_1$ in our notation)[^2].
Another possible source of confusion concerns the choice of coordinate system to describe the binary system. Though we shall only work with (formally) “gauge invariant” quantities, this still leaves some potentially confusing ambiguity. Indeed, in PN and EOB (as well as NR) studies, it is tacitly assumed that one uses an “asymptotically flat coordinate system”, i.e. a coordinate system which exhibits, in a standard manner[^3], the asymptotic flatness ($g_{\mu\nu} \to \eta_{\mu\nu}$) of the metric generated by the considered binary system. By contrast, while some GSF works (e.g. that of [@Detweiler:2008ft] based on a “Regge-Wheeler gauge”) do use “asymptotically flat” coordinates, the GSF works that use a “Lorenz gauge” for studying perturbations $h_{\mu\nu} (x^{\lambda})$ off a Schwarzschild background $g_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} (x^{\lambda})$ (as is the case of the work [@Barack:2009ey] that we shall consider) actually use a coordinate system which is [*not*]{} (explicitly) “asymptotically flat”. Indeed, it was shown by Detweiler and Poisson [@Detweiler:2003ci], and by Barack and Lousto [@Barack:2005nr] (building up on results of Zerilli [@Zerilli:1971wd]) that the [*unique*]{} low multipole ($\ell \leq 2$) contributions to the first-order Lorenz gauge metric perturbation generated by a point mass in [*circular*]{} motion are such that the monopole ($\ell = 0$) contribution (and only the monopole) yields a metric perturbation which does not decay as $r \to \infty$, but tends to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2.2}
\lim_{r \to \infty} h_{\mu\nu}^{\rm Lorenz} (x^{\lambda}) \, dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}
&= &- \, 2 \, \frac{Gm_1 \, \hat E_1}{r_0 (1-2 G m_2 / r_0)} \, dt^2 \\
&+ &dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2 \theta d \varphi^2 + {\mathcal O} (m_1^2) \, . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Here, $r_0$ is the Schwarzschild (areal) radial coordinate of the considered circular orbit, and $$\label{eq2.3}
\hat E_1 \equiv \frac{E_1}{m_1} \equiv - \, u_t^1 \, ,$$ the $(m_1)$ particle’s conserved energy per unit rest mass. Note that we generally use units such that $c=1$ (and often also $G=1$), and a “mostly plus” signature $(-+++)$. Adding the Lorenz-gauge perturbation (\[eq2.2\]) to the (“asymptotically flat”) background Schwarzschild metric leads to a perturbed metric for the binary system such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2.4}
\lim_{r \to \infty} (g_{\mu\nu}^{(0){\rm Schw}} + h_{\mu\nu}^{\rm Lorenz}) \, dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}
&= &- \, (1+2\alpha) \, dt_{\rm Lorenz}^2 \\
&+ &dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2 \theta d \varphi^2 + {\mathcal O} (m_1^2) \, , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq2.5}
\alpha \equiv \frac{Gm_1 \, \hat E_1}{r_0 (1-2 Gm_2 / r_0)} \, .$$ In the case that we consider here of circular orbits (and that will suffice for our purpose), the explicit expression, in terms of the orbital radius $r_0$, of the specific conserved energy $\hat E_1$ is $$\label{eq2.6}
\hat E_1 = \frac{1-2Gm_2 / r_0}{\sqrt{1-3 Gm_2 / r_0}} \, ,$$ so that (\[eq2.5\]) can be reexpressed as $$\label{eq2.7}
\alpha = \frac{Gm_1}{r_0 \, \sqrt{1-3 Gm_2 / r_0}} \, .$$ The result (\[eq2.4\]) is not new, and played, in particular, a crucial role in a recent work [@Sago:2008is] which compared the numerical results of the GSF obtained by two different methods, using different gauges. We are spelling it out again explicitly here to emphasize the following point.
Through first order in $m_1$, we need to [*renormalize*]{} the time coordinate associated to Lorenz-gauge GSF calculations to work in normal, “asymptotically flat coordinates”. Namely, in the case considered here of a point mass $m_1$ moving on a circular orbit of radius $r_0$, we need to introduce $$\label{eq2.8}
t_{\rm flat} = (1 + \alpha + {\mathcal O} (m_1^2)) \, t_{\rm Lorenz} \, ,$$ together with $x_{\rm flat} \equiv r \sin \theta \cos \varphi$, $y_{\rm flat} = r \sin \theta \sin \varphi$, $z_{\rm flat} = r \cos \theta$, to ensure that the perturbed metric $ds^2 = (g_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} + h_{\mu \nu}) \, dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}$ tends, as $r \to \infty$, towards the standard Poincaré-Minkowski metric $\underset{r \to \infty}{\lim} ds^2 = -dt_{\rm flat}^2 + dx_{\rm flat}^2 + dy_{\rm flat}^2 + dz_{\rm flat}^2$. It is a standard practice in relativistic gravity to use such “asymptotically flat coordinates” because they relate coordinates to [*physical units*]{}. For instance, the asymptotically measured orbital frequency of, say, a circular orbit, expressed in the physical time units (say the SI second) defined by the metric $ds^2$, $\Omega_{\rm phys}$, coincides with the coordinate angular frequency defined in “flat” coordinates $\Omega_{\rm flat} = d\varphi / dt_{\rm flat}$. For the purpose of gravitational wave observations, we are interested in the value of such physical-units frequencies: $\Omega_{\rm phys} = \Omega_{\rm flat} = d\varphi / dt_{\rm flat}$. In conclusion, the physical-unit value of a particular frequency $\Omega_{\rm phys} = \Omega_{\rm flat}$ differs from the corresponding Lorenz-gauge frequency $\Omega_{\rm Lorenz} = d\varphi / dt_{\rm Lorenz}$ by the “renormalization” factor deduced from (\[eq2.8\]) $$\label{eq2.9}
\Omega_{\rm phys} = \frac{d\varphi}{dt_{\rm flat}} = \frac{1}{(1+\alpha +{\mathcal O} (m_1^2))} \, \frac{d\varphi}{dt_{\rm Lorenz}} = (1 - \alpha + {\mathcal O} (m_1^2)) \, \Omega_{\rm Lorenz} \, .$$
Applying Eq. (\[eq2.9\]) to the recent, Lorenz-gauge GSF computation of the LSO frequency [@Barack:2009ey], namely $$\label{eq2.10}
Gm_2 \, \Omega_{\rm Lorenz}^{\rm LSO} = 6^{-3/2} \left[ 1 + c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} \, \frac{m_1}{m_2} + {\mathcal O} \left( \left( \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right)^2 \right) \right] \, ,$$ with $$\label{eq2.11}
c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} = 0.4870(6) \, ,$$ (where the number in parenthesis indicates the error on the last digits), we conclude that the physical-unit LSO frequency is $$\label{eq2.12}
G m_2 \, \Omega_{\rm phys}^{\rm LSO} = 6^{-3/2} \left[ 1 + c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} \, \frac{m_1}{m_2} - \alpha^{\rm LSO} + {\mathcal O} \left( \left( \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right)^2 \right) \right] \, ,$$ where $\alpha^{\rm LSO}$ is the value of $\alpha$, Eq. (\[eq2.7\]), at the (zeroth order) LSO, i.e. $r_0 = 6 G m_2 + {\mathcal O} (m_1)$, so that $$\label{eq2.13}
\alpha^{\rm LSO} = \frac{\sqrt 2}{6} \, \frac{m_1}{m_2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \, \frac{m_1}{m_2} \, .$$
In other words $$\label{eq2.14}
G m_2 \, \Omega_{\rm phys}^{\rm LSO} = 6^{-3/2} \left[ 1 + \left( c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \right) \frac{m_1}{m_2} + {\mathcal O} \left( \left( \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right)^2 \right) \right] \, .$$
Note that the numerical correction $1/\sqrt{18} \simeq 0.235702$ leads to a quite significant decrease (by nearly 50%) of the raw Lorenz-gauge coefficient $c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS}$, Eq. (\[eq2.11\]): $$\label{eq2.15}
c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} = 0.2513(6) \, .$$ We recommend that, in the future, the results of any Lorenz-gauge (dimensionful) quantity be explicitly reexpressed in physical units, so as to avoid the need of doing such a posteriori renormalizations. A simple way of doing so would be to explicitly change the time coordinate, à la Eq. (\[eq2.8\]), to work in a “renormalized Lorenz gauge” where the metric becomes asymptotically flat.
To compare the renormalized GSF result (\[eq2.14\]) to the theoretical predictions of the EOB formalism, it is useful to introduce another “renormalization”. Indeed, the natural quantity for adimensionalizing a frequency in the EOB formalism is $(GM)^{-1} \equiv (G(m_1 + m_2))^{-1}$, rather than $(Gm_2)^{-1}$, as used in GSF studies. This leads us to reexpressing (\[eq2.14\]) as $$\label{eq2.16}
GM \, \Omega_{\rm phys}^{\rm LSO} \equiv G(m_1 + m_2) \, \Omega_{\rm phys}^{\rm LSO} = 6^{-3/2} [1 + c_{\Omega}^{\rm ren} \, \nu + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)] \, ,$$ where the “EOB-renormalized” frequency sensitivity coefficient $c_{\Omega}^{\rm ren}$ is given by $$\label{eq2.17}
c_{\Omega}^{\rm ren} = 1 + c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} = 1.2513(6) \, .$$
As a final reexpression, it is useful to replace any adimensionalized orbital frequency $M\Omega$ by the quantity $$\label{eq2.18}
x(\Omega) \equiv \left( \frac{GM \, \Omega}{c^3} \right)^{2/3} \, ,$$ which plays a crucial role in PN and EOB developments. \[Here, we have inserted the velocity of light $c$ (elsewhere set to one) as a convenient mnemonics to remember the exponent $2/3$. Indeed, $x \sim v^2 / c^2$ is the basic PN expansion parameter, and the exponent $2/3$ converts the $1/c^3$ factor into a $1/c^2$ one.\] In terms of $x$, Eq. (\[eq2.18\]), Eqs. (\[eq2.16\]), (\[eq2.17\]) become $$\label{eq2.19}
x^{\rm LSO} = \frac{1}{6} \, [1 + c_x^{\rm ren} \, \nu + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)] \, ,$$ with $$\label{eq2.20}
c_x^{\rm ren} = \frac{2}{3} \, c_{\Omega}^{\rm ren} = \frac{2}{3} \left( 1 + c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \right) = 0.8342(4) \, .$$
It is the number $c_x^{\rm ren}$, Eq. (\[eq2.20\]), that we shall primarily use in the following to compare the GSF results to the predictions of the EOB formalism. Let us note in passing that all the EOB estimates [@Buonanno:1998gg; @Damour:2000we] of the mass-ratio (i.e. $\nu$) dependence of the total-mass-adimensionalized LSO frequency $GM \, \Omega^{\rm LSO} \equiv \hat\Omega^{\rm LSO} (\nu)$, as well as its other possible PN estimates [@Damour:2000we; @Blanchet:2001id], agree in predicting that $\hat\Omega^{\rm LSO} (\nu)$ is an [*increasing*]{} function of $\nu$, i.e. that the sensitivity coefficients $c_{\Omega}^{\rm ren}$, in Eq. (\[eq2.16\]), or $c_x^{\rm ren}$, in Eq. (\[eq2.19\]), are strictly [*positive*]{}. We just wish to remark here that this property is not necessarily linked to the Lorenz-gauge, $m_2$-adimensionalized sensitivity parameter $c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS}$, Eq. (\[eq2.10\]), being positive. The positivity of $c_{\Omega}^{\rm ren}$ is equivalent to the much weaker condition $c_{\Omega}^{\rm BS} > \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} - 1 \simeq -0.76430$.
A short review of the conservative EOB formalism
================================================
The EOB formalism comprises three main building blocks: (i) a conservative dynamics; (ii) the inclusion of radiation reaction effects; and (iii) the construction of a resummed waveform. Let us review here the item (i), which suffices for the comparison to the corresponding [*conservative*]{} GSF effects.
The conservative EOB dynamics is defined by a Hamiltonian of the form $$\label{eq3.1}
H_{\rm EOB} = M \, \sqrt{1+2\nu (\hat H_{\rm eff} - 1)} \, ,$$ where $\hat H_{\rm eff} \equiv H_{\rm eff} / \mu$ denotes the “effective Hamiltonian” (per unit $\mu$-mass) of an “effective particle” of mass $\mu$, following (modulo quartic, and possibly higher-order, terms in the radial momentum $p_r$), a geodesic in the “effective metric”[^4] $$\label{eq3.2}
ds_{\rm eff}^2 = g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm eff} (x) \, dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu} = - A (r;\nu) \, dt^2 + \bar B (r,\nu) \, dr^2 + r^2 (d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\varphi^2) \, .$$ More precisely, the conserved energy of the effective dynamics for $\mu$, $H_{\rm eff} \equiv -p_0$, is obtained by solving an “effective one-body Hamilton-Jacobi” equation of the form $$\label{eq3.3}
0 = \mu^2 + g_{\rm eff}^{\mu\nu} (x) \, p_{\mu} \, p_{\nu} + Q(p) \, ,$$ where $p_{\mu} = \partial S(x) / \partial x^{\mu}$ ($S$ denoting the action), and where $$\label{eq3.4}
Q(p) = A^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} (x) \, p_{\mu} \, p_{\nu} \, p_{\rho} \, p_{\sigma} + \ldots$$ denotes quartic-in-momenta, and possibly higher-order in $p$, contributions. As shown in [@Damour:2000we], one can, at the 3PN level, restrict the quartic correction (\[eq3.4\]) to depend only on the spatial components $p_i$ of the momentum, and, more precisely, to be proportional to the fourth power of the radial momentum: $Q \propto p_r^4$. We shall assume here that the fact that $Q$ depends only on $p_r$ and $r$, and vanishes (at least) like $p_r^4$ when $p_r \to 0$ remains true at higher PN levels. Solving the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (\[eq3.3\]) with respect to $H_{\rm eff} = -p_0 > 0$ leads to $$\label{eq3.5}
H_{\rm eff} = \sqrt{A(r;\nu) \left( \mu^2 + \frac{J^2}{r^2} + \frac{p_r^2}{\bar B (r;\nu)} + Q(r,p_r)\right)}$$ where $J$ denotes the conserved effective angular momentum. For motions in the equatorial plane $\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}$ of the coordinate system of (\[eq3.2\]), one has simply $J = p_{\varphi}$. One of the basic principles of the EOB formalism is that the effective angular momentum $J$ is identified with the total angular momentum of the binary system. By contrast, the total energy of the binary system, ${\mathcal E} = M +$ binding energy, is not equal to the effective energy, say, ${\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} = H_{\rm eff}$, Eq. (\[eq3.5\]), but to the EOB Hamiltonian (\[eq3.1\]): ${\mathcal E} = H_{\rm EOB}$. Still, we see from (\[eq3.5\]) that $H_{\rm eff}$ governs, for a given value of $J$, the radial motion: $$\label{eq3.6}
H_{\rm eff}^2 (r,p_r ; J) = A(r;\nu) \left( \mu^2 + \frac{J^2}{r^2} + \frac{p_r^2}{\bar B (r;\nu)} + Q(r,p_r) \right) \, ,$$ where, at the 3PN level, $$\label{eq3.7}
Q(r,p_r) = 2 \, (4-3\nu) \, \nu \, \frac{(GM)^2}{r^2} \, \frac{p_r^4}{\mu^2} \, .$$
In practical calculations, it is quite useful to rescale the various quantities, $r , p_r , J , {\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}$ into dimensionless ones, using $$\label{eq3.8}
t = GM \, \hat t \, , \quad r \equiv GM \, \hat r \, , \quad p_r \equiv \mu \, \hat p_r \, , \quad J \equiv GM \, \mu \, j \, , \quad {\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} \equiv \mu \, \hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} \, .$$ Note that the effective action $$\label{eq3.9}
S = - {\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} \, t + J \, \varphi + S_{\rm rad} (r) \, ,$$ is rescaled into $\hat S \equiv S/GM \, \mu$, so that, for instance, $\hat p_r$ is canonically conjugate to $\hat r$ with respect to the (rescaled) symplectic structure defined by $\hat S$. The rescaled version of Eqs. (\[eq3.6\]), (\[eq3.7\]) then reads (at the 3PN level) $$\label{eq3.10}
\hat H_{\rm eff}^2 (\hat r , \hat p_r ; j) = A(\hat r ; \nu) \left( 1 + \frac{j^2}{\hat r^2} + \frac{\hat p_r^2}{\bar B (\hat r ; \nu)} + \hat Q (\hat r , \hat p_r)\right) \, ,$$ where, at the 3PN level, $$\label{eq3.11}
\hat Q (\hat r , \hat p_r) = 2 \, (4-3\nu) \, \nu \, \frac{\hat p_r^4}{\hat r^2} \, .$$
In the present work we shall, like Ref. [@Barack:2009ey], mostly focus on small-eccentricity orbits, i.e. on the limits where $\hat p_r^2 \ll j^2 / \hat r^2$. Then, working to first-order in the squared eccentricity $e^2 \sim \hat p_r^2$ we can neglect the quartic (or more) contribution $\hat Q$ which is ${\mathcal O} (e^4)$. We then see that, in this case, the conservative EOB dynamics depends on the knowledge of two functions of $\hat r$ and $\nu$, namely the metric functions $A(\hat r ; \nu)$ and $\bar B (\hat r ; \nu)$ entering the effective metric (\[eq3.2\]). In previous EOB works, it was found convenient to replace the second metric function $\bar B = g_{rr}^{\rm eff}$ by the combination $$\label{eq3.12}
D(r) \equiv A(r) \, \bar B(r) \, .$$ Here, we shall find it even more convenient to use instead the [*inverse*]{} of the $D$ function (which naturally entered Ref. [@Damour:2001tu], where it was proposed to resum $D$ by working with the Taylor expansion of its inverse). We shall denote it as $$\label{eq3.13}
\bar D (r) \equiv D^{-1} (r) \equiv (A(r) \, \bar B(r))^{-1} \, .$$ Another useful EOB notation is to introduce a special notation for the inverse of the scaled EOB radius $\hat r$, namely $$\label{eq3.14}
u \equiv \frac{1}{\hat r} \equiv \frac{GM}{r} \, .$$ With this notation in hand, the conservative EOB dynamics of small-eccentricity orbits depends on the knowledge of two functions: $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$. At the 3PN level, these two functions have been found to take the values [@Damour:2000we] $$\label{eq3.15a}
A (u;\nu) = 1-2u + 2\nu \, u^3 + \nu \, a_4 \, u^4 + {\mathcal O} (u^5) \, ,$$ $$\label{eq3.15b}
\bar D (u;\nu) = 1+6\nu \, u^2 + 2(26-3\nu) \, \nu \, u^3 + {\mathcal O} (u^4) \, ,$$ where $a_4 = 94/3 - 41 \pi^2 / 32$.
As summarized in Eqs. (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\]) the PN calculations give access to the first few terms of the expansions of $A$ and $\bar D$ [*in powers of*]{} $u$, for a fixed value of the symmetric mass ratio $\nu$. If we formally extend the definition of the EOB formalism, and of the $A$ and $\bar D$ functions, to an arbitrary PN order (as was shown to be possible in Section III of [@Damour:2000we]), assuming that the “correction” term $Q$ is kept of order $p_r^4$ as $p_r \to 0$, we can think of $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$ as being some yet unknown mathematical functions of [*two*]{} variables.
At present, one has in hands two different computational tools for acquiring some knowledge of the unknown “abstract” EOB potentials $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$. On the one hand, existing PN calculations (at the 3PN level) have given us access to the $u$-expansions (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\]) (and to the first term (\[eq3.11\]) in the $Q$ term). On the other hand, NR simulations gives us access (when $\nu$ is not too different from $1/4$) to various data that depend on $A$ and $\bar D$ and can therefore be used, in principle, to map the two-dimensional profiles of $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$. The first attempt to do so dates from 2002. Ref. [@Damour:2002gh] compared NR data on the gravitational binding energy of (corotating and waveless[^5]) circular binary systems to the EOB predictions, and looked for the best fit to a [*generalized*]{} $A$ function (\[eq3.15a\]), extended by an additional (4PN) term $+ \, a_5 (\nu) \, u^5$. \[Note in passing that their result (for $\nu = 1/4$) suggested a negative value for the coefficient of $u^5$, $a_5 ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) \simeq -3$, i.e. a slope $a_5 \simeq -12$ if one considers a linear dependence on $\nu : a_5 (\nu) = a_5 \, \nu$. Such a negative value is not unreasonable, as we shall further discuss below.\] More recently, many works [@Buonanno:2007pf; @Damour:2007yf; @Damour:2007vq; @Damour:2008te; @Boyle:2008ge; @Damour:2009kr; @Buonanno:2009qa] have compared NR data on the waveform emitted by radiation-reaction-driven, inspiralling binary black holes to the predictions of several [*extended*]{} versions of the EOB formalism. These extensions consisted in adding parametrized extra contributions not only to the PN expansion of the $A$ function ($\delta A^{\rm PN} = \nu \, a_5 \, u^5 + \nu \, a_6 \, u^6$), but also to the other building blocks of the EOB formalism: the radiation reaction force, and the emitted waveform. We shall compare below the results of the most recent NR/EOB comparison of this type, and the recent GSF result (\[eq2.19\]), (\[eq2.20\]).
The main purpose of the present work is to explicate how GSF results can also be used as a third computational tool for acquiring some knowledge about the conservative EOB potentials $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$. The first point to emphasize is that current GSF technology can, at most, give us access to the first terms in the expansions of the functions $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$ in powers of the symmetric mass ratio $\nu$. More precisely, let us consider the expansions of the (unknown) exact functions $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$ in powers of $\nu$, say $$\label{eq3.16a}
A(u;\nu) = 1-2u + \nu \, a (u) + \nu^2 \, a_2 (u) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^3) \, ,$$ $$\label{eq3.16b}
\bar D(u;\nu) = 1 + \nu \, \bar d (u) + \nu^2 \, \bar d_2 (u) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^3) \, ,$$ where, for notational simplicity, we have suppressed the index 1 on the contributions which are linear in $\nu$: $\nu \, a_1 (u) \equiv \nu \, a(u)$, $\nu \, \bar d_1 (u) \equiv \nu \, \bar d (u)$. In the following, we shall show to what extent GSF studies can inform us about the two $\nu$-linear functions of $u$, $a(u)$ and $\bar d (u)$.
Before plunging into the details of how GSF studies can tell us something about the two functions $a(u)$ and $\bar d (u)$ entering the conservative EOB dynamics[^6], let us emphasize the complementarity of the expansions (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\]) versus the expansions (\[eq3.16a\]), (\[eq3.16b\]). The PN expansions (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\]) proceed in powers of $u = GM/c^2 r$, but compute, at a given order in $u$, the exact dependence on $\nu$. On the other hand, the “GSF” expansions (\[eq3.16a\]), (\[eq3.16b\]) proceed in powers of $\nu$, and can in principle give access, at a given order in $\nu$, to the exact dependence on $u$. For instance, the first-order GSF coefficients $a(u)$ and $\bar d (u)$, if known exactly, would give us information about some arbitrarily high PN contributions in (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\]). Reciprocally, as the PN results (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\]) have made no truncation on the powers of $\nu$, we see that Eqs. (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\]) is already giving us information about high-order terms in the “GSF expansions” (\[eq3.16a\]), (\[eq3.16b\]) in powers of $\nu$. In particular, the (remarkable) fact that the (vanishing) 1PN, 2PN $(a_3)$ and 3PN $(a_4)$ contributions to the $A$ potential are linear in $\nu$ is already telling us something about both the “second-order GSF” (2 GSF) contribution $\nu^2 \, a_2 (u)$, and the “third-order GSF” (3 GSF) contribution $\nu^3 \, a_3 (u)$. Indeed, at the $n$PN order (which corresponds to a term $\propto u^{n+1}$ in $A(u)$) one finds that, in intermediate calculations, the coefficient of $u^{n+1}$ is a polynomial in $\nu$ of degree $n$. It was, however, found in Ref. [@Damour:2000we] that remarkable cancellations take place in the computation of the $A$ function, and that the $\nu^2$ terms present at 2PN $(\propto u^3)$, and [*both*]{} the $\nu^2$ terms and the $\nu^3$ terms present at 3PN $(\propto u^4)$ exactly cancell in the final result for $A(u;\nu)$. From a practical point of view, GSF studies have not yet embarked on any real “second-order GSF” work. We shall therefore focus, in the following, on the “first-order GSF” contributions $\nu \, a(u)$ and $\nu \, \bar d (u)$ in (\[eq3.16a\]), (\[eq3.16b\]).
Circular orbits in the EOB formalism and the Last Stable (circular) Orbit (LSO)
===============================================================================
The stable circular orbits in the EOB formalism are conveniently discussed by using the dimensionless, rescaled variables (\[eq3.8\]) and by considering the squared effective Hamiltonian for the radial motion, Eq. (\[eq3.10\]). As usual the presence of a positive kinetic energy term, $\hat p_r^2 / \bar B + \hat Q (\hat p_r)$, associated to the radial momentum, on the right-hand-side (RHS) of (\[eq3.10\]) implies that the stable circular orbits (for a given dimensionless angular momentum $j$) correspond to [*minima*]{} (with respect to $\hat r$) of the “effective radial potential” $$\label{eq4.1}
A(\hat r ; \nu) \left( 1+\frac{j^2}{\hat r^2} \right) \, .$$
Using the short-hand notation (\[eq3.14\]), we shall then define the function $$\label{eq4.2}
W_j (u;\nu) \equiv A(u;\nu)(1+j^2 u^2) \equiv A(u;\nu) + j^2 B(u;\nu) \, ,$$ where we also introduced the short-hand $$\label{eq4.3}
B(u;\nu) \equiv u^2 A(u;\nu)$$ which should not be confused with the metric component $\bar B (u;\nu) \equiv g_{rr}^{\rm eff}$ entering (\[eq3.2\]).
Stable circular orbits correspond to minima (with respect to $u$) of $W_j (u)$, i.e. they solve $W'_j (u) = 0$, with $W''_j (u) > 0$. \[Here, and in the following, a prime will denote a $u$-derivative.\] The solutions of $W'_j (u) = 0$ with $W''_j (u) < 0$ correspond to unstable circular orbits, while the LSO is the solution of $W'_j (u) = 0$ which satisfies $W''_j (u) = 0$.
We can then parametrize the (one-parameter) sequence of circular orbits by the value of $u = 1/\hat r$. Indeed, while it is a priori difficult to solve (suppressing the presence of $\nu$ in $A$ and $B$) $$\label{eq4.4}
W'_j (u) = A'(u) + j^2 B'(u) = 0 \, ,$$ with respect to $u$, it is trivial to solve it with respect to $j^2$, namely $$\label{eq4.5}
j_{\rm circ}^2 (u) \equiv - \frac{A'(u)}{B'(u)} \, .$$
Knowing $u$ and $j_{\rm circ} (u)$ one can then compute all the physical quantities attached to the circular orbit. From (\[eq3.10\]) (and $p_r = 0$) the (specific) effective energy is $$\label{eq4.6}
\hat H_{\rm eff}^{\rm circ} (u) = \sqrt{A(u) + j_{\rm circ}^2 (u) \, B(u)} \, ,$$ while the corresponding total energy (divided by the total mass $M$) is $$\label{eq4.7}
h(u) \equiv \frac{H_{\rm EOB}^{\rm circ}}{M} = \sqrt{1+2\nu (\hat H_{\rm eff}^{\rm circ} (u) - 1)} \, .$$
Finally the orbital frequency around the circular orbit is obtained from Hamilton’s equation of motion for $\varphi$: $$\label{eq4.8}
\Omega \equiv \frac{d\varphi}{dt} = \frac{\partial \, H_{\rm EOB} (r,p_r,p_{\varphi})}{\partial \, p_{\varphi}} = \frac{\partial \, H_{\rm EOB}}{\partial \, J} \, .$$
This yields $$\label{eq4.9}
\hat\Omega^{\rm circ} (u) \equiv GM \, \Omega^{\rm circ} (u) = \frac{j_{\rm circ} (u) \, B(u)}{h(u) \, \hat H_{\rm eff} (u)} \, .$$
Squaring (\[eq4.9\]), and inserting (\[eq4.5\])–(\[eq4.7\]) in the result (remembering that $B(u) \equiv u^2 A(u)$), finally leads to the following simple result $$\label{eq4.10}
\frac{\hat\Omega_{\rm circ}^2 (u)}{u^3} = - \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{A' (u)}{h^2 (u)} = - \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{A'(u)}{1+2\nu (\hat H_{\rm eff}^{\rm circ} (u)-1)} \, .$$ The result (\[eq4.10\]) is equivalent to Eq. (11) in [@Damour:2008te]. Replacing $\hat\Omega = GM \, \Omega$ by the corresponding $x(\Omega) \equiv (GM \, \Omega)^{2/3}$, Eq. (\[eq2.18\]), we can rewrite (\[eq4.10\]) as $$\label{eq4.11}
x_{\rm circ} (u) = u \left( \frac{-\frac{1}{2} \, A'(u)}{1+2\nu (\hat H_{\rm eff}^{\rm circ} (u) - 1)} \right)^{1/3} \, ,$$ where the explicit expression of $\hat H_{\rm eff}^{\rm circ} (u)$ would be (from (\[eq4.5\]) and (\[eq4.6\])) $$\label{eq4.12}
\hat H_{\rm eff}^{\rm circ} (u) = \sqrt{A(u) - \frac{A'(u)}{B'(u)} \, B(u)} = \sqrt{\frac{2u \, A^2 (u)}{2u \, A(u) + u^2 A'(u)}} \, .$$ Up to now we have made no approximations. In particular, we can conclude that the exact LSO frequency parameter $x_{\rm LSO} = (GM \, \Omega_{\rm LSO})^{2/3}$ is obtained by inserting in (\[eq4.11\]) the root $u_{\rm LSO}$ of $$\label{eq4.13}
0 = \Delta (u) \equiv A'(u) \, B''(u) - A''(u) \, B'(u) \, ,$$ which is the condition for having a common solution to $W'_j = A' + j^2 B' = 0$ and $W''_j = A'' + j^2 B'' = 0$. A more explicit form of the discriminant $\Delta$ is $$\label{eq4.14}
\Delta = 2 \, A \, A' + 4 \, u \, (A')^2 - 2 \, u \, A \, A'' \, .$$ As a simple check on the above results, and as a warm up for later, one easily sees that, in the test-mass limit $\nu \to 0$, i.e. when $A(u) \to 1 - 2u$, one recovers well-known results for a test mass in circular orbit around a Schwarzschild black hole[^7] $$\label{eq4.15}
j_{\rm circ} (u) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{u(1-3u)}} + {\mathcal O} (\nu) \, ,$$ $$\label{eq4.16}
\hat H_{\rm eff}^{\rm circ} (u) = \frac{1-2u}{\sqrt{1-3u}} + {\mathcal O} (\nu) \, ,$$ $$\label{eq4.17}
(GM \, \Omega_{\rm circ} (u))^{2/3} = x_{\rm circ} (u) = u + {\mathcal O} (\nu) \, .$$ As for the LSO condition (\[eq4.13\]) it reduces in this limit to $$\label{eq4.18}
0 = \Delta (u) = 4 (6u-1) + {\mathcal O} (\nu) \, ,$$ so that one recovers the well-known $u_{\rm LSO} = GM/r_{\rm LSO} = \frac{1}{6} + {\mathcal O} (\nu)$.
One should also note that the full dynamics of circular orbits is entirely described by a single function, namely the EOB ($-g_{00}^{\rm eff}$) metric component $A(u;\nu)$. In particular the value of the LSO frequency parameter $x_{\rm LSO} (\nu)$ can only depend on $A(u;\nu)$.
Let us now insert in the general results (\[eq4.5\])–(\[eq4.12\]) the “GSF expansion” of the EOB $A$ potential, i.e. the expansion (\[eq3.16a\]) of the function $A(u;\nu)$ in powers of the symmetric mass ratio $\nu$. Keeping only the first-order correction in $\nu$ (“1 GSF approximation”), the GSF-expansion of Eq. (\[eq4.5\]) yields $$\label{eq4.19}
j_{\rm circ} (u) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{u(1-3u)}} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \, \nu \, a'(u) - \frac{1}{4} \, \nu \, \frac{b'(u)}{u(1-3u)} + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \right) \, ,$$ where we introduced the short-hand notation $$\label{eq4.20}
b(u) \equiv u^2 \, a(u) \, ,$$ so that $B(u;\nu) = u^2 (1-2u) + \nu \, b(u) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)$. Concerning the GSF-expansion of $\hat H_{\rm eff}$, the zeroth-order (test-mass) result (\[eq4.16\]) is sufficient for our present purpose because $\hat H_{\rm eff}$ enters the frequency parameter $x$, Eq. (\[eq4.11\]), multiplied by a factor $\nu$. The GSF-expansion of Eq. (\[eq4.11\]) yields $$\label{eq4.21}
x = u \left( 1-\frac{1}{6} \, \nu \, a'(u) - \frac{2}{3} \, \nu \left( \frac{1-2u}{\sqrt{1-3u}} - 1 \right) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \right) \, ,$$ or, reciprocally, $$\label{eq4.22}
u = x \left( 1+\frac{1}{6} \, \nu \, a'(x) + \frac{2}{3} \, \nu \left( \frac{1-2x}{\sqrt{1-3x}} - 1 \right) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \right) \, .$$
To determine the location of the LSO we also need the GSF expansion of the discriminant $\Delta$, Eq. (\[eq4.13\]). The expansion of Eq. (\[eq4.14\]) yields $$\label{eq4.23}
- \frac{1}{4} \, \Delta (u) = 1 - 6u + \nu \, \bar a (u) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \, ,$$ where we introduced the short-hand $$\label{eq4.24}
\bar a(u) \equiv a(u) + \frac{1}{2} (10 u - 1) \, a'(u) + \frac{1}{2} \, u (1-2u) \, a'' (u) \, .$$
Solving the LSO condition $\Delta (u) = 0$ then immediately leads to $$\label{eq4.24bis}
u_{\rm LSO} = \frac{1}{6} \left[ 1+ \nu \, \bar a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \right] \, ,$$ where $$\label{eq4.25}
\bar a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) = a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) + \frac{1}{3} \, a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) + \frac{1}{18} \, a'' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) \, .$$
Inserting the result (\[eq4.24\]) in Eq. (\[eq4.21\]) finally yields the EOB prediction for the frequency parameter of the LSO to first order in $\nu$, $$\label{eq4.26}
x_{\rm LSO} = \frac{1}{6} \, [1 + c_x^{\rm EOB} \, \nu + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)]$$ with $$\label{eq4.27n}
c_x^{\rm EOB} = c_x^E + \tilde a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) \, ,$$ where $$\label{eq4.27}
c_x^E \equiv \frac{2}{3} \left( 1-\sqrt{\frac{8}{9}} \right) \, ,$$ and $$\label{eq4.28}
\tilde a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) \equiv a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) + \frac{1}{6} \, a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) + \frac{1}{18} \, a'' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) \, .$$ \[Note that $\tilde a (1/6)$ differs from $\bar a (1/6)$, Eq. (\[eq4.25\]), in the coefficient of $a'$.\] The parameter $c_x^{\rm EOB}$ measures the fractional sensitivity of $x_{\rm LSO}$ to $\nu$, around $\nu = 0$. It is also related to the fractional $\nu$-sensitivity $c_{\Omega}^{\rm EOB}$ of the $M$ adimensionalized LSO orbital frequency $GM \, \Omega_{\rm LSO}$, $$\label{eq4.29}
GM \, \Omega_{LSO} \equiv (x_{\rm LSO})^{3/2} = \frac{1}{6^{3/2}} \, [1+c_{\Omega}^{\rm EOB} \, \nu + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)] \, ,$$ by $$\label{eq4.30}
c_{\Omega}^{\rm EOB} = \frac{3}{2} \, c_x^{\rm EOB} \, .$$ As we see from (\[eq4.27n\]), $c_x^{\rm EOB}$ is made of two separate contributions: (i) a numerical contribution which is independent of the function $a(u)$ (and which comes from the specific EOB “energy map” (\[eq3.1\]) relating the “effective” energy to the “real” energy); and (ii) a contribution which is a linear combination of the values at the unperturbed LSO of $a(u)$ and its first two derivatives.
Let us now compare the EOB prediction (\[eq4.27n\]) to the recent GSF result (\[eq2.20\]). We shall consider here the case where $a(u)$ is given by a simple power-law PN expansion $$\label{eq4.31}
a(u) = \sum_{n \geq 3} a_n \, u^n = a_3 \, u^3 + a_4 \, u^4 + a_5 \, u^5 + a_6 \, u^6 + a_7 \, u^7 + \ldots$$ which is the type currently assumed in the NR-EOB comparisons. \[Below, we shall argue that the coefficients $a_5 , a_6 , \ldots$ must include a logarithmic dependence on $u$.\] Inserting the expansion (\[eq4.31\]) in Eq. (\[eq4.28\]), we get (if we neglect any “logarithmic running” of $a_5 , a_6 , \ldots$) $$\label{eq4.32}
\tilde a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) = \sum_{n \geq 3} \tilde a_n = \tilde a_3 + \tilde a_4 + \tilde a_5 + \tilde a_6 + \tilde a_7 + \ldots$$ where $$\label{eq4.33}
\tilde a_n \equiv (2 \, n^2 - n +1) \, \frac{a_n}{6^n} \, .$$ The currently known coefficients $a_n$ in the PN expanqion of $A(u;\nu)$ [@Damour:2000we] (see Eq. (\[eq3.15a\])) are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4.34}
a_3 &= &2 \, , \nonumber \\
a_4 &= &\frac{94}{3} - \frac{41 \, \pi^2}{32} = 18.687903 \, . \end{aligned}$$
The contributions of the currently known terms in the PN expansion of $A$ are, numerically, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4.35}
c_x^E &= &0.038127 \, , \\
\label{eq4.36}
\tilde a_3 &= &\frac{4}{27} = 0.148148 \, , \\
\label{eq4.37}
\tilde a_4 &= &\frac{29}{1296} \, a_4 = 0.418171 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that they add up to $$\label{eq4.38}
c_x^E + \tilde a_3 + \tilde a_4 = 0.604446 \, .$$ Comparing this (partial) result to the GSF estimate (\[eq2.20\]), we see that the 3PN approximation to $a(u)$ explains about 72.5% of the GSF result. We expect that the missing 27.5% will be contributed by the higher PN contributions to $a(u)$, coming from $a_5 , a_6 , a_7 , \ldots$. More precisely, by considering the difference between (\[eq4.32\]) and (\[eq2.20\]), we should expect (when neglecting any logarithmic running) that $$\label{eq4.40}
\frac{23}{3888} \, a_5 + \frac{67}{46656} \, a_6 + \frac{23}{69984} \, a_7 + \ldots = 0.22975(40) \, .$$ Eq. (\[eq4.40\]) encapsulates the knowledge about higher-order (4PN, 5PN, 6PN,$\ldots$) contributions to the function $a(u) \equiv [\partial \, A (u;\nu)/\partial \, \nu]_{\nu = 0}$ contained in the recent GSF work [@Barack:2009ey]. We can roughly estimate the order of magnitude of the successive terms on the left-hand side (L.H.S.) of (\[eq4.40\]) by evaluating the (inverse) radius of convergence $\rho$ of the series (\[eq4.31\]) from the $a_4$-coefficient, say $\rho \simeq \rho_4 \equiv a_4^{1/4} = 2.079171$. As $\rho_4$ is quite close to $2$, it looks reasonable to expect that $a_n$ will roughly grow as $\varepsilon_n \, 2^n$ where $\varepsilon_n = \pm$ is a sign. This would mean that the higher-order contributions $\tilde a_n$ to $c_x^{\rm EOB}$ decrease as $\varepsilon_n (2 \, n^2 - n + 1) \, 3^{-n}$. For $n=6$, this yields $\pm \, 0.092$ which is about 11% of the total $x_x^{\rm ren}$, Eq. (\[eq2.20\]), while for $n=7$ this yields $\pm \, 0.042$, which is about 5% of $c_x^{\rm ren}$. Though the decrease with $n$ is rather slow, we can hope that the result (\[eq4.40\]) could give us, within a rough approximation, a constraint involving mainly $a_5$ and $a_6$. Numerically this constraint would then read $$\label{eq4.41}
a_5 + 0.242754 \, a_6 \simeq 38.84(7) \, ,$$ or equivalently $$\label{eq4.42}
4.11940 \, a_5 + a_6 \simeq 160.0(3) \, .$$ The most accurate current EOB models use an $A(u;\nu)$ potential which contains only two free parameters, denoted $a_5$ and $a_6$, and which has the following properties: (i) $A^{\rm EOB} (u,\nu,a_5,a_6)$ is a certain Padé approximant, namely the ratio of two polynomials in $u$ of the form, $A^{\rm EOB} (u;\nu) = (1+ n_1 \, u) / (1+d_1 \, u + d_2 \, u^2 + d_3 \, u^3 + d_4 \, u^4 + d_5 \, u^5)$, where the coefficients $n_1 , d_1 , \ldots , d_5$ are rational functions of $\nu$, and (ii) the expansion [*in powers of*]{} $\nu$ of $A(u;\nu)$ is of the form (\[eq3.16a\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4.43}
a^{\rm EOB} (u) &= &a_3 \, u^3 + a_4 \, u^4 + a_5 \, u^5 + a_6 \, u^6 \, , \\
\label{eq4.44}
a_2^{\rm EOB} (u) &= &b_7 \, u^7 + b_8 \, u^8 + b_9 \, u^9 + b_{10} \, u^{10} + b_{11} \, u^{11} \, , \end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $b_7 , \ldots , b_{11}$ entering $a_2^{\rm EOB} (u)$ are polynomials in $a_3 , a_4 , a_5$, $a_6$.
We see on Eq. (\[eq4.13\]) that the $\nu$-linearized $a(u)$ function associated to these EOB models is of the general form (\[eq4.31\]) written above, but with the restriction that $a(u)$ is a polynomial in $u$ which does not contain powers of $u$ beyond $u^6$. In addition, our notation has been chosen to be consistent in that the parameters $a_5$ and $a_6$ entering (\[eq4.43\]) can be identified with the corresponding parameters in (\[eq4.31\]). \[In both cases too $a_3$ and $a_4$ are defined by Eq. (\[eq4.34\]).\] Therefore, when considering the current EOB models, the GSF-LSO constraint (\[eq4.40\]) does reduce to the linear constraint on $a_5$ and $a_6$ written in (\[eq4.41\]) or (\[eq4.42\]). In addition, the work of [@Damour:2009kr; @Damour:2009ic] has shown that the constraint of having a good agreement between NR data and EOB predictions selects a long and thin (banana-shaped) region in the $a_5 , a_6$ plane. It was found by Damour and Nagar that this thin “good fit” region is, to a very good approximation, located around a line in the $a_5 , a_6$ plane along which $A'_{\rm EOB} \left(u_0 ; \frac{1}{4} ; a_5 , a_6\right)$ is constant (and equal, say, to its value at $(a_5 , a_6) = (-4 , 24)$ which is one of the good-fit points, lying near the leftmost part of the good-fit region). Here the prime denotes as above a $u$ derivative; the first argument $u_0 = (0.1)^{2/3} = 0.215443$ is a value of the $u$ parameter which approximately corresponds to the EOB-predicted (adiabatic) LSO frequency for the equal-mass case namely $M \, \Omega^{\rm LSO} (\nu = 1/4) \simeq 0.1$; while the second argument in $A'_{\rm EOB}$ is the value of $\nu$ corresponding to the equal-mass case $(\nu = 1/4)$, which is the case where very accurate NR data [@Boyle:2007ft] were used to “tune” the considered EOB model. By numerically constructing the analytically defined central good-fit line just defined, one finds that it intersects the GSF-LSO straight line (\[eq4.41\]) into a unique point located at $$\label{eq4.45}
a_5^{\cap} \simeq -22.3 \, , \qquad a_6^{\cap} \simeq +252 \, .$$
These “intersection” ($\cap$) values for the parameters $(a_5 , a_6)$ happen to lie roughly in the middle of the banana-shaped good-fit region found in [@Damour:2009kr; @Damour:2009ic] (indeed, the latter region extends from $(a_5 , a_6) = (0 , -20)$ to $(a_5 , a_6) = (-36 ,$ $+520)$). This suggests that the information coming from the $\nu \ll 1$ GSF-LSO study is able to break the degeneracy among $a_5$ and $a_6$ left after fitting EOB to equal-mass $\left( \nu = \frac{1}{4} \right)$ NR data.
At this stage, the result (\[eq4.45\]) has only an indicative value. It is a hint that the “real” values of the coefficients of the (4PN and 5PN) $\nu \, u^5$ and $\nu \, u^6$ contributions to the EOB potential $A(u;\nu)$ lie near the “intersection” values (\[eq4.45\]). To confirm (or refute) this hint one will need several types of further studies. First, it will be important to firm up the GSF result (\[eq2.20\]). \[In the next Section, we shall indicate ways of doing so.\] Second, one will need to explore in more detail the comparison between comparable-mass NR waveforms and EOB predictions to see: (i) whether the vicinity of the values (\[eq4.45\]) does indeed leads to a better agreement; (ii) to what extent the possible “logarithmic running” of $a_5$ and $a_6$ affects the estimates (\[eq4.45\]) (see below); (iii) whether the influence of higher-PN coefficients $a_7 , \ldots$ is indeed small; and (iv) whether the current Padé-based definition of the EOB potential $A(u;\nu)$ is a sufficiently accurate representation of the $A$ potential for all values of $\nu$ in the interval $0 \leq \nu \leq \frac{1}{4}$. Indeed, for the moment, the most accurate tests of the Padé-constructed $A$ potential have been obtained for the equal-mass case, $\nu = 1/4$, for which the NR data are the most accurate [@Boyle:2007ft]. Though the NR/EOB comparisons for several unequal-mass cases have also shown a good agreement, the numerical accuracy of these tests is smaller than the one reached in the equal-mass case. For all those reasons, it does not make sense, at this stage, to indicate “error bars” around the values (\[eq4.45\]).
Small-eccentricity orbits in the EOB formalism
==============================================
In the previous Section we considered [*exactly circular*]{} orbits in the EOB formalism and showed that the GSF determination of the $\nu$-derivative (at the test-mass limit $\nu = 0$) of the LSO orbital frequency was giving us access to a combination of radial derivatives (evaluated at the Schwarzschild LSO $u_{\rm LSO}^{\rm Schw} = GM/r_{\rm LSO}^{\rm Schw} = 1/6$) of the $\nu$-derivative $a(u) = [\partial \, A (u;\nu) / \partial \, \nu]_{\nu = 0}$ of the basic EOB radial function $A(u;\nu) \equiv -g_{00}^{\rm eff}$. Here, we shall consider (within the EOB formalism) [*slightly non circular*]{} orbits and show that a comparison of their gauge-invariant characteristics to GSF data can give us access to much more detailed information about the EOB formalism: in principle, one should be able to measure a certain gauge-invariant [*function*]{} $\tilde\rho (x)$, where $\tilde\rho (x)$ is a certain ($x$-dependent) linear combination of the $\nu$-derivatives of the [*two*]{} basic EOB radial functions, $A(u;\nu) = -g_{00}^{\rm eff}$ and $\bar B (u;\nu) = +g_{rr}^{\rm eff}$, entering the effective metric (\[eq3.2\]).
As we shall focus, in this Section, on the “small-eccentricity limit” where, in the effective Hamiltonian (\[eq3.5\]), the radial kinetic energy $p_r^2 / \bar B (r)$ (which is proportional to the square of the eccentricity $e$) is much smaller than the “azimuthal” kinetic energy $J^2/r^2$, we are allowed to neglect the higher-order contribution $Q(r,p_r)$ in (\[eq3.5\]), because it is (at least) [*quartic*]{} in $p_r$, and therefore of higher-order $({\mathcal O} (e^4))$ in the eccentricity. \[This result holds whatever be one’s definition of the eccentricity $e$ in this relativistic context.\] Neglecting $Q$ in the original EOB Hamilton-Jacobi equation (\[eq3.3\]) leads to the usual Hamilton-Jacobi equation $(\mu^2 + g_{\rm eff}^{\mu\nu} \, p_{\mu} \, p_{\nu} = 0)$ describing geodesic motion in the EOB effective metric (\[eq3.2\]). It is then convenient to describe this geodesic motion within a Lagrangian formalism, rather than the usual EOB Hamiltonian one. Using (Stueckelberg’s) proper time formalism, we can then use as starting point the quadratic action $$\label{eq5.1}
S = \int d\tau_{\rm eff} \, {\mathcal L} \left( x^{\mu} (\tau_{\rm eff}) , \frac{dx^{\mu} (\tau_{\rm eff})}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \right)$$ where $$\label{eq5.2}
{\mathcal L} = \frac{1}{2} \, g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm eff} (x^{\lambda}) \, \frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \, \frac{dx^{\nu}}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} - \frac{1}{2} \, \mu^2 \, .$$ Indeed, the critical points of the action (\[eq5.1\]), (\[eq5.2\]) are geodesics of $g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm eff}$. The value of the Lagrangian ${\mathcal L}$ is a constant of motion which can be (after variation) constrained to have the value $-\mu^2$, corresponding to $$\label{eq5.3}
\dot x^2 \equiv g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm eff} \, \frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \, \frac{dx^{\nu}}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} = - \mu^2 \, .$$
The constraint (\[eq5.3\]) corresponds to using as (affine) parameter $\tau_{\rm eff}$ along the geodesic the effective proper time divided by the (reduced) mass $\mu$, $$\label{eq5.4}
d\tau_{\rm eff} = \frac{ds_{\rm eff}}{\mu} \, ,$$ so that the critical value of the action (\[eq5.1\]) coincides with the usual “square-root” one $- \int \mu \, ds_{\rm eff}$. \[For simplicity, we by-passed here the justification of the quadratic action (\[eq5.2\]) based on the (Polyakov-like) use of an independent “einbein” degree of freedom along the worldline.\]
Inserting the effective EOB metric (\[eq3.2\]), one finds that the explicit form of the Lagrangian (\[eq5.2\]) reads $$\label{eq5.5}
{\mathcal L} = - \frac{1}{2} \, A(r) \left( \frac{dt}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2} \, \bar B (r) \left( \frac{dr}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2} \, r^2 \left( \frac{d\varphi}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \right)^2 - \frac{1}{2} \, \mu^2 \, .$$ The Lagrangian (\[eq5.5\]) admits the following conserved quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.6}
{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} &= &- \frac{\partial \, {\mathcal L}}{\partial (dt / d\tau_{\rm eff})} = A(r) \, \frac{dt}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \, , \\
\label{eq5.7}
J &= &\frac{\partial \, {\mathcal L}}{\partial (d\varphi / d\tau_{\rm eff})} = r^2 \, \frac{d\varphi}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \, , \\
\label{eq5.8}
{\mathcal L} &= &-\mu^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Inserting (\[eq5.6\]) and (\[eq5.7\]) into (\[eq5.8\]) then leads to the following equation ruling the radial motion $$\label{eq5.9}
{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}^2 = A(r) \, \bar B (r) \left( \frac{dr}{d\tau_{\rm eff}} \right)^2 + A(r) \left( \mu^2 + \frac{J^2}{r^2} \right) \, .$$
It is easily checked that the radial dynamics defined by (\[eq5.9\]) is equivalent to the small-eccentricity limit of the (squared) radial effective Hamiltonian (\[eq3.6\]). \[The conserved effective angular momentum $J$ having the same meaning in (\[eq3.6\]) and (\[eq5.9\]), and the conserved effective energy ${\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}$ being numerically equal to the effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$.\] Passing to the dimensionless rescaled variables (\[eq3.8\]), together with a corresponding (dimensionless) rescaled effective proper time $\hat\tau$, such that $$\label{eq5.10}
\tau_{\rm eff} = \frac{s_{\rm eff}}{\mu} = \frac{GM}{\mu} \, \hat\tau \, ,$$ we find $$\label{eq5.11}
\hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}^2 = A(\hat r) \, \bar B (\hat r) \left( \frac{d\hat r}{d\hat\tau} \right)^2 + A(\hat r) \left( 1 + \frac{j^2}{\hat r^2} \right) \, .$$ The rewriting of (\[eq5.11\]) in terms of the useful EOB radial variable $u \equiv 1/\hat r \equiv GM/r$, yields the form $$\label{eq5.12}
\hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}^2 = \frac{A(u) \, \bar B(u)}{u^4} \left( \frac{du}{d\hat\tau} \right)^2 + A(u) (1+j^2 \, u^2) \, .$$ The result (\[eq5.12\]) exhibits how the circular-orbit effective potential $W_j (u)$, Eq. (\[eq4.2\]), which depends only on the EOB potential $A(u)$, gets modified by a radial-energy term which involves the [*product*]{} of the two functions $A(u)$ and $\bar B (u)$, i.e. the combination $D(u)$ introduced in Eq. (\[eq3.12\]).
Small-eccentricity orbits are solutions $u = u(\hat\tau)$ of the constraint (\[eq5.12\]) of the form $$\label{eq5.13}
u(\hat\tau) = u_0 + \varepsilon \, u_1 (\hat \tau) + {\mathcal O} (\varepsilon^2) \, ,$$ where $u_0$ is independent of $\hat\tau$, and where $\varepsilon$ is a small parameter measuring the eccentricity of the orbit. Inserting (\[eq5.13\]) into (\[eq5.12\]), one finds, at order $\varepsilon^0$, that $u_0$ must be an [*extremum*]{} of $W_j (u) \equiv A(u) (1+j^2 \, u^2) \equiv A(u) + j^2 \, B(u)$, i.e. that $u_0$ is related to $j$ by $$\label{eq5.14}
j^2 = - \frac{A' (u_0)}{B' (u_0)} \, .$$ We thereby recover that $u(\hat\tau) = u_0$ corresponds to a circular orbit (see Eqs. (\[eq4.4\]), (\[eq4.5\]) above).
Then at order $\varepsilon^2$ (and modulo ${\mathcal O} (\varepsilon^3)$ corrections), one finds that $$\label{eq5.15}
\frac{A(u_0) \, \bar B (u_0)}{u_0^4} \left( \frac{du_1}{d\hat\tau} \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2} \, W''_j (u_0) \, u_1^2 = {\rm const.} + {\mathcal O} (\varepsilon) \, ,$$ where $W''_j \equiv \partial^2 \, W_j (u) / \partial \, u^2$ (keeping $j$ fixed). The constraint (\[eq5.15\]) shows that $u_1 (\hat\tau)$ undergoes harmonic motion, i.e. $u_1 (\hat\tau) = \alpha \cos (\hat\omega_r \, \hat\tau + \varphi_0)$. Here $\hat\omega_r$ denotes the frequency (measured in $\hat\tau$ time) of the small [*radial oscillations*]{} described by $u = GM/r = u_0 + \varepsilon \, u_1 (\hat\tau) + {\mathcal O} (\varepsilon^2)$. One sees on (\[eq5.15\]) that $\hat\omega_r^2$ is given by $$\label{eq5.16}
\hat\omega_r^2 (u_0) = \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{u_0^4}{D(u_0)} \, W''_j (u_0) \, ,$$ where we used the notation (\[eq3.12\]). More precisely, as long as $u_0$ is a [*minimum*]{} of the effective potential $W_j (u)$, i.e. as long as $W''_j (u_0) > 0$, one finds that $\hat\omega_r^2$ is positive, which indeed corresponds to (stable) harmonic radial oscillations $u_1 (\hat\tau) \propto \cos (\hat\omega_r \, \hat\tau + \varphi_0)$. However, when $u_0$ is a [*maximum*]{} of $W_j (u)$ ($W''_j (u_0) < 0$ so that $\hat\omega_r^2 < 0$) the perturbations $\delta u = u_1 (\hat\tau)$ of the circular orbit $u=u_0$ are [*unstable*]{}, and grow exponentially: $u_1 (\hat\tau) = \alpha \exp (\vert \hat\omega_r \vert \, \hat\tau) + \beta \exp (-\vert \hat\omega_r \vert \, \hat\tau)$, where $\vert \hat\omega_r \vert = \sqrt{-\hat\omega_r^2}$. The dividing line is the LSO where $W''_j (u_0) = 0$, i.e. $\hat\omega_r^2 (u_0) = 0$, in agreement with the criterion (\[eq4.13\]) used above.
We cannot directly relate the (EOB) $\hat\tau$-time (squared) radial frequency $\hat\omega_r^2$ to the radial frequency $\omega_r^2$ studied in the recent GSF study [@Barack:2009ey] because the latter quantity refers to a different time variable $\tau$, namely the proper time of the Schwarzschild background (of mass $m_2$) used in GSF work. In order to transform the result (\[eq5.16\]) into a physical, gauge-invariant result, the simplest is to consider the [*dimensionless*]{} ratio of two frequencies: the radial frequency $\hat\omega_r$, and the corresponding $\hat\tau$-time azimuthal (or circular) frequency, say $\hat{\hat\Omega} = d\varphi / d\hat\tau$. \[We use a double hat on $\Omega$ to distinguish it from the dimensionless [*coordinate-time*]{} azimuthal frequency $\hat\Omega^{\rm circ}$ defined in Eq. (\[eq4.9\]).\] Using the angular momentum conservation law (\[eq5.7\]), we see that, along the circular orbit $u=u_0$, the $\hat\tau$-time azimuthal frequency is given by $$\label{eq5.17}
\hat{\hat\Omega} (u_0) = \frac{j}{\hat r_0^2} = j \, u_0^2 \, .$$
Finally, dividing (\[eq5.16\]) by the square of (\[eq5.17\]) leads to $$\label{eq5.18}
\frac{\hat\omega_r^2 (u_0)}{\hat{\hat\Omega}^2 (u_0)} = \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{1}{D(u_0)} \left( \frac{A'' (u_0)}{j^2 (u_0)} + B'' (u_0) \right) \, ,$$ where $j^2 (u_0)$ is given by Eq. (\[eq5.14\]). Inserting the latter equation yields the explicit form $$\label{eq5.19}
\left( \frac{\hat\omega_r}{\hat{\hat\Omega}} \right)^2 (u_0) = \frac{\bar D (u_0)}{2} \, \frac{\Delta (u_0)}{A'(u_0)} \, ,$$ where $\Delta (u)$ is the determinant (\[eq4.13\]) introduced above, and where $\bar D (u)$ denotes, as in (\[eq3.13\]), the [*inverse*]{} of $D(u)$.
The quantity on the L.H.S. of (\[eq5.19\]) is gauge-invariant, and independent of the time parametrization. In particular, it is also equal to the square of the ratio of the coordinate-time radial frequency, say $\omega_r$, to the coordinate-time azimuthal frequency $\Omega = d\varphi / dt$. The R.H.S. is expressed in terms of the EOB (inverse) radial coordinate $u_0 = GM/r_0$ (along circular orbits). However, Eq. (\[eq4.10\]) has related $u_0$ to the dimensionless, gauge-invariant frequency parameter $\hat\Omega_{\rm circ} (u_0) \equiv GM \, \Omega^{\rm circ} (u_0) \equiv GM \, d\varphi / dt$. Therefore, the combination of (\[eq4.10\]) and (\[eq5.19\]) relates the two gauge-invariant observables $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2$ and $GM \, \Omega$.
The EOB predictions (\[eq4.10\]) and (\[eq5.19\]) are valid for an arbitrary mass ratio $\nu$. Let us now focus on the limit $\nu \ll 1$, in which GSF studies can, in principle[^8], compute the L.H.S. of (\[eq5.19\]) as a function of $\hat\Omega = GM \, \Omega$.
Inserting in (\[eq5.19\]) the GSF expansions (\[eq3.16a\]), (\[eq3.16b\]) one finds (suppressing for simplicity the hats, as $\hat\omega_r / \hat{\hat\Omega} \equiv \omega_r / \Omega$: the ratio of coordinate-time frequencies) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.20}
\left( \frac{\omega_r}{\Omega} \right)^2 &= &1-6u + \nu \left[(1-6u) \, \bar d (u) + a(u) + 2u \, a'(u) + \frac{1}{2} \, u(1-2u) \, a'' (u) \right] \nonumber \\
&+ &{\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we henceforth also suppress the index $0$ on $u_0$. By further inserting in (\[eq5.20\]) the GSF expansion of $u$ in terms of $x$, Eq. (\[eq4.22\]), we get $$\label{eq5.21}
\left( \frac{\omega_r}{\Omega} \right)^2 = 1-6x+\nu \, \rho(x)+{\mathcal O}(\nu^2) \, ,$$ where the function $\rho (x)$ is made of three pieces: $$\label{eq5.22}
\rho (x) \equiv \rho_E (x) + \rho_a (x) + \rho_d (x) \, .$$ The first piece, $\rho_E (x)$, comes from the Energy map (\[eq3.1\]) relating the EOB effective energy ${\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} = H_{\rm eff}$ to the EOB real energy ${\mathcal E}_{\rm real} = H_{\rm EOB}$. It is given by $$\label{eq5.23}
\rho_E (x) = 4x \left( 1-\frac{1-2x}{\sqrt{1-3x}} \right) \, .$$ The second piece, $\rho_a (x)$, is related to the function $a(u)$. It reads $$\label{eq5.24}
\rho_a (x) = a(x) + x \, a' (x) + \frac{1}{2} \, x (1-2x) \, a'' (x) \, .$$ Finally, the third piece, $\rho_d (x)$, is related to the function $\bar d (u)$, and reads $$\label{eq5.25}
\rho_d (x) = (1-6x) \, \bar d (x) \, .$$
Eqs. (\[eq5.21\])–(\[eq5.25\]) represent one of the main new results of the present work. They show that GSF studies can give us access to a function of $x \equiv G(m_1 + m_2) \, \Omega$ which, when interpreted within the EOB formalism, is an $x$-dependent combination of $a(x)$, $a'(x)$, $a''(x)$ and $\bar d (x)$, where $a(x)$ and $\bar d (x)$ are the $\nu$-derivatives of the two basic functions $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$ parametrizing the EOB effective metric. In principle, GSF calculations can numerically compute the function $\rho (x)$ on the full interval $0 < x < 1/3$ corresponding to $3 \, GM < r_0 < +\infty$.
Note that the contribution $\rho_d (x)$ contains a factor $1-6x$ which vanishes at the (unperturbed) LSO. This implies that the value of the ($\nu$-perturbed) LSO frequency obtained by requiring the vanishing of $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2$ is equivalent to that obtained by discarding the $\rho_d (x)$ contribution to $\rho (x)$. More precisely, the solution of $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2 = 0$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.26}
x_{\rm LSO} &= &\frac{1}{6} \left[ 1+\nu \, \rho ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \right] \nonumber \\
&= &\frac{1}{6} \left[ 1+\nu \left( \rho_E ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) + \rho_a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{6}$} ) \right) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \right] \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which is easily seen to coincide with our previous result (\[eq4.26\])–(\[eq4.28\]).
On the other hand, though the [*exact*]{} ($\nu$-linear) result (\[eq5.21\]) is equivalent to the [*exact*]{} ($\nu$-linear) result (\[eq4.26\])–(\[eq4.28\]) for determining the [*exact*]{} ($\nu$-linear) $x_{\rm LSO}$, the [*PN expansion*]{} of (\[eq5.21\]) leads to a different estimate of the [*PN expansion*]{} of $x_{\rm LSO}$ than the [*PN expansion*]{} of (\[eq4.26\]). Indeed, let us consider the PN expansion (i.e. the expansion in powers of $x$) of the exact function $\rho (x)$: $$\label{eq5.27}
\rho^{\rm PN} (x) = \rho_E^{\rm PN} (x) + \rho_a^{\rm PN} (x) + \rho_d^{\rm PN} (x) \, ,$$ where $$\label{eq5.28}
\rho_E^{\rm PN} (x) = 2 \, x^2 - \frac{3}{2} \, x^3 - \frac{27}{4} \, x^4 - \frac{675}{32} \, x^5 - \frac{3969}{64} \, x^6 + {\mathcal O} (x^7) \, ,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.29}
\rho_a^{\rm PN} (x) &= &3 \, a_3 \, x^2 + (6 \, a_4 - 2 \, a_3) \, x^3 + (10 \, a_5 - 7 \, a_4) \, x^4 \nonumber \\
&+ &(15 \, a_6 - 14 \, a_5) \, x^5 +(21 \, a_7 - 23 \, a_6) \, x^6 + {\mathcal O} (x^7) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.30}
\rho_d^{\rm PN} (x) &= &\bar d_2 \, x^2 + (\bar d_3 - 6 \, \bar d_2) \, x^3 + (\bar d_4 - 6 \, \bar d_3) \, x^4 \nonumber \\
&+ &(\bar d_5 - 6 \, \bar d_4) \, x^5 + (\bar d_6 - 6 \, \bar d_5) \, x^6 + {\mathcal O} (x^7) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Here the coefficients $a_n$ ($n \geq 3$) are the expansion coefficients of the PN expansion (\[eq4.31\]) of the function $a(u)$. Similarly the coefficients $\bar d_n$ ($n \geq 2$) are the expansion coefficients of the PN expansion of the function $\bar d (u)$, i.e. $$\label{eq5.31}
\bar d (u) = \sum_{n \geq 2} \bar d_n \, u^n \, .$$ As above, we are here assuming, for simplicity, that the expansion coefficients $a_n$ and $\bar d_n$ are pure numbers (i.e. we neglect any possible logarithmic running starting at the 4PN level: $a_5 , \bar d_4$). Combining Eqs. (\[eq5.28\])–(\[eq5.30\]) one finds for the PN expansion coefficients of $\rho (x)$, i.e. $$\label{eq5.32}
\rho^{\rm PN} (x) = \rho_2 \, x^2 + \rho_3 \, x^3 + \rho_4 \, x^4 + \rho_5 \, x^5 + \rho_6 \, x^6 + \ldots$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.33a}
\rho_2 &= &2+3 \, a_3 + \bar d_2 \, , \\
\label{eq5.33b}
\rho_3 &= &-\frac{3}{2} - 2 \, a_3 + 6 \, a_4 - 6 \, \bar d_2 + \bar d_3 \, , \\
\label{eq5.33c}
\rho_4 &= &-\frac{27}{4} - 7 \, a_4 + 10 \, a_5 - 6 \, \bar d_3 + \bar d_4 \, , \\
\label{eq5.33d}
\rho_5 &= &-\frac{675}{32} - 14 \, a_5 + 15 \, a_6 - 6 \, \bar d_4 + \bar d_5 \, , \\
\label{eq5.33e}
\rho_6 &= &-\frac{3969}{64} - 23 \, a_6 + 21 \, a_7 - 6 \, \bar d_5 + \bar d_6 \, .\end{aligned}$$
The 3PN-level calculation of the dynamics of two-body systems [@Damour:2001bu] has given us access to the values of $a_3$ and $a_4$ (see (\[eq4.34\])), as well as of $\bar d_2$ and $\bar d_3$ [@Damour:2000we], namely $$\label{eq5.34}
\bar d_2 = 6 \, , \qquad \bar d_3 = 52 \, .$$
Note that [@Damour:2000we] has also given us access to the beginning of the PN expansions of the $\nu$-quadratic (2GSF) (and even $\nu$-cubic, 3GSF, for $A(u;\nu)$) terms in the GSF expansions (\[eq3.16a\]), (\[eq3.16b\]) of $A(u;\nu)$ and $\bar D (u;\nu)$. Namely $a_2^{3{\rm PN}} (u) = a_3^{3{\rm PN}} (u) = 0$, and $\bar d_2^{3{\rm PN}} (u) = -6 \, u^3$ (see Eqs. (\[eq3.15a\]), (\[eq3.15b\])). \[We recall that the 3PN expansion of $A(u)$ goes through the order $u^4$, while that of $\bar D(u)$ stops at order $u^3$.\]
Using the knowledge of $a_3$, $a_4$ (Eqs. (\[eq4.34\])) and $\bar d_2 , \bar d_3$ (Eqs. (\[eq5.34\])) we can compute the first two terms in the PN expansion (\[eq5.32\]) of $\rho (x)$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.35}
\rho_2 &= &14 \, , \nonumber \\
\rho_3 &= &\frac{397}{2} - \frac{123}{16} \, \pi^2 = 122.627416 \, .\end{aligned}$$ We have checked that the corresponding 1GSF 3PN-accurate expansion of the ratio $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2$, (\[eq5.21\]), agrees with the (full GSF, 3PN-accurate) results derived by Damour, Jaranowski and Schäfer [@Damour:1999cr]. \[Note that one must use the values $\omega_{\rm kinetic} = 41/24$ [@Damour:2000kk; @Blanchet:2000nv] and $\omega_s = 0$ [@Damour:2001bu] in the results of [@Damour:1999cr].\] Indeed these authors determined the PN expansions of both $$\omega_r \equiv \omega_{\rm radial} \equiv 2\pi / P$$ and $$\Omega \equiv \omega_{\rm circ} \equiv \omega_{\rm radial} + \omega_{\rm periastron} = 2\pi \, \frac{1+k}{P} \, .$$ The ratio $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2$ corresponds, in their notation, to $(1+k)^{-2}$. For circular orbits, Ref. [@Damour:1999cr] computed the expansion in powers of $1/j^2$ of $k$ (and $(1+k)^{-4}$), see their Eqs (5.25)–(5.28). Inserting in these expansions their result (5.8) for the $x$ expansion of $j_{\rm circ}$ one finds the $\nu$-exact, 3PN-accurate expansion of $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2$ in powers of $x$. Its $\nu$-linear piece is found to agree with our result (\[eq5.35\]) above.
If one were to use the 3PN expansion of $\rho (x)$ to estimate the LSO frequency, i.e. from the [*first*]{} equation (\[eq5.26\]) (keeping the $d$-contribution), one would find $$\label{eq5.36}
x_{\rm LSO} [\rho^{3{\rm PN}}] = \frac{1}{6} \, [1+c_x [\rho^{3{\rm PN}}] \, \nu + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)]$$ with $$\label{eq5.37}
c_x [\rho^{3{\rm PN}}] = \frac{\rho_2}{6^2} + \frac{\rho_3}{6^3} = 0.956608 \, .$$ If we compare this estimate to the previous 3PN-based estimate (\[eq4.38\]) (based on the PN expansion of the exact, $a(u)$-dependent, result (\[eq4.26\])), as well as to the recent GSF estimate (\[eq2.20\]), we see that (\[eq5.37\]) is now [*larger*]{} (by $14.67\%$) than the GSF estimate, and [*larger*]{} (by $58.26\%$) than the previous $a^{3{\rm PN}}$ estimate (\[eq4.38\]). This shows the unreliability of using (non resummed) PN expansions for estimating physical quantities in the strong-field regime (here the LSO, which is a non-perturbative phenomenon). Although the $\rho^{3{\rm PN}}$ estimate (\[eq5.37\]) happens to be closer to the GSF result (\[eq2.20\]) than the $a^{3{\rm PN}}$ one (\[eq4.38\]), we think that this is purely accidental. Indeed, the results of Section 4 have shown that $c_x^{\rm EOB}$ only depends on the $a(u)$ function, and that the present $27.5\%$ disagreement (on the low side) between $c_x [a^{3{\rm PN}}]$ and $c_x^{\rm GSF}$ is most probably due to neglecting the higher PN contributions to the $a$ function, see Eq. (\[eq4.40\]). By contrast, when comparing the various terms contribution to $c_x [\rho^{3{\rm PN}}]$, (\[eq5.37\]), one finds that it contains a rather large contribution connected with the large value of $\bar d_3$ which “pollutes” $\rho_3$, see Eq. (\[eq5.33b\]). Indeed, note that the individual $d$-contributions to $c_x[\rho^{3{\rm PN}}]$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.38}
\rho_{d2} \, \frac{1}{6^2} &= &\frac{\bar d_2}{6^2} \, , \nonumber \\
\rho_{d3} \, \frac{1}{6^3} &= &-\frac{\bar d_2}{6^2} + \frac{\bar d_3}{6^3} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that their sum yields $$\label{eq5.39}
\rho_{d2} \, \frac{1}{6^2} + \rho_{d3} \, \frac{1}{6^3} = \frac{\bar d_3}{6^3} = \frac{52}{6^3} = 0.24074074 \, .$$
The crucial point is that while $\bar d_2$ cancells (as it should) between the 2PN and 3PN contributions to $c_x [\rho^{3{\rm PN}}]$, $\bar d_3 = +52$ does not cancell, and thereby artificially overestimates $c_x$. One sees on Eq. (\[eq5.33c\]) that the 4PN contribution to $c_x [\rho^{4{\rm PN}}]$ will introduce another contribution proportional to $\bar d_3$ which precisely cancells the contribution (\[eq5.39\]). Similarly one sees on Eqs. (\[eq5.33a\])–(\[eq5.33e\]) that the contribution $\propto \bar d_4$ that appears at the 4PN level, Eq. (\[eq5.33c\]), is cancelled by a contribution $\propto -6 \, \bar d_4$ entering the 5PN term (\[eq5.33d\]). In other words, while the exact expression (\[eq5.25\]) of $\rho_d (x)$ shows that $\bar d(x)$ does not influence the LSO frequency, the PN expansion (\[eq5.30\]) of $\rho_d (x)$ artificially introduces a contribution of $\bar d(x)$ at any finite PN order.
A more general way of seeing the unreliability of using (non resummed) PN expansions to determine the LSO consists in considering, given any function of $x$ (which does not vanish at the LSO), say $f(x;\nu)$, the quantity $$\label{eq5.40}
F(x;\nu) \equiv f(x;\nu) \left( \frac{\omega_r}{\Omega} \right)^2 \, .$$ The [*exact*]{} solution of the constraint $F(x) = 0$ is always the exact LSO, independently of the multiplicative factor $f(x)$. However, if one considers the PN expansion of $F(x)$ and solves some PN-truncated equation, say $F^{n{\rm PN}} (x) = 0$, its solution will depend on the coefficients entering the PN expansion of $f(x)$.
Going back to the issue of the knowledge that can be extracted from GSF calculations of the function $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2 (x)$, i.e. the knowledge of the function $\rho (x)$, see Eq. (\[eq5.21\]), we note that it would be very interesting to study this function not only near the LSO $\left( x \sim \frac{1}{6} \right)$, but also for small values of $x$ (i.e. large radii). In this limit, one should be able to: (i) check the validity of the first two terms, $\rho_2 \, x^2 + \rho_3 \ x^3$ in the PN expansion of $\rho (x)$, and (ii) reliably extract some of the higher-order terms in the PN expansion (\[eq5.32\]) (and explore their logarithmic running). Note in this respect that, in view of Eqs. (\[eq5.33a\])–(\[eq5.33e\]), measuring higher and higher coefficients $\rho_n$ will give us access to some combinations of the higher PN coefficients of $a(x)$ and $\bar d (x)$. More precisely, we will have the structure $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5.41}
\rho_4 &\to &10 \, a_5 + \bar d_4 \, , \nonumber \\
\rho_5 &\to &-14 \, a_5 + 15 \, a_6 - 6 \, \bar d_4 + \bar d_5 \, , \nonumber \\
\rho_6 &\to &-23 \, a_6 + 21 \, a_7 - 6 \, \bar d_5 + \bar d_6 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the R.H.S.’s indicate the knowledge acquired from knowing the L.H.S.’s. Though it is somewhat frustrating to see the (less interesting) higher-order $\bar d_n$ coefficients entering (and “polluting”) the R.H.S.’s we might still be able to reach some plausible results by combining (\[eq5.41\]) with our previous result (\[eq4.40\]) which only contained the (more interesting) $a_n$ coefficients. In particular, as it is easily checked that the main contribution to the 3PN coefficient $\rho_3$, Eq. (\[eq5.35\]), comes from $a_4$, it is plausible (especially in view of its rather large numerical coefficient) that the contribution $10 \, a_5$ dominates in the quantity $10 \, a_5 + \bar d_4$ which can be deduced from a measurement of $\rho_4$. Then a GSF measurement of $\rho_4$ would give us an approximate knowledge of $a_5$. Inserting this knowledge in the approximate equation (\[eq4.42\]) above, we would then be able to approximately determine $a_6$ too. It will then be interesting to see whether the values of $a_5$ and $a_6$ so determined are close to our EOB-NR-based estimate (\[eq4.45\]). If this is the case one might continue the approximation and try to deduce, e.g., an approximate estimate of $a_7$. In addition, GSF data on the small $x$ behaviour of $\rho (x)$ will allow one to explore the presence of logarithmic terms starting at the 4PN level (see Section 7 below where one similarly discusses how GSF data on Detweiler’s redshift function $u^t (x)$ can explore the presence of logarithmic terms in the latter function).
Zero-binding zoom-whirl motion and other ways of extracting EOB information from GSF computations
=================================================================================================
There are several other ways in which GSF computations might be used to extract information about the functions $A(u)$, $\bar D (u)$, $Q(u,p_r)$ entering the EOB formalism. Let us here sketch a few possibilities.
First, one might go beyond the small-eccentricity limit and compare 1GSF computations of eccentric orbits to EOB predictions. However, to do so one should include the effect of the ${\mathcal O} (p_r^4)$ contribution $Q(u,p_r)$. At present one only knows the 3PN-level expression (\[eq3.11\]) of $Q(u,p_r) \sim u^2 \, p_r^4$. At higher orders it will probably involve both higher powers of $u$ and higher powers of $p_r$, say $$\label{eq6.1}
Q(u,p_r) = \nu [q(u) \, p_r^4 + \bar q (u) \, p_r^6] + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) + {\mathcal O} (p_r^8) \, ,$$ with $q(u) = q_2 \, u^2 + q_3 \, u^3 + \ldots$. A detailed EOB/GSF comparison for smallish-eccentricity orbits might allow one to probe the function $q(u)$, together with $a(u)$ and $\bar d (u)$.
Second, a more ambitious project might be to try to extract the total conserved (EOB) energy and angular momentum, ${\mathcal E}$ and $J$ from GSF computations. In principle, one GSF way of determining ${\mathcal E}$ and ${\mathcal J}$ to the required accuracy would be to go to the [*second*]{} GSF approximation (2GSF), i.e. to compute the metric perturbation through order $\nu^2$, and then to compute, from the metric, the ADM surface integrals giving the [*total*]{} energy and angular momentum of the system. This will give ${\mathcal E} - M = e_1 \, \nu + e_2 \, \nu^2 + {\mathcal O} (\nu^3)$ and ${\mathcal J} = j_1 \, \nu + j_2 \, \nu^2 + {\mathcal O} (\nu^3)$, which is the precision needed to explore the effects linked to $\nu \, a(u)$, $\nu \, \bar d (u), \ldots$ However, it is not clear when the GSF community will be in position to compute the 2GSF approximation. Let us therefore sketch what can be done now with the 1GSF approximation. The knowledge of the 1GSF conservative self-force allows one, in principle, to determine some [*conserved*]{} energy-like and angular-momentum-like quantities along perturbed orbits. The clearest way to do so is to consider [*unbound*]{} orbits, that come from some “in state” with infinite separation between $m_1$ and $m_2$. The “in state” then determines, in principle, the numerical value of ${\mathcal E}$ and $J$. One must, however, be careful to include the effect of the recoil of the large mass $m_2$. In an Hamiltonian formalism (such as the ADM or the EOB one), the total conserved angular momentum is given by $$\label{eq6.2}
{\bm J} = {\bm x}_1 \times {\bm p}_1 + {\bm x}_2 \times {\bm p}_2 \, ,$$ while the total conserved energy has the form $$\label{eq6.3}
{\mathcal E} = H = E_1^0 + E_2^0 + H_{\rm int} \, ,$$ where $E_a^0 \equiv (m_a^2 + {\bm p}_a^2)^{1/2}$, $a = 1,2$, denotes the [*free*]{} kinetic mass-energy, and where the [*interaction*]{} term $H_{\rm int}$ tends to zero in the infinite separation limit $r \to \infty$. In addition, the conditions to be in the center of mass frame have the form $$\label{eq6.4}
{\bm p}_1 + {\bm p}_2 = 0 \, ,$$ $$\label{eq6.5}
E_1^0 \, {\bm x}_1 + E_2^0 \, {\bm x}_2 + \mbox{interaction terms} = 0 \, ,$$ where the interaction terms are proportional to the gravitational constant, and are smaller by a factor $r$ than the leading terms in (\[eq6.5\]) (see [@Damour:2000kk]). Usually, GSF calculations only follow the dynamics of the small mass $m_1$. It would then record (for unbound orbits) only the $m_1$ contribution to ${\mathcal E}$ and ${\bm {\mathcal J}}$ coming from the incoming state (with infinite separation), say $$\label{eq6.6}
{\bm J}_1^{\infty} = [ {\bm x}_1 \times {\bm p}_1]_{\infty} \, ,$$ $$\label{eq6.7}
E_1^{\infty} = [E_1^0]_{\infty} = \left[ \sqrt{m_1^2 + {\bm p}_1^2} \right]_{\infty} \, .$$
In view of (\[eq6.2\])–(\[eq6.5\]) one must then “renormalize” both the angular momentum and the energy $$\label{eq6.8}
{\bm J} = \left( 1+\frac{E_1^{\infty}}{E_2^{\infty}} \right) {\bm J}_1^{\infty} \, ,$$ $$\label{eq6.9}
{\mathcal E} = E_1^{\infty} + \left[ \sqrt{m_2^2 + {\bm p}_1^2} \right]_{\infty} \, .$$
Having so computed ${\mathcal E}$ and $J$ one might then, for instance, compare the EOB prediction for the scattering angle $\theta ({\mathcal E} , J)$ (which follows from the EOB Hamiltonian) with GSF computations of $\theta$ for a sample of values of ${\mathcal E}$ and ${\mathcal J}$. We see that, in principle, we have here access to one function of [*two*]{} real variables, which is ample information for determining the functions entering the EOB formalism.
We have been assuming here that, with some effort (notably concerning the separation of the [*conservative*]{} part of the self-force from its radiative part), one could deal with unbound orbits. In case it is computationally much easier to deal with bound orbits, one might still be able to extract ${\mathcal E}$ and $J$ from GSF computations. First, we remark that in view of the parity properties of the [*conservative*]{} self-force under time reversal (see, e.g., [@Barack:2009ey]) the [*ratios*]{} $R_t \equiv F_t / u^r$ and $R_{\varphi} \equiv F_{\varphi} / u^r$ (where $u^r = dr / d\tau$, using the GSF proper time of, say, [@Barack:2009ey]) are [*even*]{} functions of $\tau$. \[Here, we fix $\tau = 0$ at an extremum of the radial coordinate.\] This even-parity property is shared by the radius as a function of $\tau$. We can then follow a strategy used in [@Barack:2009ey] and (numerically) consider that the ratios $R_t$ and $R_{\varphi}$ are some functions of $r$.
This leads to evolution equations for the “$m_1$ contribution” to the energy and angular momentum of the form $$\label{eq6.10}
\frac{d}{d\tau} \, (m_1 \, u_t) = F_t = \frac{dr}{d\tau} \, R_t (r;E_1^0 , L_1^0) \, ,$$ $$\label{eq6.11}
\frac{d}{d\tau} \, (m_1 \, u_{\varphi}) = F_{\varphi} = \frac{dr}{d\tau} \, R_{\varphi} (r;E_1^0 , L_1^0) \, .$$ Multiplying both sides of these equations by $d\tau$ one sees that the consideration of the radial integrals $\int dr \, R_t (r)$ and $\int dr \, R_{\varphi} (r)$ allows one to “correct” the “bare particle energy” $-m_1 \, u_t$ and the “bare particle angular momentum” by additional functions of $r$ so as to define some 1GSF-conserved “improved” particle energy and angular momentum. By exploring the $r$-dependence of these improved quantities as $r$ gets large, one might be able to so deduce the quantities $J_1^{\infty}$ and $E_1^{\infty}$, Eqs. (\[eq6.6\]), (\[eq6.7\]), i.e. the values of the $m_1$ contributions for infinite separation. It then remains to “correct” them so that, as in Eqs. (\[eq6.8\]), (\[eq6.9\]) above, they also incorporate the “recoil” contribution (or, more precisely, the analytic continuation in ${\mathcal E}$ and ${\mathcal J}$ of the functions that express these recoil properties in the infinite-separation limit). Finally, if one succeeds in determining ${\mathcal E}$ and ${\mathcal J}$ for bound orbits, the consideration, say as in Ref. [@Damour:1999cr], of the [*two*]{} gauge-invariant functions of [*two*]{} gauge-invariant variables $$\label{eq6.12}
\omega_{\rm radial} = \omega_r ({\mathcal E} , J) \, ,$$ $$\label{eq6.13}
\omega_{\rm periastron} = \omega_p ({\mathcal E} , J) \, ,$$ will give us access to ample information for determining the functions $a(u)$, $\bar d(u)$, $Q(u,p_r)$ entering the EOB formalism.
Let us end this Section by considering a special motion which should be easier to investigate by GSF means, and which should give us access to very useful information about the crucial EOB function $a(u)$, independently from the other ingredients of the EOB formalism. Specifically, we wish to consider here the special [*zero-binding zoom-whirl*]{} orbit which starts, in the infinite part, with zero kinetic energy (but a non-zero angular momentum) at infinite separation and ends up, in the infinite future, “whirling” indefinitely around some limiting finite separation. In the Schwarzschild case ($\nu \to 0$ limit) this motion has dimensionless angular momentum $j_* = 4$ and its limiting dimensionless whirl radius is $\hat r_{\rm whirl} = 4$. Our purpose is to study the EOB predictions for the modifications of these values when $\nu \ne 0$. From the GSF point of view, once one has a way to compute the [*conservative*]{} part of the self-force (for such an unbound orbit), it should be straightforward to determine which deviation from $u_{\varphi} = 4$ is needed to end up whirling undefinitely around the large mass. Having so determined both $j_*$ (taking into account the “correction” (\[eq6.8\])), and $\hat r_{\rm whirl}$, one will also have access to the final orbital frequency $\hat\Omega_{\rm whirl}$ corresponding to $\hat r_{\rm whirl}$. In other words, this special zero-binding zoom-whirl motion gives us access to [*two*]{} dimensionless observables: $j_*$ and $\hat\Omega_{\rm whirl}$. Then, as discussed below, one can also measure a [*third*]{} dimensionless observable: the value of $\omega_r^2 / \Omega^2$ at the whirl radius.
From the EOB point of view the special motion we are considering has a total energy ${\mathcal E} = H_{\rm EOB}$ equal to the total mass $M$. From Eq. (\[eq3.1\]) we see that this “zero-binding condition” is equivalent to requiring that the dimensionless [*effective*]{} energy $\hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} = \hat H_{\rm eff}$ be equal to 1. In the EOB formalism a generic radial motion is described by the constraint $$\label{eq6.14bis}
W_j (u) + A(u) \left[ \frac{\hat p_r^2}{\bar B(u)} + \hat Q (u,\hat p_r) \right] = \hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}^2 = {\rm const} \, ,$$ where $u \equiv 1/\hat r$, and where $$\label{eq6.15}
W_j (u) \equiv A(u) \, (1+j^2 \, u^2)$$ is the “effective radial potential”. Among the motions described by (\[eq6.14bis\]) we are interested in the special case where $\hat r$ starts, in the infinite past, at $\hat r = + \infty$ with zero radial velocity (and therefore zero radial momentum $\hat p_r$), and ends, in the infinite future, at some limiting radius $\hat r_{\rm whirl}$, with zero radial velocity again. It is easily seen that these two conditions amounts to saying that the “horizontal” level line $\hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}^2 = 1$, in the plane $(\hat r , \hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}^2)$ \[or $(u,\hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff})$\], must satisfy the following conditions: (i) it intersects the “effective potential curve” $\hat{\mathcal E}_{\rm eff}^2 = W_j (u)$, both at $\hat r = \infty$ and at $\hat r = \hat r_{\rm whirl}$; and (ii) it is [*tangent*]{} to the effective potential curve at $\hat r = \hat r_{\rm whirl}$. The condition (i) expresses the fact that $\hat r = \infty$ (or $\hat u = 0$) and ${\hat r} = \hat r_{\rm whirl}$ (or $\hat u = \hat u_{\rm whirl} \equiv 1/\hat r_{\rm whirl}$) are [*turning points*]{} of the radial motion $(\hat p_r = 0)$, while the condition (ii) expresses the fact that the formal turning point $\hat r = \hat r_{\rm whirl}$ is reached only after an infinite time. In other words, (ii) expresses the fact that $\hat r = \hat r_{\rm whirl}$ is an [*unstable circular orbit*]{}. Note also that, from Eq. (\[eq3.1\]), the condition ${\mathcal E}_{\rm eff} = 1$ does correspond to ${\mathcal E} = H_{\rm EOB} = M$ (“zero binding”). In terms of equations, (i) and (ii) imply that the special value $j_*$ corresponding to the zero-binding zoom-whirl motion must satisfy $$\label{eq6.16}
W_{j_*} (u_{\rm whirl}) = A (u_{\rm whirl}) + j_*^2 \, B (u_{\rm whirl}) = 1 \, ,$$ $$\label{eq6.17}
W'_{j_*} (u_{\rm whirl}) = A' (u_{\rm whirl}) + j_*^2 \, B' (u_{\rm whirl}) = 0 \, .$$
Note the fact that the conditions (\[eq6.16\]), (\[eq6.17\]) for the special zero-binding zoom-whirl motion depends [*only*]{} on the $A(u;\nu)$ function (remembering that $B(u)$ is just a short-hand notation for $u^2 A(u)$). In particular, it does not depend on the higher-order $\hat Q (u,\hat p_r)$ term in (\[eq6.14bis\]). Indeed, though we do not know this term beyond the 3PN approximation (\[eq3.11\]), it is enough to know that $\hat Q (u,\hat p_r)$ exactly vanishes as ${\mathcal O} (\hat p_r^4)$ as $\hat p_r \to 0$. \[Actually even a weaker vanishing $\propto \hat p_r^2$ would suffice.\] This remarkable property of this special motion makes it especially worth to be explored by a GSF approach.
Eliminating $j_*^2$ from these two equations (which is equivalent to using the circularity condition (\[eq4.5\])) leads to the condition $$\label{eq6.18}
A \, B' - A' \, B = B' \, .$$ Remembering that $B(u)$ is just a short-hand notation for $u^2 \, A(u)$, the condition (\[eq6.18\]) can be written down more explicitly as $$\label{eq6.19}
A^2 = A + \frac{1}{2} \, u \, A' \, .$$ In Eqs. (\[eq6.18\]) and (\[eq6.19\]) we have provisionally suppressed the mention that the argument $u$ must take the special value $u=u_{\rm whirl}$.
So far we have made no approximations. Let us now consider the 1GSF approximation to the exact conditions (\[eq6.17\]), (\[eq6.19\]), i.e. let us insert in them $A(u;\nu) = 1-2u + \nu \, a(u) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)$. The 1GSF expansion of (\[eq6.19\]) reads $$\label{eq6.20}
u \, (4u -1) + (1-4u) \, \nu \, a(u) = \frac{1}{2} \, \nu \, u \, a'(u) \, .$$ In the $\nu \to 0$ limit one recovers that its solution is $u_{\rm whirl} = \frac{1}{4} + {\mathcal O} (\nu)$, as mentioned above. Inserting this zero-th order knowledge back in (\[eq6.20\]), one finds that the 1GSF ($\nu$-linear) modification of $u_{\rm whirl}$ is predicted, by the EOB formalism, to be $$\label{eq6.21}
u_{\rm whirl} \equiv \frac{1}{\hat r_{\rm whirl}} = \frac{1}{4} \left[ 1 + \frac{\nu}{2} \, a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \right] \, .$$ By itself, this result is not gauge-invariant as it refers to an EOB radial coordinate. Let us now convert the result (\[eq6.21\]) into physical, gauge-invariant results.
On the one hand, by inserting (\[eq6.21\]) into either (\[eq6.16\]) or (\[eq6.17\]) one can compute the special total angular momentum $j_*$ of the zero-binding zoom-whirl motion. One finds $$\label{eq6.22}
j_* = 4 \left[ 1-2\nu \, a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)\right] \, .$$
In addition, by inserting (\[eq6.21\]) into our previous result (\[eq4.21\]), we can compute the (“flat coordinate time”) orbital frequency parameter of the limiting zero-binding circular orbit $$\label{eq6.23}
x_{\rm whirl} = \frac{1}{4} \left[ 1+ \frac{\nu}{3} \, a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)\right] \, .$$
The corresponding dimensionless frequency $\hat\Omega_{\rm whirl} = M \, \Omega_{\rm whirl} = x_{\rm whirl}^{3/2}$ is then given by $$\label{eq6.24}
\hat\Omega_{\rm whirl} = \frac{1}{8} \left[ 1 + \frac{\nu}{2} \, a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)\right] \, .$$
Note the simplifying facts that $j_*$, Eq. (\[eq6.22\]), depends only on the value of the $a$ function at $u = 1/4$, while $x_{\rm whirl}$ and $\hat\Omega_{\rm whirl}$, Eqs. (\[eq6.23\]), (\[eq6.24\]), only depend on the value there of the derivative of $a(u)$. \[The “energy terms” involving $(1-2u)/\sqrt{1-3u} - 1$ in (\[eq4.21\]) have also disappeared because of the zero-binding condition.\] Finally, by extending the calculations of [@Barack:2009ey] to unstable circular orbits, one might also have access to the value of the ratio $\omega_r^2 / \Omega^2$ (with $\omega_r^2 < 0$) at our special zero-binding limiting circular orbit (\[eq6.21\]). In other words, one might also, using Eq. (\[eq5.21\]), know the value of $\rho ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$. Using Eqs. (\[eq5.23\])–(\[eq5.25\]) and our results (\[eq6.22\]), (\[eq6.23\]), this will give us the value of the following combination, $\frac{1}{16} \, a'' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) - \frac{1}{2} \, \bar d ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$, involving now the second derivative of $a(u)$ and the function $\bar d (u)$. Therefore a GSF computation of the characteristics of the special zero-binding zoom-whirl motion would give use access to two interesting pieces of information concerning the strong-field behaviour of the $a(u)$ function: $a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$ and $a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$. In addition, it will give us the value of a combination of $a'' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$ and $\bar d ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$. As the argument $u_* \simeq 1/4$ is larger than the (unperturbed) LSO value $u_{\rm LSO} \simeq 1/6$, the knowledge of $a( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$ and $a'( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$ will provide a strong constraint on the shape of the function $a(u)$ for all the arguments $u < \frac{1}{4}$. Note also that the PN expansion of $a( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$ reads (neglecting any logarithmic running) $$\label{eq6.25}
a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) = \frac{a_3}{4^3} + \frac{a_4}{4^4} + \frac{a_5}{4^5} + \frac{a_6}{4^6} + \frac{a_7}{4^7} + \ldots$$
If the rough estimate mentionned above, $a_n \sim \pm \, 2^n$, holds this series would behave as $\underset{n}{\sum} \pm 2^{-n}$. In particular, the $n=7$ contribution might be as small as $\pm \, 1/128$, i.e. smaller than $1\%$. Then we can use the current 3PN results (\[eq4.34\]), together with our tentative estimate (\[eq4.45\]) of $a_5$ and $a_6$, to “predict” an approximate estimate of $a( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq6.26}
a( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) &\simeq &0.03125 + 0.07300 - 0.02178 + 0.06152 \nonumber \\
&\simeq &0.144 \, .\end{aligned}$$ The first line of (\[eq6.26\]) indicates the successive contributions of $a_3$, $a_4$, $a_5$ and $a_6$. Because of the large value of $a_6^{\cap}$, (\[eq4.45\]), which is somewhat larger than the naive expectation $\pm \, 2^6 = \pm \, 64$ (indeed $(a_6^{\cap})^{1/6} \simeq 2.51$ is larger than $a_4^{1/4} \simeq 2.079$), the series (\[eq6.26\]) does not exhibit a clear convergence. However, even if $a_n$ grows more like $(2.51)^n$, one still expects the $n=7$ contribution to be only $\pm \, (2.51/4)^7 = \pm \, 0.038$. In other words, one might hope that $a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) = 0.144 \pm 0.040$, corresponding to $j_* = 4 \, [1-0.288(80) \, \nu + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)]$. It will be interesting to see how this approximate prediction compares to GSF estimates. Note finally that the corresponding PN expansion for $a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$ has a worse convergence because (neglecting any logarithmic running) $$\label{eq6.27}
a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} ) = \sum_{n \geq 3} \, n \, \frac{a_n}{4^{n-1}}$$ includes a growing coefficient $n$. Because of the worsened convergence of (\[eq6.27\]) it would be poorly justified to venture a numerical estimate of $a' ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$, beyond the fact that one expects it to be positive (on the basis of $a_3 + a_4$ giving the contribution $+ 1.54$ and $a_6 + a_7$ giving $+ 1.10$).
About logarithmic terms in PN expansions
========================================
In the previous Sections we have considered, for simplicity, that the PN expansions of the various EOB functions (such as $A(u,\nu)$ or its $\nu$-linear contribution $a(u)$) contained only [*powers*]{} of the PN expansion parameter ($u=GM/c^2 \, r$ or $x = (GM \, \Omega / c^3)^{2/3}$ for functions of $x$). This simplifying assumption allowed us to connect our results to the recent results of the NR/EOB comparison which have all assumed that the function $A(u;\nu)$ admitted such power-law PN expansions, bacause they define $A(u)$ by Padé-resumming the truncated Taylor expansion: $$\label{eq7.1}
A^{\rm Taylor} (u) = 1-2u+\nu (a_3 \, u^3 + a_4 \, u^4 + a_5 \, u^5 + a_6 \, u^6 + \ldots) + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2) \, .$$ We wish, however, to point out that the PN expansion of $A(u)$, contains logarithmic terms, starting at the 4PN level. This means that the coefficients $a_5 , a_6 , \ldots$ in Eq. (\[eq7.1\]) are not numerical constants but exhibit a “logarithmic running” with $u$, probably of the type $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7.2}
a_5 (\ln \, u) &= &a_5^0 + a_5^1 \, \ln \, u \, , \nonumber \\
a_6 (\ln \, u) &= &a_6^0 + a_6^1 \, \ln \, u \, .\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, we shall argue below that the logarithmic running of $a_5$ and $a_6$ is [*linear*]{} in $\ln \, u$. We, however, expect that some of the higher-order PN coefficients will exhibit some nonlinear runnings, say $$\label{eq7.3}
a_n (\ln \, u) = a_n^0 + a_n^1 \, \ln \, u + \ldots + a_n^p (\ln \, u)^p \, ,$$ where the maximum power $p$ increases (not faster than $n$) with $n$ (probably $p \leq n-4$).
Actually, as the $A(u)$ function is only related in a rather indirect (and “non local”) way to the spacetime metric of a binary system, we shall discuss here the issue of logarithmic terms in the context of another function, defined along the sequence of [*circular*]{} orbits, which has been recently studied in detail within the GSF approach. We mean here Detweiler’s gauge-invariant circular-orbit “redshift” function $u^t(y)$ [@Detweiler:2008ft], where $y \equiv (Gm_2 \, \Omega / c^3)^{2/3}$ (which differs from the “symmetric” frequency parameter $x$ by the replacement $M \equiv m_1 + m_2 \to m_2$). Expanding $u^t(y)$ to first-order in the mass ratio $q \equiv m_1/m_2 \ll 1$ (so that $q=\nu + {\mathcal O} (\nu^2)$), $$\label{eq7.4}
u^t(y) = (1-3y)^{-1/2} - q \, \bar u (y) + {\mathcal O} (q^2) \, ,$$ defines a 1GSF-level function $\bar u (y)$ (here defined with a minus sign, so that $\bar u (y)$ be positive and involve mainly positive coefficients). Recently, Ref. [@Blanchet:2009sd] has determined the 3PN-accurate post-Newtonian expansion of $\bar u (y)$ ($\equiv - u_{SF}^T (y)$ in their notation), namely $$\label{eq7.5}
\bar u (y) = \bar u_1 \, y + \bar u_2 \, y^2 + \bar u_3 \, y^3 + \bar u_4 \, y^4 + {\mathcal O} (y^5) \, ,$$ where [@Detweiler:2008ft; @Blanchet:2009sd] $$\label{eq7.6}
\bar u_1 = 1 \, ; \quad \bar u_2 = 2 \, ; \quad \bar u_3 = 5 \, ; \quad \bar u_4 = \frac{121}{3} - \frac{41}{32} \, \pi^2 \, .$$ Let us first point out that there seems to be a simple connection between the PN expansion coefficients $\bar u_n$ of $\bar u (y)$, and the PN expansion coefficients $a_n$ of the EOB function $a(u)$. Indeed, we can write $$\label{eq7.7}
\bar u_n = a_n + k_n \, ,$$ where $a_1 = 0 = a_2$ and the higher ones are given in Eq. (\[eq4.31\]), and where $$\label{eq7.8}
k_1 = 1 \, ; \quad k_2 = 2 \, ; \quad k_3 = 3 \, ; \quad k_4 = 9 \, .$$ It is remarkable that the difference $\bar u_n - a_n$ is an [*integer*]{}. \[This might, however, be true only for the lowest PN orders, as $k_n$ might also depend on the lower-order $a_m$’s (with $m < n$).\] Postponing to future work a detailed discussion of the link between $\bar u (y)$ and $a(u)$, we shall content ourselves here to note the simple connection (\[eq7.7\]), (\[eq7.8\]) and to heuristically argue that the presence of logarithmic terms in the PN expansion of $\bar u (y)$ will entail the presence of related logarithmic terms in the PN expansion of $a(u)$.
We now focus on the presence of logarithmic terms in the PN expansion of $\bar u (y)$, which is more directly related to the PN expansion of the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ of a binary system. The issue of logarithmic terms in PN expansions of $g_{\mu\nu}$ has been studied some time ago [@Anderson:1982fk; @Blanchet:1985sp; @Blanchet:1987wq]. Let us summarize here the main results. First, one should distinguish the issue of PN logarithms arising in the “external metric” (and also the “wave zone” metric), from that of PN logarithms arising in the “inner metric”, or “near zone” metric. Logarithms enter the PN expansion of the external metric at the 3PN level [@Anderson:1982fk; @Blanchet:1987wq]. They are linked to the cubic interaction (mass monopole) $\times$ (mass monopole) $\times$ (mass multipole) (see Eq. (A6) of [@Blanchet:1987wq]). These terms enter the relation between the radiative multipole moments and the multipole moments of the source (and show up in the energy flux of binary systems at the 3PN level, see e.g. Eq. (231) in the review [@Blanchet:2006zz]). Here, we are interested in the logarithms arising in the PN expansion of the inner (near-zone) metric. It was shown in [@Blanchet:1987wq] that the first logarithmic terms in the PN expansion of the inner metric arise at the 4PN level, and read (in a suitable gauge[^9]), from Eq. (6.39) there, $$\label{eq7.9}
(\delta g_{00}^{\rm in})^{\ln c} = - \frac{8}{5} \, \frac{\ln \, c}{c^{10}} \, x^a \, x^b \, I(t) \, I_{ab}^{(6)} (t) \, ,$$ where $I(t)$ is the mass monopole of the source (which can be approximated here as $I(t) \simeq M = m_1 + m_2$), and $I_{ab}^{(6)}$ the sixth time derivative of the quadrupole moment of the source (which can be approximated here by its Newtonian estimate $I_{ab} \simeq m_1 \, y_1^{\langle ab \rangle} + m_2 \, y_2^{\langle ab \rangle}$, where $y_1^a, y_2^a$ are the positions of the two masses, and where the angular brackets denote a symmetric trace-free (STF) projection). Remarkably, though the logarithmic term (\[eq7.9\]) comes from a (hereditary) “tail” correction to the leading (Burke-Thorne) [*radiation-reaction*]{} contribution to the inner metric ($g_{00}^{{\rm rad}\mbox{-}{\rm reac}} = - \frac{2}{5} \, x^a \, x^b \, I_{ab}^{(5)} / c^7$, see [@Blanchet:1987wq]), the logarithmic term (\[eq7.9\]) is symmetric under time reversal, and thereby survives as is in the conservative dynamics of the system. \[This is due to the fact that the full [*hereditary*]{} radiation-reaction term that gives rise to (\[eq7.9\]), is given by a “logarithmic tail integral” over the entire past (see Eq. (6.38) of [@Blanchet:1987wq]) which is [*time-asymmetric*]{} without being time-odd as the leading radiation-reaction term.\]
Let us now consider the contribution of the logarithmic term (\[eq7.9\]) to Detweiler’s redshift function (along the sequence of circular orbits of the “small mass” $m_1$) $$\label{eq7.10}
u^t (y) = \left( \frac{dt}{ds} \right)_1 = \left( -g_{00}^1 - 2 \, g_{0i}^1 \, \frac{v_1^i}{c} - g_{ij}^1 \, \frac{v_1^i \, v_1^j}{c^2} \right)^{-1/2} \, ,$$ where $g_{\mu\nu}^1 \equiv g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm reg} (y_1)$ denotes the (regularized) value of the spacetime metric at the location $y_1^i$ of the “small mass” $m_1$, and where $v_1^i$ denotes its coordinate velocity $dy_1^i / dt$.
We note first that the logarithmic term (\[eq7.9\]) is easily seen to be proportional to the symmetric mass ratio $\nu$, and therefore to contribute directly to the $\bar u (y)$ piece within $u^t (y)$. There are, a priori, two sorts of contributions to $u^t(y)$ entailed by (\[eq7.9\]), a direct one $$\label{eq7.11}
\delta^{\rm direct} \, u^t (y) = \frac{1}{2} \, \delta \, g_{00}^{\rm in} \, (y_1)$$ coming from the $-g_{00}^1$ contribution in (\[eq7.10\]), and an indirect one coming from the fact that $u^t (y)$ should be computed for a fixed value of the orbital frequency $\Omega$, which implies that the coordinate radius $r_1$ of the orbit of $y_1^i$ must be perturbed by the additional term (\[eq7.9\]) in the metric with respect to the value it had before taking this term into account. However, a simplification occurs in that the coefficient of the perturbation $\delta r_1$ of $r_1$ (approximately) vanishes. Indeed, the “Newtonian” contribution to the expansion of the R.H.S. of (\[eq7.10\]) is $(r_{12} \equiv \vert {\bm y}_{12} \vert , \ {\bm y}_{12} \equiv {\bm y}_1 - {\bm y}_2)$ $$\label{eq7.12}
\frac{Gm_2}{r_{12}} + \frac{1}{2} \, {\bm v}_1^2 = \frac{Gm_2}{r_{12}} + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{m_2}{M} \right)^2 \Omega^2 \, r_{12}^2 \, .$$ In the limit $m_1 \ll m_2$, the $r_{12}$ (or $r_1 \simeq r_{12}$) derivative of (\[eq7.12\]) vanishes by virtue of the Newtonian equations of motion, i.e. Kepler’s law $\Omega^2 \, r_{12}^3 = GM$. \[This also follows from the fact that we are expanding here the inverse of the Lagrangian of the particle ${\bm y}_1$.\] This simplification means that Eq. (\[eq7.11\]) represents (in the limit $m_1 \ll m_2$) the full contribution to $-q \, \bar u (y)$ in Eq. (\[eq7.4\]). In other words, we have $$\label{eq7.13}
q \, \delta^{\log} \, \bar u (y) = +\frac{4}{5} \, \frac{\ln \, c}{c^{10}} \, y_1^a \, y_1^b \, M \, \frac{d^6}{dt^6} \, (\mu \, y_{12}^{\langle ab \rangle}) \, .$$
Evaluating the time derivative in (\[eq7.13\]) for circular orbits (in the center of mass of the system, so that $I^{ab} = \mu \, y_{12}^{\langle ab \rangle}$ and ${\bm y}_1 = (m_2/M) \, {\bm y}_{12}$, as already used above), and noticing that $y = (Gm_2 \, \Omega / c^3)^{2/3}$ is proportional to $1/c^2$ so that $\ln \, y$ contains $-2 \, \ln \, c$, we find from (\[eq7.13\]) that the leading logarithmic contribution to $\bar u (y)$ must be $$\label{eq7.14}
\delta^{\log} \, \bar u (y) = + \frac{64}{5} \, y^5 \, \ln \, y \, .$$
In other words, this is saying that the term formally denoted ${\mathcal O} (y^5)$ in Eq. (\[eq7.5\]) is of the form $$\label{eq7.15}
(\bar u_5^0 + \bar u_5^1 \, \ln \, y) \, y^5$$ with $\bar u_5^1 = 64/5 = 12.8$. Using the numerical data reported in Table I of [@Blanchet:2009sd], we have confirmed that this seems to be indeed the case with $\bar u_5^1 \simeq 12.8$ and $\bar u_5^0 \simeq 114.4$.
By extending the arguments of [@Blanchet:1987wq] leading to (\[eq7.9\]), it seems that the next logarithmic terms will be ${\mathcal O} (\ln \, c / c^{12})$, i.e. at the 5PN level, and involving only the first power of $\ln \, c$ instead of a possible $(\ln \, c)^2$ (which formally enters higher tail terms). This suggests that the next term is the PN expansion of $\bar u (y)$ will be of the form $$\label{eq7.16}
(\bar u_6^0 + \bar u_6^1 \, \ln \, y) \, y^6 \, ,$$ where $\bar u_6^1$ is an analytically calculable quantity. A fit of the numerical data of [@Blanchet:2009sd] suggests that $\bar u_6^1$ is comparable to $\bar u_5^1$ (i.e. $\sim 12$) and that $\bar u_6^0 \sim 360$. At higher PN levels, one expects higher powers of $\ln \, y$ to arise. The growth of the power of $\ln \, c$ with the iteration order was shown very generally in [@Blanchet:1985sp] and [@Blanchet:1987wq] (see Eq. (5.2) there). See also Eq. (5.3) in [@Blanchet:1987wq] which says that the power of $\ln \, c$ (say $p$) grows linearly with the PN order (say $N$): $p = N-c$. The constant $c$ was 3 in [@Blanchet:1987wq], if we gauge the PN order by the power of $1/c$ in the spatial metric. The GSF data behind the figures given in [@Blanchet:2009sd] should be able to explore these phenomena. From the point of view of the present paper, which explores the contacts between the EOB formalism and GSF results, our main (tentative) conclusion (based part on the “experimental link” (\[eq7.7\]) and part on the fact that the $A(u)$ function can be, in principle, computed from the spacetime metric) is the corresponding occurence of logarithmic terms in the EOB formalism, as sketched in Eqs. (\[eq7.2\]), (\[eq7.3\]) above. We leave to future work a computation of the logarithmic coefficient $a_5^1$ in (\[eq7.2\]).
As a final comment let us mention a possible subtlety. The logarithmic terms we have discussed above are [*infrared*]{} (IR) logs (linked to the matching between the near-zone and the wave-zone). There could also exist additional [*ultraviolet*]{} (UV) logs, linked to “finite size effects”, i.e. to the matching between the “body zones” (of order the radii of the considered compact objetcs) and the near-zone. From an effective field theory point of view, logarithmic terms linked to finite-size effects would correspond to (logarithmic) [*UV divergencies*]{} in a pure point-mass description of a two-body system. Some time ago [@Damour:1982wm], it was shown that the effective description of two gravitationaly compact bodies as two point masses (with action $S_{\rm point \, mass} = -\Sigma_A \int m_A \, ds_A$, together with analytic or dimensional regularization) is valid up to the [*5PN level*]{}, where finite-size effects (linked to tidal interactions, and depending on the internal structure of the compact bodies via a certain “relativistic Love number $k$”; see p. 83 of [@Damour:1982wm]) start appearing. The finite-size effects of body 1 correspond to the appearance of a quadrupole term in the metric, given (at the leading, Newtonian, approximation) by (see Eq. (19) in Section 5 of [@Damour:1982wm]) $$\label{eq7.17}
\delta \, g_{00} \sim \frac{G^6}{c^{12}} \, k_1 \, m_1^5 \, m_2 \ \partial_{ij} \, \frac{1}{r_{12}} \ \partial_{ij} \, \frac{1}{\vert {\bm x} - {\bm y}_1 \vert} \, .$$ \[The label 1 on $k$ refers to body 1. We suppress here the unrelated index 2 on the Love number $k$ referring to its quadrupolar nature.\] The additional finite-size effect (\[eq7.17\]) can be described by augmenting the action of the two point masses by a non-minimal worldline coupling of the form $\Sigma_A \, \frac{1}{4} \, \mu_A \int ds_A \, {\mathcal E}_{\alpha\beta}^A \, {\mathcal E}^{A\alpha\beta}$, where ${\mathcal E}_{\alpha\beta}^A \equiv [u^{\mu} \, u^{\nu} \, C_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}]^A$ is the “electric” worldline projection of the Weyl tensor [@Goldberger:2004jt; @Damour:2009vw]. From an effective field theory point of view, one expects that the addition of such non-minimal couplings is needed not only to describe the finite part of extension effects, but also to “renormalize” the divergences ($1/\varepsilon$ poles in dimensional regularization) that arise when one tries to describe extended objects by a point-mass action. It is therefore a priori plausible that a dimensional-regularization (DR) calculation of the interaction of two point masses generate $1/\varepsilon$ poles at the 5PN level, linked to terms of the type (\[eq7.17\]), but with a coefficient $\propto 1/\varepsilon$. As is well-known, $1/\varepsilon$ poles in DR correspond to logarithmic divergences, and always come accompanied by some logarithm of the ratio of the two relevant length scales: here that of the body zone, and the scale of variation of the metric near the considered body. This argument therefore suggests that the logarithm of (body size)/(scale of variation) $\sim GM/c^2 \, r_{12}$, i.e. $\ln \, u$ can arise at the 5PN level as an [*UV log*]{}. In other words, at the 5PN level (${\mathcal O} (u^6)$ in $g_{00}$) there might be two sources of $\ln \, u$: IR and UV. On the other hand, the recent work on tidal effects in neutron stars [@Damour:2009vw; @Binnington:2009bb] has shown that the (quadrupolar) tidal coupling coefficient $\mu_A \propto k_A$ formally tended towards zero as the compactness of the neutron star tended towards that of a black hole. This may mean that the a priori expected 5PN finite-size divergencies of gravitationally interacting point masses cancell out, and do not give rise to $1/\varepsilon$ poles. In this case, there will be no UV source of $\ln \, u$ at the 5PN level, and the generalization of the 4PN IR argument above should give the entire 5PN logs.
Conclusions
===========
We have discussed various ways in which the computation of [*conservative*]{} Gravitational Self Force (GSF) effects on a point mass moving in a Schwarzschild background can inform us about some of the basic functions, $A(u;\nu)$, $\bar D (u;\nu)$, $Q(u,p_r)$, entering the Effective One Body (EOB) formalism. \[Here $u \equiv G(m_1 + m_2) / r$ and $\nu \equiv m_1 m_2 / (m_1 + m_2)^2$.\] Our main conclusions are the following:
1\. The recently published GSF calculation [@Barack:2009ey] of the ${\mathcal O} (\nu^1)$ shift of the orbital frequency of the Last Stable (circular) Orbit (LSO) gives us access to the combination (\[eq4.28\]) of the values of $a(u) \equiv [\partial \, A (u;\nu) / \partial \, \nu]_{\nu = 0}$, Eq. (\[eq3.16a\]), and its first two derivatives, $a'(u)$ and $a'' (u)$, taken at the unperturbed LSO location $u_{\rm LSO} = \frac{1}{6} + {\mathcal O} (\nu)$.
2\. The current 3PN-based [@Damour:2000we; @Damour:2001bu] knowledge of the beginning of the Taylor expansion of the function $a(u)$ “explains” $72.5\%$ of the GSF result. We expect that the missing $27.5\%$ will be contributed by the higher post-Newtonian (PN) contributions to the function $a(u)$, Eq. (\[eq4.31\]), and notably by $a_5$ (4PN contribution) and $a_6$ (5PN contribution). Combining the GSF result [@Barack:2009ey] and the 3PN-EOB results [@Damour:2000we; @Damour:2001bu], we determined in Eq (\[eq4.40\]) the value of a linear combination of $a_5 , a_6 , a_7$, etc$\ldots$ If the contributions of $a_7 , a_8$, etc$\ldots$ are relatively small (which can be argued for) this leads to determining a linear combination of $a_5$ and $a_6$, see Eqs. (\[eq4.41\]) or (\[eq4.42\]).
3\. By combining the just mentionned approximate knowledge of a linear combination of $a_5$ and $a_6$ with the recent determination [@Damour:2009kr; @Damour:2009ic] of the long and thin region of the $(a_5 , a_6)$ plane where the most accurate current EOB models [@Damour:2008gu; @Damour:2009kr] exhibit an excellent agreement with NR data for comparable masses ($4\nu = {\mathcal O} (1)$), we found that they intersected near the point (\[eq4.45\]) of the $(a_5 , a_6)$ plane. This suggests that the information coming from the $\nu \ll 1$ GSF study of the LSO is able to break the degeneracy among $a_5$ and $a_6$ left after tuning the two-parameter EOB $(a_5 , a_6)$ waveform to equal-mass ($\nu = \frac{1}{4}$) NR data [@Boyle:2007ft]. More work (both on the EOB side and on the GSF one) is however needed to confirm the tentative values (\[eq4.45\]). \[See the end of Section 4 for a more detailed discussion.\]
Note that the values (\[eq4.45\]), when inserted in the EOB formalism, predict the value of the LSO orbital frequency for all values of $\nu$, between the test-mass limit $\nu \ll 1$ and the equal-mass case $\nu = 0.25$. The exact EOB prediction is obtained by using the exact EOB results given in Section 4 (notably Eq. (\[eq4.9\])). Let us only indicate here that the final result for the $\nu$-dependence of the GSF $\cap$ NR-tuned $\hat\Omega_{\rm LSO} (\nu)$ can be approximately fitted by a quadratic polynomial in $\nu$ of the form $$\label{eq8.1}
\hat\Omega_{\rm LSO} (\nu) \equiv G(m_1 + m_2) \, \Omega_{\rm LSO} (\nu) \simeq 6^{-3/2} [1+1.25 \, \nu + 1.87 \, \nu^2] \, .$$
It should be noted on the result (\[eq8.1\]) that the non-linear dependence on $\nu$ (here summarized by the term $+ \, 1.87 \, \nu^2$, but given in reality by a more complicated function $o_2 \, \nu^2 + o_3 \, \nu^3 + \ldots$) is numerically quite important for comparable-mass systems. E.g. in the equal-mass case ($\nu = \frac{1}{4}$) the 1GSF, $\nu$-linear result (\[eq2.17\]), i.e. the contribution $+ \, 1.25 \, \nu$ in Eq. (\[eq8.1\]), predicts $\hat\Omega_{\rm LSO}^{\nu\mbox{-}{\rm lin}} = 6^{-3/2} [1.3125] \simeq 0.08930$, which is significantly (8%) smaller than $\hat\Omega_{\rm LSO}^{\nu\mbox{-}{\rm quad}} = 6^{-3/2} [1.4294] \simeq 0.09726$, or the exact EOB value $\hat\Omega_{\rm LSO}^{\rm EOB} = 0.09670$. A good fit between EOB and equal-mass NR data requires that the equal-mass LSO frequency be roughly between 0.096 and 0.097. The approximate equation (\[eq8.1\]) displays the needed [*complementarity*]{} between various approaches to the dynamics of binary systems: NR, GSF and EOB.
4\. We have also discussed (in Section 5) how the study of small-eccentricity orbits can allow one to confront the EOB formalism to GSF calculations. In particular, our Eq. (\[eq5.21\]) shows how the GSF computation, along the sequence of (quasi-)circular orbits, of the squared ratio between the radial (periastron to periastron) frequency and the azimuthal one gives us access to a function $\rho (x)$ of $x \equiv (G(m_1 + m_2) \, \Omega)^{2/3}$ which, when interpreted within the EOB formalism, is an $x$-dependent combination of $a(x)$, $a'(x)$, $a''(x)$ and $\bar d (x)$. Here, $a(u) \equiv [\partial \, A (u;\nu) / \partial \, \nu]_{\nu = 0}$ as above, and $\bar d (u) \equiv [\partial \, \bar D (u;\nu) / \partial \, \nu]_{\nu = 0}$, where the EOB metric function $\bar D (r;\nu)$ is defined in Eq. (\[eq3.13\]). More precisely, we recommend to study not only (as in [@Barack:2009ey]) the behaviour of $\rho (x)$ near the LSO (where $(\omega_r / \Omega)^2$ vanishes), but also below the LSO (for $\frac{1}{6} < x < \frac{1}{3}$), and around $x=0$. We have explicitly given the first two terms (2PN and 3PN) in the Taylor expansion (\[eq5.32\]) of $\rho (x)$ near $x=0$. See Eq. (\[eq5.35\]) (which also follows from results given in [@Damour:1999cr]). We emphasize the need of this comparison between 3PN results and GSF ones for confirming the validity of the results of [@Barack:2009ey] (similarly to the way 3PN results were recently used [@Blanchet:2009sd] to confirm the validity of the gauge-invariant GSF result of [@Detweiler:2008ft]). We have also explicitly shown how the determination of the higher-order terms ($\rho_4 \, x^4 + \rho_5 \, x^5 + \ldots$, corresponding to 4PN $+$ 5PN $+ \, \ldots$) in the Taylor expansion of $\rho (x)$ can give us access to specific combinations of the higher PN coefficients $a_5 , a_6 , \ldots ; \bar d_4 , \bar d_5 , \ldots$ entering the PN expansions of the two functions $a(u)$ and $\bar d (u)$, see Eq. (\[eq5.33a\]–\[eq5.33e\]) and (\[eq5.41\]). In particular if $10 \, a_5$ [*dominates*]{} over $\bar d_4$, this could give us some interesting confirmation of the tentative determination (\[eq4.45\]) of $a_5$.
5\. We have also discussed several other ways to confront (conservative) GSF calculations to the EOB formalism. Some of them present challenges to the GSF line of work: such as the GSF determination of the total conserved energy and angular momentum (using either the [*second*]{} GSF approximation, or a detailed study of unbound orbits; see beginning of Section 6). An easier way of getting new, quantitative information from GSF studies is to study the special [*zero-binding zoom-whirl*]{} motion which starts, in the infinite past, with zero kinetic energy at infinite separation, and ends up, in the infinite future, whirling indefinitely around some limiting finite separation. We showed how the GSF study of this special motion could give us access to (at least) [*three*]{} dimensionless observables: $j_*$, $\hat\Omega_{\rm whirl}$ and $(\omega_r^2 / \Omega^2)_{\rm whirl}$. We related these observables to the values of various ($\nu$-linearized) EOB functions at $u = 1/4$. We also ventured an approximate prediction for the value of $a ( \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} )$ entering the EOB prediction for $j_*$, see Eqs. (\[eq6.22\]) and (\[eq6.26\]).
6\. In addition, we have shown that the logarithmic terms $\ln \, c$ that appear, at the 4PN level, in the post-Newtonian expansion of the near-zone metric of a gravitating system [@Blanchet:1987wq] give rise to a (Renormalization-Group-type) logarithmic running of the expansion coefficients of various functions: the “redshift” function $u^t (y)$ of Ref. [@Detweiler:2008ft] (for which we computed the leading logarithmic term, Eq. (\[eq7.14\])), and, arguably, the EOB function $a(u)$ (and the other EOB functions, such as $\bar d (u)$). We leave to future work an exploration of the effects of including such logarithmic terms, as in Eq. (\[eq7.2\]), in the EOB formalism. Though this will affect the details of our GSF/EOB comparison, we do not expect that this will introduce drastic changes because the EOB/NR comparison (and in paricular the determination of the “good fit” region in the $(a_5 , a_6)$ plane) mainly depends on $a_5$ and $a_6$ as [*effective parameters*]{}, describing the shape of the $A(u)$ function in an interval between the LSO and the EOB light-ring (i.e. roughly between $u \sim 1/6$ and $u \sim 1/3$). Therefore, if we consider “running parameters”, the EOB/NR comparison will be mainly sensitive to $a_5^{\rm effective} = \langle a_5 (\ln \, u) \rangle$ and $a_6^{\rm effective} = \langle a_6 (\ln \, u)\rangle$, where the brackets denote an operation of averaging over an interval of $u$ close to the LSO. As a rough approximation we expect that $a_5^{\rm effective} \simeq a_5 (\ln \, u_{\rm LSO})$ and $a_6^{\rm effective} \simeq a_6 (\ln \, u_{\rm LSO})$. Therefore, as the GSF results depended on the behaviour of the $a(u)$ function near the (unperturbed) LSO, the EOB/NR $a_5^{\rm effective}$, $a_6^{\rm effective}$ should be also approximately relevant in the EOB/GSF comparison.
Finally, let us remark that:
a\. We recommend that the GSF studies based on the use of the Lorenz gauge be systematically reformulated (or at least re-expressed) in terms of an “asymptotically flat” coordinate system. Indeed, the present use of a “non-asymptotically flat” coordinate system is not only confusing for general physicists, but can cause real errors (e.g. when considering inspiralling motions where the “renormalization” factor $1+\alpha$, Eq. (\[eq2.8\]), connecting $t_{\rm Lorenz}$ to $t_{\rm flat}$, would become adiabatically time-dependent).
b\. Our result (\[eq4.45\]) on the way the GSF result [@Barack:2009ey] breaks the degeneracy of the EOB-NR constraint on $(a_5 , a_6)$ implies, in particular, that the [*nonlinear dependence on*]{} $\nu$ entailed by the Padé-resummed definition of the $A(u;\nu)$ function within the EOB formalism [@Damour:2000we] plays an important rôle. This can be seen, for instance, in considering an $A$ function of the type $$\label{eq8.2}
A_P^{\nu\mbox{-}{\rm linear}} (u;\nu) = 1-2u + \nu \, a_P (u; a_5 , a_6) \, ,$$ where $a_P (u,a_5 , a_6)$ is (uniquely) [*defined*]{} by requiring that the equal-mass value $A_P^{\nu\mbox{-}{\rm linear}} (u;1/4)$ be equal to the normal Padé-resumed $A_{\mbox{\footnotesize Pad\'e}}^{\rm EOB} (u;\nu;a_5,a_6)$ (whose structure was recalled in Section 4, before Eq. (\[eq4.43\])). Then, one finds that, all along the banana-like “good fit” region in the $(a_5 , a_6)$ plane [@Damour:2009kr], the fractional $\nu$-derivative (at $\nu = 0$) $c_{\Omega}$, Eq. (\[eq2.16\]), of $GM \, \Omega_{\rm LSO}$ predicted by the $\nu$-linear $A$ function (\[eq8.2\]) stays in the vicinity of $c_{\Omega} [A^{\nu\mbox{-}{\rm linear}} ] \simeq 0.82$, practically independently of $(a_5 , a_6)$, when varying them along the center of the banana-like “good EOB/NR fit” region in the $(a_5 , a_6)$ plane. Note that the value 0.82 is only $65.6\%$ of the GSF value (\[eq2.17\]). By contrast, the value of $c_{\Omega}$ corresponding to the exact (Padé) EOB function $A_{\mbox{\footnotesize Pad\'e}}^{\rm EOB} (u;\nu;a_5,a_6)$ does vary along the central line of the “good fit” $(a_5 , a_6)$ region, and does reach the GSF value (\[eq2.17\]) at (and only at) the particular values (\[eq4.45\]). It would be interesting to confirm the need of such nonlinear behaviour in $A(u;\nu)$ by exploring in more detail than has been done so far the EOB/NR comparison for several mass ratios.
[999]{} A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**59**]{}, 084006 (1999) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9811091\]. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{}, 064015 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0001013\]. T. Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: An effective one-body approach, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**64**]{}, 124013 (2001) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0103018\]. L. Blanchet, Gravitational radiation from post-Newtonian sources and inspiralling compact binaries, [*Living Rev. Rel.*]{} [**9**]{}, 4 (2006). R.H. Price and J. Pullin, Colliding black holes: The Close limit, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{}, 3297 (1994) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9402039\]. J.G. Baker, B. Bruegmann, M. Campanelli, C.O. Lousto and R. Takahashi, Plunge waveforms from inspiralling binary black holes, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 121103 (2001) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0102037\]. J.G. Baker, M. Campanelli and C.O. Lousto, The Lazarus project: A pragmatic approach to binary black hole evolutions, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**65**]{}, 044001 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0104063\]. F. Pretorius, Binary Black Hole Coalescence, arXiv:0710.1338 \[gr-qc\]. A. Buonanno, Y. Pan, J.G. Baker, J. Centrella, B.J. Kelly, S.T. McWilliams and J.R. van Meter, Toward faithful templates for non-spinning binary black holes using the effective-one-body approach, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**76**]{} (2007) 104049 \[arXiv:0706.3732 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Comparing Effective-One-Body gravitational waveforms to accurate numerical data, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**77**]{} (2008) 024043 \[arXiv:0711.2628 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Damour, A. Nagar, E. N. Dorband, D. Pollney and L. Rezzolla, Faithful Effective-One-Body waveforms of equal-mass coalescing black-hole binaries, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**77**]{}, 084017 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.3003 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Damour, A. Nagar, M. Hannam, S. Husa and B. Bruegmann, Accurate Effective-One-Body waveforms of inspiralling and coalescing black-hole binaries, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**78**]{}, 044039 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3162 \[gr-qc\]\]. M. Boyle, A. Buonanno, L.E. Kidder, A.H. Mroue, Y. Pan, H.P. Pfeiffer and M.A. Scheel, High-accuracy numerical simulation of black-hole binaries: Computation of the gravitational-wave energy flux and comparisons with post-Newtonian approximants,” [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**78**]{}, 104020 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.4184 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Damour and A. Nagar, An improved analytical description of inspiralling and coalescing black-hole binaries, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**79**]{}, 081503 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.0136 \[gr-qc\]\]. A. Buonanno, Y. Pan, H.P. Pfeiffer, M.A. Scheel, L.T. Buchman and L.E. Kidder, Effective-one-body waveforms calibrated to numerical relativity simulations: coalescence of non-spinning, equal-mass black holes, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**79**]{}, 124028 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.0790 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Damour and A. Nagar, The Effective One Body description of the Two-Body problem, arXiv:0906.1769 \[gr-qc\]. http://lisa.nasa.gov/ http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ T. Regge and J.A. Wheeler, Stability Of A Schwarzschild Singularity, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**108**]{}, 1063 (1957). B.S. DeWitt and R.W. Brehme, Radiation damping in a gravitational field, [*Annals Phys.*]{} [**9**]{}, 220 (1960). C.M. DeWitt and B.S. DeWitt, Falling charges, [*Physics*]{} [**1**]{} (1964) 3. F.J. Zerilli, Gravitational field of a particle falling in a schwarzschild geometry analyzed in tensor harmonics, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**2**]{}, 2141 (1970). M. Davis, R. Ruffini and J. Tiomno, Pulses of gravitational radiation of a particle falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**5**]{}, 2932 (1972). L. Barack, Gravitational self force in extreme mass-ratio inspirals, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{}, [**26**]{}, 213001(2009). S. Detweiler, Elementary development of the gravitational self-force, arXiv:0908.4363 \[gr-qc\]. L. Barack and N. Sago, Gravitational self-force correction to the innermost stable circular orbit of a Schwarzschild black hole, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{}, 191101 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.0573 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. Detweiler, A consequence of the gravitational self-force for circular orbits of the Schwarzschild geometry, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**77**]{}, 124026 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.3529 \[gr-qc\]\]. L. Blanchet, S. Detweiler, A.L. Tiec and B.F. Whiting, Post-Newtonian and Numerical Calculations of the Gravitational Self-Force for Circular Orbits in the Schwarzschild Geometry, arXiv:0910.0207 \[gr-qc\]. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, On the determination of the last stable orbit for circular general relativistic binaries at the third post-Newtonian approximation, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{}, 084011 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0005034\]. A. Ori and K.S. Thorne, The transition from inspiral to plunge for a compact body in a circular equatorial orbit around a massive, spinning black hole, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{}, 124022 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0003032\]. S. Detweiler and E. Poisson, Low multipole contributions to the gravitational self-force, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**69**]{}, 084019 (2004) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0312010\]. L. Barack and C.O. Lousto, Perturbations of Schwarzschild black holes in the Lorenz gauge: Formulation and numerical implementation, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**72**]{}, 104026 (2005) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0510019\]. N. Sago, L. Barack, and S. Detweiler, Two approaches for the gravitational self-force in black hole spacetime: Comparison of numerical results, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D 78, 124024 (2008). L. Blanchet, Innermost circular orbit of binary black holes at the third post-Newtonian approximation, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**65**]{}, 124009 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0112056\]. T. Damour, E. Gourgoulhon and P. Grandclement, Circular orbits of corotating binary black holes: Comparison between analytical and numerical results, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**66**]{}, 024007 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0204011\]. M. Boyle [*et al.*]{}, High-accuracy comparison of numerical relativity simulations with post-Newtonian expansions, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**76**]{}, 124038 (2007) \[arXiv:0710.0158 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Damour, A. Nagar, M. Hannam, S. Husa and B. Bruegmann, Accurate Effective-One-Body waveforms of inspiralling and coalescing black-hole binaries, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**78**]{}, 044039 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3162 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, Dimensional regularization of the gravitational interaction of point masses, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**513**]{}, 147 (2001) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0105038\]. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Schaefer, Dynamical invariants for general relativistic two-body systems at the third post-Newtonian approximation, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{}, 044024 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9912092\]. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Schaefer, Poincaré invariance in the ADM Hamiltonian approach to the general relativistic two-body problem, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{}, 021501 (2000) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**63**]{}, 029903 (2001)\] \[arXiv:gr-qc/0003051\]. L. Blanchet and G. Faye, Equations of motion of point-particle binaries at the third post-Newtonian order, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} A [**271**]{}, 58 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0004009\]. J.L. Anderson, L.S. Kegeles, R.G. Madonna and R.E. Kates, Divergent integrals of postnewtonian gravity: nonanalytic terms in the near zone expansion of a gravitationally radiating system found by matching, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**25**]{}, 2038-2048 (1982). L. Blanchet and T. Damour, Radiative gravitational fields in general relativity I. general structure of the field outside the source, [*Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond.*]{} A [**320**]{}, 379 (1986). L. Blanchet and T. Damour, Tail Transported Temporal Correlations In The Dynamics Of A Gravitating System, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**37**]{}, 1410 (1988). T. Damour, Gravitational radiation and the motion of compact bodies. 1983. [*in*]{} Gravitational Radiation, edited by N. Deruelle and T. Piran, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 59-144. W.D. Goldberger and I.Z. Rothstein, An effective field theory of gravity for extended objects, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**73**]{}, 104029 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0409156\]. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Relativistic tidal properties of neutron stars, arXiv:0906.0096 \[gr-qc\]. T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Relativistic theory of tidal Love numbers, arXiv:0906.1366 \[gr-qc\]. T. Damour, B.R. Iyer and A. Nagar, Improved resummation of post-Newtonian multipolar waveforms from circularized compact binaries, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**79**]{}, 064004 (2009) \[arXiv:0811.2069 \[gr-qc\]\].
[^1]: Note, however, that NR simulations become increasingly difficult and time consuming as the symmetric mass ratio $\nu = m_1 m_2 / (m_1 + m_2)^2$ becomes small.
[^2]: We find helpful to use the mnemonics $1 < 2$ to remember that, by definiton, $m_1 < m_2$ (and $m_1 \ll m_2$ in the extreme mass ratio case).
[^3]: Possibly after a trivial transformation from Minkowskian-like to other coordinates, say of the $(t,r,\theta,\varphi)$ type.
[^4]: The radial metric coefficient $g_{rr}^{\rm eff}$ is here denoted $\bar B (r)$, instead of the notation $B(r)$ used in the original EOB articles, because we wish to keep the notation $B$ for another use; see below.
[^5]: i.e. admitting a helical Killing vector.
[^6]: To which should be added another function (of $u$ and $p_r$) parametrizing the linear-in-$\nu$ piece in the the “exact” version of the $\hat Q$ contribution in Eq. (\[eq3.10\]). As said above, we shall consider here observables that do not depend on the $Q$ contribution.
[^7]: We indeed recall that the EOB formalism is constructed so that the $\nu \to 0$ limit yields the dynamics of a test mass in a Schwarzschild spacetime.
[^8]: Though there are some technical complications for dealing with unstable orbits (e.g. with extracting the conservative part of the dynamics), GSF studies can, in principle, compute the L.H.S. of (\[eq5.19\]) for $0 < u_0 < 1/3$, i.e. for $r_0 > 3 \, GM$.
[^9]: Though some gauge transformations can be problematic (as discussed above for the Lorenz gauge), we have checked that the gauge transformations used in [@Blanchet:1987wq] do not affect the present computation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Multiple zeta values (MZVs) in the usual sense are the special values of multiple variable zeta functions at positive integers. Their extensive studies are important in both mathematics and physics with broad connections and applications. In contrast, very little is known about the special values of multiple zeta functions at non-positive integers since the values are usually singular. We define and study multiple zeta functions at integer values by adapting methods of renormalization from quantum field theory, and following the Hopf algebra approach of Connes and Kreimer. This definition of renormalized MZVs agrees with the convergent MZVs and extends the work of Ihara-Kaneko-Zagier on renormalization of MZVs with positive arguments. We further show that the important quasi-shuffle (stuffle) relation for usual MZVs remains true for the renormalized MZVs.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102'
- 'Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, Vivatsgasse 7, D-53111 Bonn, Germany; Yangtze Center of Mathematics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, P. R. China '
author:
- Li Guo
- Bin Zhang
title: Renormalization of multiple zeta values
---
Introduction
============
Multiple zeta values (MZVs), as we know in the current literature, are defined to be the values of the multi-variable analytic function, called the [**multiple zeta function**]{}, $$\zeta(s_1,\cdots, s_k)=\sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k>0}
\frac{1}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}
\mlabel{eq:mzv}$$ at positive integers $s_1,\cdots,s_k$ with $s_1>1$. With the earliest study of MZVs went back to Euler when $k=2$, their systematic study started in early 1990s with the works of Hoffman and Zagier . Since then MZVs and their generalizations have been studied extensively by numerous authors from different point of views with connections to arithmetic geometry, mathematical physics, quantum groups and knot theory .
In comparison, little is known about special values of multiple zeta functions at integers that are not all positive. Through the recent work of Zhao and Akiyama-Egami-Tanigawa (see also ), we know that $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ can be meromorphically continued to $\CC^k$ with singularities on the subvarieties $$s_1=1; \
s_1+s_2=2,1,0,-2,-4, \cdots; {\rm\ and\ } \mlabel{eq:pole}
\sum_{i=1}^j
s_{i} \in \ZZ_{\leq j}\ (3\leq j\leq k).$$ Thus $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ is undefined at most points with non-positive arguments. In , several definitions were proposed for the non-positive MZVs, that is, the values of $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ when $s_i$ are all non-positive. Some of them are $$\lim_{r_1\to s_1}\cdots\lim_{r_k\to s_k} \zeta(r_1,\cdots,r_k),
\lim_{r_k\to s_k}\cdots\lim_{r_1\to s_1} \zeta(r_1,\cdots,r_k),
\lim_{r\to 0} \zeta(s_1+r,\cdots,s_k+r).$$ As expected they give different values. Some good properties of the variously defined non-positive MZVs were obtained in the these papers. But they fell short of the analogous properties of the usual MZVs, especially the double shuffle relations.
In this paper, we adapt a renormalization procedure (dimensional regularization plus minimal subtraction) in quantum field theory (QFT) to define the values of multiple zeta functions $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ at $(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ when $s_i$, $1\leq i\leq k$, are all non-positive or all positive, that we expect to further extend to when $s_i$ are [*arbitrary integers*]{}. For our purpose, the dimensional regularization of Feynman integrals is replaced by a regularization (or deformation) of infinite series that has occurred in the study of Todd classes for toric varieties .
The renormalization procedure of QFT was put in the framework of Hopf algebra and Rota-Baxter algebra by the recent works of Connes and Kreimer , continued in , and thus made possible for applications beyond QFT. A fundamental result in this framework is the Algebraic Birkhoff Decomposition (Theorem ). It states that for a given triple $(\calh, R, \phi)$ consisting of
- a connected filtered Hopf algebra $\calh$,
- a commutative Rota-Baxter algebra $R$ on which the Rota-Baxter operator $P:R\to R$ is idempotent, and
- an algebra homomorphism $\phi: \calh\to R$,
there are unique algebra homomorphisms $
\phi_-: \calh\to \CC+P(R)$ and $\phi_+: \calh\to \CC+(\id-P)(R)$ such that $$\phi=\phi_-^{\star (-1)}\star \phi_+.
\mlabel{eq:abd}$$ Here $\star$ is the convolution product and $\phi_+$ is called the [**renormalization**]{} of $\phi$. This algebraic setup is reviewed in Section together with a discussion of quasi-shuffle algebras.
To apply this setup to the renormalization in QFT, one takes
- $\calh=\calh_\FG$ to be the Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra of Feynman diagrams, parameterizing regularized Feynman integrals,
- $R=\CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$ to be the Rota-Baxter algebra of Laurent series, and
- $\phi$ to be the the regularized Feynman rule that assigns a Feynman diagram to the Laurent series expansion of the corresponding regularized Feynman integral.
Then the renormalized values of a Feynman integral is given by $\phi_+(\Gamma)$, where $\Gamma$ is the corresponding Feynman graph, when $\vep$ approaches zero. For further details see .
To apply this setup to our study of renormalized MZVs, we similarly define
- $\calh$ to be the quasi-shuffle Hopf algebra parameterizing regularized MZVs,
- $R$ to be the Rota-Baxter algebra $\CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$ of log Laurent series, and
- $\phi$ to be the algebra homomorphism sending a symbol in $\calh$ to the Laurent series expansion of the corresponding regularized MZV.
Once these are obtained in Section , the Algebraic Birkhoff Decomposition in Eq. () applies to give the renormalization $\phi_{+}$ from which the renormalized MZVs can be derived when $\vep$ goes to zero, as in the QFT case. However, there is an important difference from the QFT renormalization: in order to equip the regularized MZVs and the corresponding Hopf algebra with a suitable algebra structure that reflects the quasi-shuffle relation of the regularized MZVs, an extra parameter vector $\vec{r}$ has to be introduced in the regularized sums in addition to $\vep$. Thus the renormalized MZVs at $\vec{s}$ from the Algebraic Birkhoff Decomposition depend on $\vec{r}$, resulting in the [**renormalized directional MZVs**]{} $\zeta(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}})$ in Definition .
This dependency on $\vec{r}$ is removed in the following Section in a consistent manner, giving the [**renormalized MZVs**]{} $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ in Definition . Our main result Theorem shows that the renormalized MZVs satisfy the quasi-shuffle (or stuffle) relation, and include as special cases the MZVs defined either by convergence, by analytic continuation, or by regularization in the sense of Ihara-Kaneko-Zagier . Parts of the proof are postponed to Section and Section . Here is the hierarchy of MZVs introduced in this paper: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mbox{formal MZVs}\ \zeta(\vec{s}) \to \mbox{directional regularized MZVs}\ Z(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep) &\\
& \to \mbox{renormalized directional MZVs}\ \zeta(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}) \to \mbox{renormalized MZVs}\ \gzeta(\vec{s}) &\end{aligned}$$ The concepts of regularization and renormalization have already been introduced to the study of MZVs by Ihara-Kaneko-Zagier to take care of the divergency of the MZVs $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ with $s_1=1$. As a part of their process, the natural algebra homomorphism from the the quasi-shuffle algebra for convergent MZVs to the algebra of convergent MZVs is extended to an algebra homomorphism from a larger quasi-shuffle algebra to an extension of the algebra of convergent MZVs. Thus they obtained their extended MZVs as an [**algebraic continuation**]{} (we thank Robert Sczech for suggesting this term) in the sense that their extended MZVs preserves the quasi-shuffle relation. From this point of view, we obtain our renormalized MZVs as an algebraic continuation that goes beyond theirs to cover the MZVs with all non-positive arguments. In a weak sense it covers arbitrary arguments (Definition ). More recently, Manchon and Paycha have considered renormalization of MZVs from the point of view of Chen integrals and Chen sums of symbols using a similar renormalization approach in the spirit of Connes and Kreimer. The two approaches should be related though the exact link is still not clear.
This paper should lead to further studies of MZVs with arbitrary arguments. First we can consider questions related to the renormalization procedure, such as the renormalization of MZVs with arbitrary arguments, the dependence of renormalized MZVs on the regularization and renormalization. We would also like to study the extension of the double shuffle relation to renormalized MZVs, and the possible connection to rational associators in the sense of Drinfel’d and DMR in the sense of Racinet . Possible arithmetic properties of these renormalized MZVs, such as the Kummer type congruences, are also interesting to investigate. Some of these directions will be pursued in future works.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} Both authors thank the Max-Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn for the stimulating environment where this project was started, and thank Matilde Marcolli for encouragement. We also thank Dominique Manchon and Sylvie Paycha for communications on their papers and for their comments on our paper. The first named author thanks NSF for support, and is indebted to Kurusch Ebrahimi-Fard and Dirk Kreimer for their collaborations on QFT that inspired the renormalization approach in this paper. Thanks also go to Herbert Gangl, Robert Sczech and Jianqiang Zhao for discussions and comments.
The algebraic setup
===================
We describe the general setup for our later applications to renormalization of MZVs. In the following an algebra means a $\bfk$-algebra where $\bfk$ is a unitary commutative ring that we usually take to be $\CC$. Denote the unit of $\bfk$ by $\bfone$.
The algebraic Birkhoff decomposition
------------------------------------
We review the algebraic framework of Connes and Kreimer for renormalization of perturbative quantum field theory.
A [**connected filtered Hopf algebra**]{} is a Hopf algebra $(H, \Delta)$ with $\bfk$-submodules $H^{(n)},\ n\geq 0$ of $H$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&H^{(n)}\subseteq H^{(n+1)}, \quad
\cup_{n\geq 0} H^{(n)} = H, \quad
H^{(p)} H^{(q)}\subseteq H^{(p+q)}, &\\
&
\Delta(H^{(n)}) \subseteq \sum_{p+q=n} H^{(p)}\otimes H^{(q)}, \quad
H^{(0)}=\bfk {\rm \ (connectedness)}.&\end{aligned}$$ Let $\lambda\in \bfk$. A [**Rota–Baxter algebra**]{} of weight $\lambda$ is a pair $(R,P)$ where $R$ is a unitary $\bfk$-algebra and $P:R\to R$ is a linear operator such that $$P(x)P(y)=P(xP(y))+P(P(x)y)+\lambda P(xy),
\mlabel{eq:rbe}$$ for any $x,\,y\in R$. Often $\theta=-\lambda$ is used, especially in the physics literature. It follows from the definition that $P(R)$ and $(-\lambda-P)(R)$ are non-unitary subalgebras of $R$. So $\bfk+P(R)$ and $\bfk +(-\lambda-P)(R)$ are unitary subalgebras.
Let $H$ be a commutative connected filtered Hopf algebra. Let $(R,P)$ be a Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $-1$. Let $\phi: H \to R$ be an algebra homomorphism.
1. There are algebra homomorphisms $\phi_-: H \to \bfk+P(R)$ and $\phi_+: H \to \bfk+(1-P)(R)$ with the decomposition $$\phi=\phi_-^{\star\, (-1)}\star \phi_+,
\mlabel{eq:phidecom}$$ called the [**Algebraic Birkhoff Decomposition**]{} of $\phi$. Here $\star$ is the convolution product and $\phi_-^{\star\, (-1)}$ is the inverse of $\phi_-$ with respect to $\star$. Further, $$\phi_-(x)=-P\big(\phi(x)+\sum_{(x)} \phi_-(x')\phi(x'')\big)
\mlabel{eq:phi-}$$ and $$\phi_+(x)=(\id-P)\big(\phi(x)+\sum_{(x)} \phi_-(x')\phi(x'')\big).
\mlabel{eq:phi+}$$ Here we have used the notation $\Delta(x)=x\ot 1 + 1\ot x + \sum_{(x)} x'\ot x''.$
2. If $P^2=P$, then the decomposition in Eq. () is unique.
For item (), see [@C-K1] and [@Ma Theorem II.5.1]. For item (), see [@EGK3 Theorem 3.7] where one can also find a proof of item () using Rota-Baxter algebras.
Quasi-shuffle algebras
----------------------
Let $M$ be a commutative semigroup. For each integer $k\geq 0$, let $\bfk M^k$ be the free $\bfk$-module with basis $M^k$, with the convention that $M^0=\{\bfone\}$. Let $$\calh_M=\bigcup_{k=0}^\infty \bfk\, M^k.
\mlabel{eq:qprod}$$ Following , define the [**quasi-shuffle product**]{} $\msh$ by first taking $\bfone$ to be the multiplication identity. Next for any $m,n\geq 1$ and $\vec a:=(a_1,\cdots , a_m)\in M^{m}$ and $\vec b:=(b_1, \cdots, b_n)\in M^{n}$, denote $\vec a\,'=(a_2,\cdots,a_m)$ and $\vec b\,'=(b_2,\cdots,b_n)$. Recursively define $$\vec{a} \msh \vec{b} =\big(a_1, \vec{a}\,'\msh \vec b\big )
+ \big(b_1, \vec a \msh \vec{b}\,' \big) \\
+ \big(a_1 b_1, \vec{a}\,' \msh \vec{b}\,'\big)
\mlabel{eq:qshuf}$$ with the convention that $\vec{a}\,'=\bfone$ if $m=1$, $\vec{b}\,'=\bfone$ if $n=1$ and $(a_1b_1,\vec{a}\,'\msh \vec{b}\,')=(a_1b_1)$ if $m=n=1$.
Quasi-shuffle is also known as harmonic product and coincides with the stuffle product in the study of MZVs. Variations of the stuffle product have also appeared in . See § for further details. It is shown to be the same as the mixable shuffle product which is also called overlapping shuffles and generalized shuffles , and can be interpreted in terms of Delannoy paths .
The following theorem is a simple generalization of [@Ho2 Theorem 2.1, 3.1] where $M$ has the extra condition of being a locally finite set to ensure the grading structure on $\calh_M$.
Let $M$ be a commutative semigroup. Equip $\calh_M$ with the submodules $\calh_M^{(n)}=\oplus_{i=0}^n \bfk\, M^i$, The quasi-shuffle product $\msh$, the deconcatenation coproduct $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta: \calh_M \to \calh_M \barot \calh_M,\\
\Delta( a_1, \cdots , a_k)&=&1\barot (a_1, \cdots , a_k)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} (a_1, \cdots, a_i)\barot (a_{i+1}, \cdots , a_k) \notag\\
&&+ (a_1, \cdots , a_k) \barot 1
\mlabel{eq:coprod}\end{aligned}$$ and the projection counit $\vep: \calh_M \to \bfk$ onto the direct summand $\bfk \subseteq \calh_M$. Then $\calh_M$ is a commutative connected filtered Hopf algebra.
By the same proofs as [@Ho2 Theorem 2.1] and [@Ho2 Theorem 3.1], $\calh_M$ is a bialgebra. By the definition of $\msh$ and $\Delta$, $\calh_M$ is connected filtered with the submodules $\calh_M^{(n)}, n\geq 0$. Then $\calh_M$ is automatically a Hopf algebra by [@F-G Proposition 5.3], for example.
We prove the following property for later applications.
For $k\geq 1$, let $\Sigma_k$ be the permutation group on $\{1,\cdots,k\}$. For $\vec{a}=(a_1,\cdots,a_k)\in M^k \subseteq \calh_M$, define $\sigma(\vec{a})=(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(k)})$ and define $\vec{a}^{(\Sigma_k)}=\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_k} \sigma(\vec{a}).$ Then for $a_{k+1}\in M$, we have $$\vec{a}^{(\Sigma_k)} \msh (a_{k+1}) = (a_1,\cdots,a_k,a_{k+1})^{(\Sigma_{k+1})} + \sum_{i=1}^k (a_1,\cdots,a_ia_{k+1},\cdots,a_{k})^{(\Sigma_k)}
\mlabel{eq:permshuf}$$ where in the sum, $\sigma(a_1,\cdots,a_ia_{k+1},\cdots,a_k)=(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(i)}a_{k+1},\cdots,a_{\sigma(k)}).$
By the quasi-shuffle relation in Eq. (), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\vec{a}^{(\Sigma_k)} \msh (a_{k+1})= \sum_{\sigma\in
\Sigma_k}
\Big((a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(k)},a_{k+1})}\\
&& + \sum_{i=1}^k (a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(i)},a_{k+1},a_{\sigma(i+1)},\cdots,a_{k})
+ \sum_{i=1}^k (a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(i)}a_{k+1},\cdots,a_{\sigma(k)})\Big),\end{aligned}$$ hence the proposition. It also follows from the Partition Identity of Hoffman whose proof only needs the quasi-shuffle relation , or the Bohnenblust-Spitzer formula for Rota-Baxter algebras .
Renormalized directional multiple zeta values
=============================================
We now introduce directional regularized MZVs and the corresponding Hopf algebra. We then show that the directional regularized MZVs have Laurent series expansion with log coefficients, giving an algebra homomorphism from the Hopf algebra to Laurent series. This allows us to apply the algebraic Birkhoff decomposition in Theorem to obtain renormalized directional MZVs.
The Hopf algebra of directional regularized multiple zeta values
----------------------------------------------------------------
We consider the commutative semigroup $$\frakM= \{{{\wvec{s}{r}}}\ \big|\ (s,r)\in \ZZ \times \RR_{>0}\}
\mlabel{eq:mbase}$$ with the multiplication $ {\wvec{s}{r}} {\wvec{s'}{r'}}={\wvec{s+s'}{r+r'}}.$ By Theorem , $$\calh_{\frakM}:=\sum_{k\geq 0} \CC\, \frakM^k,$$ with the quasi-shuffle product $\msh$ and the deconcatenation coproduct $\Delta$, is a connected filtered Hopf algebra. The same is true with the sub-semigroup $$\frakM^-=\{{\wvec{s}{r}}\ |\ (s,r)\in \ZZ_{\leq 0} \times \RR_{>0}\}.$$ For $w_i=\wvec{s_i}{r_i}\in \frakM,\ i=1,\cdots,k$, we use the notations $$\vec{w}=(w_1,\cdots,w_k)
=\wvec{s_1,\cdots,s_n}{r_1,\cdots,r_k}=\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}},\
{\rm where\ } \vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k), \vec{r}=(r_1,\cdots,r_k).$$ For $\vep\in \CC$ with ${\rm
Re}(\vep)<0$, define the [**directional regularized MZV**]{}: $$Z(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)=\sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k>0}
\frac{e^{n_1\,r_1\vep} \cdots
e^{n_k\,r_k\vep}}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}
\mlabel{eq:reggmzv}$$ It converges for any $\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}$ and is regarded as the regularization of the [**formal MZV**]{} $$\zeta (\vec{s})= \sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k>0} \frac{1}{n_1^{s_1} \cdots
n_k^{s_k}}
\mlabel{eq:formgmzv}$$ which converges only when $s_i>0$ and $s_1>1$. It is related to the multiple polylogarithm $${\rm Li}_{s_1,\cdots,s_k}(z_1,\cdots,z_k)=\sum_{n_1>\cdots n_k>0}
\frac{z_1^{n_1} \cdots z_k^{n_k}}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}$$ by a change of variables $z_i=e^{r_i\vep}, 1\leq i\leq k$. As is well-known , the product of multiple polylogarithms as functions satisfies the quasi-shuffle (stuffle) relation of the nested sums. Therefore the product of regularized MZVs as functions also satisfies the quasi-shuffle relation: if $ \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\msh \wvec{\vec{s}\,'}{\vec{r}\,'}
=\sum \wvec{\vec{s}\,''}{\vec{r}\,''}$, then $$Z(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)Z(\wvec{\vec{s}\,'}{\vec{r}\,'};\vep)
= Z(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\msh \wvec{\vec{s}\,'}{\vec{r}\,'};\vep)
:= \sum Z(\wvec{\vec{s}\,''}{\vec{r}\,''};\vep).
\mlabel{eq:qsh1}$$ We thus obtained an algebra homomorphism $$Z: \calh_\frakM \to \sum_{{\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\in \cup_{n\geq 0} \frakM^n}}\
\CC\, Z(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep),
\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}} \mapsto Z(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep).
\mlabel{eq:regz}$$ With this map, $\calh_\frakM$ is a parametrization of the directional regularized MZVs that also reflects their multiplication property.
Log Laurent series of directional regularized multiple zeta values
------------------------------------------------------------------
We first construct Laurent series with log coefficients. We then show that the nested sums from directional regularized MZVs are such log Laurent series.
Let $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$ be the algebra of convergent Laurent series, regarded as a subalgebra of the algebra of (germs of) complex valued functions meromorphic in a neighborhood of $\vep=0$. Take $\ln \vep$ to be analytic on $\CC\backslash (-\infty,0]$.
$\ln (-\vep) $ is transcendental over $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$.
We give a simple proof for the lack of references. Assume $\ln (-\vep) $ is algebraic over the field $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$ with the monic minimal polynomial $$\ln ^n(-\vep)+a_{n-1}(\vep)\ln ^{n-1}(-\vep)+\cdots +a_0(\vep)=0.$$ Differentiating the above equation, we have $$\sum _{i=0}^n \big(a'_i(\vep )\ln ^i(-\vep)+\frac i{\vep}a_i(\vep)\ln ^{i-1}(-\vep )\big)=0.$$ The highest power term in $\ln (-\vep)$ is $(\frac
n{\vep}+a'_{n-1}(\vep ))\ln ^{n-1}(-\vep)$. Because of the minimality, $n/\vep+a'_{n-1}(\vep )$ has to be 0, which is impossible for $a_{n-1}(\vep )\in \CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$.
$\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [\ln (-\vep)]$ is closed under the differential operator $d/d\vep$. It is also closed under the indefinite integral operator: the antiderivatives of any $f\in \CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [\ln (-\vep)]$ are in $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [\ln (-\vep)]$.
Let $f(\vep)\in \CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [\ln (-\vep)]$. Then $$f(\vep)=\sum_{n=0}^M a_n(\vep)\ln^n (- \vep)
=\sum_{n=0}^M \big(\sum_{k\geq N_n} a_{n,k}\vep^k \ln^n(-\vep)\big)$$ with $\sum_{k\geq N_n} a_{n,k}\vep^k \in \CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$. For each $0\leq n\leq M$, the series for the inside sum converges absolutely and uniformly in a nonempty open interval of $\{\vep\in \CC\,\big |\, -\infty<\vep <0\}$. Thus the series can be differentiated and integrated term by term. Thus we only need to show that the derivative and anti-derivatives of $\vep^k \ln ^n (-\vep)$, $k\in \ZZ, n\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}$ are linear combinations of functions of the same form. This is easy to check for derivatives.
For anti-derivatives, we use induction on $n$. It is clear when $n=0$. The induction step follows from the integration by parts formula $$\int \vep^k \ln ^n (-\vep) d\vep = \frac{1}{k+1}\vep^{k+1} \ln ^n (-\vep)
+ \frac{n}{k+1} \int \vep^{k} \ln ^{n-1} (-\vep) d\vep$$ when $k\neq -1$ and $ \int \frac{\ln ^n (-\vep)}{\vep}d\vep = \frac{1}{n+1} \ln ^{n+1} (-\vep)+C.$
Because of Lemma , we have $$\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [\ln (-\vep)]\cong
\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [T]
\hookrightarrow \CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}][T]
\mlabel{eq:lau2}$$ sending $-\ln (-\vep)$ to $T$. Here $\CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}][T]$ denotes the polynomial algebra over the formal Laurent series $\CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$.
An element of $\CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}] [T]$ is of the form $\sum_{n=0}^M a_n(\vep)T^n$ with $$a_n(\vep)=\sum_{k\geq N_n} a_{n,k}\vep^k \in \CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}], 0\leq n\leq M.$$ Taking $N=\min_{0\leq n\leq M} N_n$ and letting $a_{n,k}=0$ for $N\leq k< N_n$, we have $$\sum_{n=0}^M a_n(\vep)T^n = \sum_{n=0}^M \big(\sum_{k\geq N} a_{n,k}\vep^k\big) T^n =\sum_{k\geq
N} \big(\sum_{n=0}^M a_{n,k} T^n\big) \vep^k.$$ This gives an element of the [**algebra of log Laurent series**]{} $\CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$ with coefficients in $\CC[T]$. Combining with Eq. (), we obtain a natural algebra injection $$u: \CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [\ln (-\vep)] \to \CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]
\mlabel{eq:formulau}$$ with which we identify $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\} [\ln (-\vep)]$ as a subalgebra of $\CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$.
For any $\vec s\in \ZZ ^k$, $\vec r \in {\mathbb}{Z}_{>0}^k$, $Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)$ is in $\CC \{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[ln(-\vep)]$ and can thus be regarded as an element in $\CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$ by Eq. (). If $\vec s$ is in ${\mathbb}{Z}_{\le 0}^k$, then $Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)$ is in $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$.
First notice that, for $r,i\in \ZZ_{>0}$, $$\sum _{n\geq i}e^{nr\vep }=\frac {1}{1-e^{r\vep}}\,e^{ir\vep}
\mlabel{eq:geo}$$ has a Laurent series expansion at $\vep=0$. Since $Z(\wvec{s}{r};\vep)$ is uniformly convergent on compact subsets in $Re(\vep)<0$, by repeatedly differentiating Eq. (), we see that, for $s\in \ZZ_{<0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum _{n\geq i}n^{-s}e^{nr\vep}
&=& r^s\Big( \sum_{p=0}^{-s} \binc{-s}{p} \big(\frac{1}{1-e^{r\vep}}\big)^{(p)}(e^{ir\vep})^{(-s-p)}\Big) \notag\\
&=&\sum _{p=0}^{-s}\binc{-s}{p}
\big(\frac{1}{1-e^{r\vep}}\big)^{(p)}
\frac{e^{ir\vep}}{r^{p}\,i^{s+p}}
\mlabel{eq:diffsum}\end{aligned}$$ has a Laurent series expansion at $\vep=0$.
Now we prove by induction on $k\geq 1$. Let $k=1$. Then $\vec s=s\in \ZZ$. The case when $s\leq 0$ follows from Eq. () with $i=1$. When $s>0$, we note that $Z'(\wvec{s}{r};\vep)=rZ(\wvec{s-1}{r};\vep)$. By Eq. (), $Z(\wvec{0}{r};\vep)$ is in $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[\ln(-\vep)]$ which is closed under integration (Lemma ). Thus $Z(\wvec{1}{r};\vep)$ is in $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[\ln(-\vep)]$ and, by an induction on $s$, the same holds for $Z(\wvec{s}{r};\vep)$ for any $s>0$.
Assume that the statements hold for $k\geq 1$ and prove for $Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}; \vep)$ with $\vec s=(s_1,\cdots,s_{k+1})$ in two cases.
[**Case 1.** ]{} Suppose $s_i\leq 0$ for some $1\leq i\leq k+1$. Then for fixed $n_{i-1}>n_{i+2}+1>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{n_{i-1}>n_i>n_{i+1}>n_{i+2}}
\frac{e^{n_ir_i\vep+n_{i+1}r_{i+1}\vep}}{n_i^{s_i}n_{i+1}^{s_{i+1}}}}\\
&=& \sum_{n_{i-1}>n_i\geq n_{i+1}>n_{i+2}}
\frac{e^{n_ir_i\vep+n_{i+1}r_{i+1}\vep}}{n_i^{s_i}n_{i+1}^{s_{i+1}}}
-\sum_{n_{i-1}> n_i=n_{i+1}>n_{i+2}}
\frac{e^{n_ir_i\vep+n_{i+1}r_{i+1}\vep}}{n_i^{s_i}n_{i+1}^{s_{i+1}}}\\
&=& \sum_{n_{i-1}>n_{i+1}>n_{i+2}}
\frac{e^{n_{i+1}r_{i+1}\vep}}{n_{i+1}^{s_{i+1}}}
\sum_{n_i=n_{i+1}}^{n_{i-1}-1}\frac{e^{n_ir_i\vep}}{n_i^{s_i}}
-\sum_{n_{i-1}> n_{i+1}>n_{i+2}}
\frac{e^{n_{i+1}(r_i+r_{i+1})\vep}}{n_{i+1}^{s_i+s_{i+1}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Eq. () to the inner sum of the first term, we have Thus Then we have The induction hypothesis applies to each term on the right hand side, completing the induction on $k$ in this case. In particular this completes the induction when $\vec{s}\in \ZZ^{k+1}_{\leq 0}$.
[**Case 2.**]{} Suppose $s_i>0$ for all $1\leq i\leq k+1$. We use induction on the sum $s:=\sum_{i=1}^{k+1} s_i$. Then $s\geq
k+1$. If $s=k+1$, then $s_i=1$ for $1\leq i\leq k+1$. Note that $$\frac {d}{d\vep } Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)=\sum r_i Z(\wvec{\vec s-\vec e _i}{\vec r};\vep),
\mlabel{eq:zdiff}$$ where $\vec e_i, 1\leq i\leq k+1$ is the $i$-th unit vector in $\ZZ ^{k+1}$. Each term on the right hand side is in $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[\ln(-\vep)]$ by Case 1. So by Lemma , $Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)$ is in $\CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$. The inductive step follows from Eq. () and the induction assumption.
Renormalized directional MZVs
-----------------------------
Combining Eq. (), Theorem and Eq. (), we obtain an algebra homomorphism $$\uni{Z}: \calh_\frakM \to \CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[\log (-\vep)] \ola{u} \CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}],\ \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}} \mapsto
u\big(Z(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)\big).
\mlabel{eq:zmap}$$ In the same way, $\uni{Z}$ restricts to an algebra homomorphism $$\uni{Z}: \calh_{\frakM^-} \to \CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}].$$ For any commutative $\bfk$-algebra $K$, $K[[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$ is a Rota-Baxter algebra of weight -1 with the Rota-Baxter operator $P$ to be the projection to $\vep^{-1} K [\vep^{-1}]$: $$P\big ( \sum_{n\geq N} \alpha_k \vep^k\big )=\sum_{k\leq -1}\alpha_k \vep^k.
\mlabel{eq:prb}$$ This can be directly verified as with the well-known case of $\CC[[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$ in .
Thus we can apply the Algebraic Birkhoff Decomposition in Theorem and obtain
We have $$\uni{Z}=\uni{Z}_-^{-1} \star \uni{Z}_+$$ and the map $\uni{Z}_+: \calh_\frakM\to \CC[T][[\vep]]$ is an algebra homomorphism which restricts to an algebra homomorphism $\uni{Z}_+: \calh_{\frakM^-}\to \CC[[\vep]]$.
Because of Corollary , the following definition is valid.
For $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ^k$ and $\vec{r}=(r_1,\cdots,r_k)\in \RR_{>0}^k$, define the [**renormalized directional MZV**]{} by $$\zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\rp = \lim_{\vep\to 0} \uni{Z}_+\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep\rp .
\mlabel{eq:dmzv}$$ Here $\vec{r}$ is called the [**direction vector**]{}.
As a consequence of Corollary , we have
The renormalized directional MZVs satisfies the quasi-shuffle relation $$\zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\rp \zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}\,'}{\vec{r}\,'}\rp
= \zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}} \msh \wvec{\vec{s}\,'}{\vec{r}\,'} \rp.
\mlabel{eq:dqshuf}$$ Here the right hand side is defined in the same way as in Eq. ().
We next give an explicit formula for the renormalized directional .
[Let $\Pi_k$ be the set of ordered partitions (compositions) of $k$, consisting of ordered sequences $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)$ such that $i_1+\cdots+i_p=k$. For $1\leq j\leq p$, define the partial sum $I_j=i_1+\cdots+i_{j}$ with the convention that $I_0=0$. The [**partition vectors**]{} of $\vec{s}\in \RR^k$ from the ordered partition $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)$ are the vector $\vec{s}^{(j)}:=(s_{I_{j-1}+1},\cdots,s_{I_{j}})$, $1\leq j\leq p$. ]{}
Let $P: \CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]\to \CC[T][\vep^{-1}]$ be the Rota–Baxter operator in Eq. (). Denote $\check{P}=-P$ and $\tilde{P}=\id-P$. For $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ^k$ and $\vec{r}=(r_1,\cdots,r_k)\in \NN_{>0}^k$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\ }\hspace{-.7cm} \uni{Z}_-\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep\rp
= \hspace{-.5cm}
\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_k}
\check{P}\llp
\llp \cdots \check{P}\llp\check{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp \wvec{\vec s ^{(1)}}{\vec r ^{(1)}};\vep\rp\rrp\,
\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(2)}}{\vec r ^{(2)}};\vep\rp \rrp \cdots\rrp
\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(p)}}{\vec r ^{(p)}};\vep\rp \rrp. } \notag \\
\lefteqn{{\ }\hspace{-.7cm} \uni{Z}_+\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep\rp
= \hspace{-.5cm}
\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in
\Pi_k}\tilde{P}\llp
\llp \cdots \check{P}\llp\check{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp \wvec{\vec s ^{(1)}}{\vec r ^{(1)}};\vep\rp\rrp\,
\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(2)}}{\vec r ^{(2)}};\vep\rp \rrp \cdots\rrp
\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(p)}}{\vec r ^{(p)}};\vep\rp \rrp } \notag \\
&=& \hspace{-.7cm}
\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in\Pi_k}\hspace{-.6cm}
\tilde{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(p)}}{\vec r ^{(p)}};\vep\rp
\check{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(p-1)}}{\vec r ^{(p-1)}};\vep\rp
\cdots \check{P}\llp\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s ^{(1)}}{\vec r ^{(1)}};\vep\rp\rrp\,
\cdots \rrp
\rrp.
\mlabel{eq:plus}\end{aligned}$$ \[thm:expform\]
This follows from Eq. () and () by induction on $k$. There is nothing to prove when $k=1$. Assuming the formulas for $\uni{Z}_-$ and $\uni{Z}_+$ are true for $k\leq n$. Then by Eq. (), $$\uni{Z}_-\lp\wvec{s_1,\cdots,s_{n+1}}{r_1,\cdots,r_{n+1}}\rp
=\check{P}\Big (\uni{Z}\lp \wvec{s_1,\cdots,s_{n+1}}{r_1,\cdots,r_{n+1}}\rp
+\sum_{j=1}^k \uni{Z}_-\lp\wvec{s_1,\cdots,s_j}{r_1,\cdots,r_j}\rp
\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{s_{j+1},\cdots,s_{n+1}}{r_{j+1},\cdots,r_{n+1}}\rp\Big ).$$ Now the formula for $\uni{Z}_-$ follows by applying the induction hypothesis to the $\uni{Z}_-$ factors in the sum and using the fact that any ordered partition of $(1,\cdots,n+1)$ is either the one block partition $(n+1)$ or $(i_1,\cdots,i_p,n+1-j), 1\leq j\leq n,$ with $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)$ an ordered partition of $(1,\cdots,j)$. Then the first formula for $\uni{Z}_+$ follows from Eq. (). The second formula for $\uni{Z}_+$ is just to put the $\uni{Z}$-factors to the front of $\check{P}(x)$ instead of after it.
Renormalized multiple zeta values
=================================
We now use the renormalized directional MZVs defined in Eq. () to obtain [**renormalized MZVs**]{}. Here we will focus on two cases, when the arguments are either all positive or all non-positive.
The main definition and theorem
-------------------------------
For $\vec{s}\in \ZZ_{> 0}^k\cup \ZZ_{\leq 0}^k$, define the [**renormalized MZV**]{} at $\vec{s}$ to be $$\gzeta\lp \vec{s}\rp
= \lim_{\delta \to 0^+} \zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{|\vec{s}|+\delta}\rp ,
\mlabel{eq:gmzv}$$ where, for $\vec s=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ and $\delta\in \RR_{>0}$, we denote $|\vec{s}|=(|s_1|,\cdots,|s_k|)$ and $|\vec s|+\delta=(|s_1|+\delta,\cdots,|s_k|+\delta).$
[Theorem below is our main theorem. It shows that our renormalized MZVs is well-defined and is compatible with known MZVs defined by either convergence, analytic continuation or the Ihara-Kaneko-Zagier regularization. It also proves that it satisfies the quasi-shuffle relation. We are optimistic that this is in fact the only definition of $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ from $\zeta(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r})$ with these properties and will elaborate on it in a subsequent work. ]{}
The limit in Eq. () exists for any $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ_{> 0}^k\cup \ZZ_{\leq 0}^k$. More precisely,
1. when $s_i$ are all positive with $s_1>1$, we have $\zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\rp =\zeta(\vec{s})$ independent of $\vec{r}\in \ZZ_{>0}^k$. In particular, $\gzeta(\vec{s})=\zeta(\vec{s})$;
2. when $s_i$ are all positive, we have $\gzeta(\vec{s})=\zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{s}}\rp $. Further, $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ agrees with the regularized MZV $Z^*_{\vec{s}}(T)$ defined by Ihara-Kaneko-Zagier ;
3. when $s_i$ are all negative, we have $\gzeta(\vec{s})=\zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{-\vec{s}}\rp =\disp{\lim_{\vec{r}\to -\vec{s}} \zeta\lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\rp} ;$
4. when $s_i$ are all non-positive, we have $\gzeta(\vec{s})= \disp{\lim _{\vec r\to -\vec s}\zeta \lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec
r}\rp ^{(\Sigma)}}$ where the right hand side is defined in Theorem . Further, $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ agrees with $\zeta(\vec{s})$ whenever the later is defined by analytic continuation.\
[ ${}$ ]{} Furthermore,
5. the set $\{\gzeta(\vec{s})\big| \vec{s}\in \ZZ^k_{>0}\}$ satisfies the quasi-shuffle relation;
6. the set $\{\gzeta(\vec{s})\big| \vec{s}\in \ZZ^k_{\leq 0}\}$ satisfies the quasi-shuffle relation.
The items of this theorem will be proved in the rest of this paper.
() is a restatement of Theorem . () is Theorem combined with Proposition . () and the first statement of () are contained in Corollary . The second statement of () is Proposition . () is just Corollary . () is just Theorem .
Renormalized multiple zeta values with positive arguments
---------------------------------------------------------
We first take care of the easy case when MZVs are define by the convergence of the nested sums.
Let $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ with positive integers $s_1,\cdots,s_k$ and $s_1>1$. We have $\zeta(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}})=\zeta(\vec{s})$, independent of the choice of $\vec{r}\in \ZZ_{>0}^k$. In particular, $\gzeta(\vec{s})=\zeta(\vec{s})$.
For such an $\vec{s}$, $Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)$ is uniformly convergent in $(-\infty, 0]$, and the summands are continuous functions. So $Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)$ is continuous in $(-\infty, 0]$. Therefore, the Laurent series of $Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)$ is a power series and, by Theorem , $\zeta(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}})=\lim_{\vep\to 0} \uni{Z}_+(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)
=\lim_{\vep\to 0} \uni{Z}(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)
= \uni{Z}(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};0)=\zeta(\vec{s}).$
We now extend the last case to include the possibility of $s_1=1$ and compare it with the regularized MZVs of Ihara-Kaneko-Zagier [@IKZ].
Let $(\vec u,\vec v)$ denote the concatenation of two vectors $\vec u$ and $\vec v$.
For a log power series $f(\vep),g(\vep)\in \CC[T][[\vep]]$, denote $f(\vep)=g(\vep)+ O(\vep)$ if $g(\vep)-f(\vep)\in \vep \CC[T][[\vep]]$. Let $\vec s \in \ZZ ^k_{>0}$ be of the form $\vec{s}=(\vec{1}_{m},\vec{s}\,')$ where $m\geq 1$, $\vec 1_m =(1,1,\cdots, 1)\in \ZZ ^m$ and either $k=m$ or $s_{m+1}>1$. For $\ell=k-m$, let $\vec r\,' \in \ZZ ^\ell_{>0}$. For $c>0$, denote $X=-\ln c +T$. Then $$\uni{Z}(\wvec{\vec 1_m, \vec s\,'}{c \vec 1_m,\vec r\,'};\vep)=P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}(X)+ O(\vep),
\mlabel{eq:lead}$$ where $P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}(X)$ is a degree $m$ polynomial in $X$ with leading coefficient $\zeta (\vec s\, ')/m!$ if $\ell>0$ and $1/m!$ if $\ell=0$.
We prove by induction on $m\geq 1$. First consider $m=1$. When $\ell=0$, note that $$Z(\wvec{1}{c};\vep)=\sum_{n\geq 1} \frac
{e^{nc\vep}}{n}=-\ln(1-e^{c\vep})= -\ln c - \ln (-\vep)+\ln\big(\frac{-c\vep}{1-e^{c\vep}}\big).$$ Since $ln \frac {-\vep}{1-e^{\vep }}$ is an analytic function at $\vep =0$ with $\lim _ {\vep \to 0} \ln \frac {-\vep }{1-e^{\vep }}=0,$ we have $$\uni{Z}(\wvec{1}{c};\vep)= -\ln c +T+O(\vep)=X+O(\vep).
\mlabel{eq:lead1}$$ So Eq. () is proved for $m=1$ and $\ell=0$. When $\ell\geq 1$, let $\vec{e}_j^{(\ell)}$ be the $j$-th unit vector of length $\ell$. Then by the quasi-shuffle relation $$\uni{Z}(\wvec{\vec s\,'}{\vec r\,'}; \vep)\uni{Z}(\wvec{1}{c};\vep)
= \uni{Z}(\wvec{1,\vec s\,'}{c,\vec r\,'})+
\sum_{j=1}^\ell \uni{Z}(\wvec{s_1,\cdots,s_j,1,s_{j+1},\cdots,s_\ell}{r_1,\cdots,r_j,c,r_{j+1},\cdots,r_\ell})
+\sum _{j=1}^\ell \uni{Z}(\wvec{\vec s\,'+ \vec{e}^{(\ell)}_j}{\vec r\,' + c\vec{e}^{(\ell)}_j}; \vep).$$ Since $s_1>1$, by the proof of Theorem and Eq. (), we have $$\uni{Z}(\wvec{1,\vec{s}\,'}{c,\vec{r}\,'})=\zeta(\vec{s}\,')X
-\sum_{j=1}^\ell \zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_j,1,s_{j+1},\cdots,s_\ell)
-\sum _{j=1}^\ell \zeta(\vec s\,'+ \vec{e}^{(\ell)}_j) + O(\vep).$$ This complete the proof for $m=1$.
Suppose the formula has been proved for $m\geq 1$ and consider $\uni{Z}(\wvec{\vec 1_{m+1}, \vec s\,'}{c \vec 1_{m+1},\vec r\,'};\vep)$. By the quasi-shuffle relation we have $$Z(\wvec{\vec 1_m,\vec s\,'}{c\vec 1_m,\vec r\,'}; \vep)Z(\wvec{1}{c};\vep)
= (m+1)Z(\wvec{\vec 1_{m+1},\vec s\,'}{c\vec 1_{m+1}, \vec r\,'}; \vep)
+\sum _{i=1}^m Z(\wvec{\vec 1_m + \vec{e}^{(m)}_i, \vec s\,'}{c \vec 1_m + c\vec{e}^{(m)}_i, \vec r\,'};
\vep)
+\sum _{j=1}^\ell Z(\wvec{\vec 1_m, \vec s\,'+\vec{e}^{(\ell)}_j}{c\vec 1_m, \vec r \,'+c \vec{e}^{(\ell)}_j}; \vep).$$ By the induction hypothesis, all terms in the two sums on the right hand side are of the form $f(X)+O(\vep)$ with $f$ polynomials in $X$ of degree $\leq m$. Thus by Eq. () and the induction hypothesis, we obtain $$Z(\wvec{\vec 1_{m+1}, \vec s\,'}{c \vec 1_{m+1},\vec r\,'};\vep)
=P_{m+1,\vec{s}\,'}(X) + O(\vep),$$ where $P_{m+1,\vec{s}\,'}(X)$ has degree $\deg P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}+1=m+1$ and has leading coefficient the leading coefficient of $P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}(X)X/(m+1)$, which is $\zeta (\vec s\,')/(m+1)!$ if $\ell>1$ and is $1/(m+1)!$ if $\ell=0$. This completes the induction.
Let $\vec s \in \ZZ ^k_{>0}$ with $\vec{s}=(\vec{1}_{m},\vec{s}\,')$ with $m\geq 1$ and $s_{m+1}>1$. Then $\gzeta(\vec s)=P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}(T)$, where $P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}$ is the polynomial in Lemma . Further, $\gzeta(\vec s)=\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec s}\rp$.
By Lemma and Eq. (), $\gzeta\lp \wvec{\vec 1_m, \vec s\,'}{c\vec 1_m, \vec r\,'}\rp=P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}(X)$ independent of $\vec{r}\,'$. Since $\lim _{c\to 1} X=T=X\big|_{c=1},$ we obtain $$\lim_{c\to 1, \vec r\,'\to \vec s\,'} \zeta\lp \wvec{\vec 1_m, \vec s\,'}{c\vec 1_m, \vec r\,'}\rp=P_{m,\vec{s}\,'}(T)=\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec s}\rp. \mbox{\proofend}$$
$\gzeta(\vec{s}), \vec{s}\in \ZZ_{>0}^k$, satisfy the quasi-shuffle relation.
The subset $\{{\wvec{s}{s}} |\, s\in \ZZ_{>0}\}$ of the semigroup $\frakM$ in Eq. () is a subsemigroup and the $\CC$-space $\calh$ generated by it is a sub-algebra of the quasi-shuffle algebra $\calh_\frakM$. Thus the algebra homomorphism $\uni{Z}_+:\calh_\frakM\to
\CC[T][[\vep]]$ in Corollary restricts to an algebra homomorphism $\uni{Z}_+:\calh\to \CC[T][[\vep]]$ with $$\uni{Z}_+\big(\lp{\wvec{s_1}{s_1}}, \cdots, {\wvec{s_k}{s_k}}\rp;0\big)=\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{s}}\rp=\gzeta(\vec s).$$ Hence the corollary.
Let $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ with positive integers $s_1,\cdots,s_k$ and $Z^\msh_{\vec{s}}(T)$ be the regularized MZVs of Ihara-Kaneko-Zagier. Then $\gzeta(\vec s)=Z^\msh_{\vec{s}}(T)$.
We recall [@IKZ Proposition 1] that $Z^\msh_{\vec{s}}(T)$ with $s_i\geq 1, 1\leq i\leq k$, is obtained as the unique extension of the MZVs $\zeta(\vec{s})$ with $s_i\geq 1$, $s_1>1$, such that $Z^\msh_{(1)}(T)=T$ and such that the quasi-shuffle relation still holds for $Z^*_{\vec{s}}(T)$. Since our definition of $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ agrees with $\zeta(\vec{s})$ for $s_i\geq 1$ and $s_1>1$, and our definition of $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ for $s_i \geq 1,
1\leq i\leq k$, also satisfies $\gzeta(1)=T$ (by Theorem ) and the quasi-shuffle relation (by Corollary ), the later $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ must agree with the regularized MZVs $Z^\msh_{\vec{s}}(T)$.
Renormalized multiple zeta values with non-positive arguments
-------------------------------------------------------------
We study $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ when $\vec{s}\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}^k$. We then show that these values agrees with the special values of the multiple zeta functions with negative arguments defined by analytic continuation.
### The case of $\vec{s}=(0,\cdots,0)$
Let $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ_{\le 0}^k$ and $\vec{r}=(r_1,\cdots,r_k)\in \ZZ_{>0}^k$.
1. For $k\ge 2$, we have
2. If $\ell<k$ and $s_1=\cdots=s_\ell=0$, then $$Z\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\rp= Z\lp \wvec{0,\cdots,0}{r_1,\cdots,r_\ell}\rp
Z\lp \wvec{s_{\ell+1},s_{\ell+2},\cdots,s_k}{r_1+\cdots+r_{\ell+1},r_{\ell+2},\cdots,r_k}\rp.$$
3. Each coefficient in the Laurent series expansion of $Z (\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep )$ is a rational function of the form $P(\vec r)/Q(\vec r)$, where $P$, $Q$ are in $\CC[r_1,\cdots,r_k]$ with no common factors, and are of the form $\Pi_{1\le j \leq k} (r_1+r_{2}+\cdots +r_j)^{c_{j}}$, $c_{j}\in
\ZZ _{\ge 0}$.
() Since $s_1\leq 0$, we have This gives the proposition when $k=2$. In general, applying the induction hypothesis to the second $Z$-factor completes the proof.
() Applying the first equation of item () repeatedly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ Z(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep) = Z(\wvec{0}{r_1};\vep )
Z(\wvec{s_2, s_3, \cdots s_{k}}{r_1+r_2, r_3,\cdots, r_{k}};\vep)
=\cdots} \\
&=& Z(\wvec{0}{r_1};\vep)Z(\wvec{0}{r_1+r_2};\vep)\cdots
Z(\wvec{0}{\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}r_i};\vep)
Z(\wvec{s_{\ell+1},\cdots,s_k}
{r_{\ell+1}+\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}r_i,r_{\ell+2},\cdots,r_k};\vep).\end{aligned}$$ Then applying the second equation of item () to the product before the last factor gives item (). () From the generating series of the Bernoulli numbers $\disp{\frac{\vep}{e^\vep-1}=\sum_{i\geq 0} B_i \frac{\vep^i}{i!}}$, $$Z(\wvec{0}{1};\vep)=\sum_{n\geq 0} e^{n\vep}
= \frac{e^\vep}{1-e^\vep}= -\frac{1}{\vep}\frac {-\vep}{e^{-\vep}-1}
= -\frac{1}{\vep}+ \sum_{i\geq 0}\zeta(-i) \frac{\vep^{i}}{i!}
\mlabel{eq:zeta}$$ since $B_0=1$ and $\zeta(-i)=(-1)^i\frac{B_{i+1}}{i+1}$ for $i\geq
0$. For $s\in \ZZ_{<0}$, we have $$Z(\wvec{s}{1};\vep)=\sum_{n\geq 1}{n^{-s}} {e^{n\vep}}
= \frac{d^{-s}}{d\vep} \big(\frac{e^\vep}{1-e^\vep}\big)$$ which converges uniformly on any compact subset in ${\rm
Re}(\vep)<0$. So its Laurent series expansion at $\vep=0$ is obtained by termwise differentiating Eq. (), yielding $$Z(\wvec{s}{1};\vep)=(-1)^{s-1}(-s)!\,\vep^{s-1}+\sum _{j=0}^{\infty} \zeta
(s-j)\frac {\vep^j}{j!}. \mlabel{eq:zreg}$$ Then for $r\in \ZZ _{>0}$, we have $$Z(\wvec{s}{r};\vep)=(-1)^{s-1}(-s)!(r\vep)^{s-1}+\sum _{j=0}^{\infty} \zeta
(s-j)\frac {(r\vep)^j}{j!}
\mlabel{eq:zreg2}$$ Then item () follows from item ().
Let $\Sigma_k$ denote the symmetric group on $k$ letters. For $\sigma\in \Sigma_k$ and $\vec{r}=(r_1,\cdots,r_k)$, denote $\sigma(\vec{r})=(r_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,r_{\sigma(k)})$ and $f(\vec r)^{(\Sigma_k)}=\sum _{\sigma \in \Sigma_k} f(\sigma (\vec r))$.
Let $k\geq 1$ and $\vec{0}_k=(0,\cdots,0)\in \ZZ^k$. Then $\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec 0_k}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma_k)}$ is independent of the choice of $\vec{r}\in \RR_{>0}^k$ and $\gzeta (\vec 0_k)
=\frac 1{k!}\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec 0_k}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma_k)}.$
This is proved by induction on $k\geq 1$. For $k=1$, by Eq. () we have $$\zeta(\wvec{0}{r})= \tilde{P}\big(Z(\wvec{0}{r})\big)\big|_{\vep=0}=\zeta (0)$$ independent of $r>0$. Thus $\gzeta(0)$ is defined and the proposition holds.
In general, by Proposition and Corollary , $$\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec 0_{k-1}}{r_1, \cdots, r_{k-1}}\rp^{(\Sigma_{k-1})}\zeta\lp\wvec{0}{r_k}\rp
=\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec 0_k}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma_{k})}
+\sum _{i=1}^{k-1}\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec 0_{k-1}}{r_1, \cdots r_i',
\cdots, r_{k-1}}\rp^{(\Sigma_{k-1})}$$ where $r_i'=r_i+r_k$. So by the induction hypothesis, $\zeta \lp\wvec{\vec 0_k}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma_{k})}$ is independent of $\vec{r}$. In particular, taking $\vec{r}=(\delta,\cdots,\delta)\in \RR_{>0}^k$, we have $$\frac{1}{k!}\, \zeta\lp\wvec{\vec{0_k}}{\vec{r}}\rp^{(\Sigma_k)} = \zeta\lp\wvec{\vec{0}_k}{\vec{r}}\rp= \gzeta(\vec{0}_k).
\mbox{\proofend}$$ It will be proved in Theorem that $\gzeta(\vec{0}_k), k\geq 1,$ satisfy the quasi-shuffle relation. It is in fact the only way to define $\gzeta(\vec{0}_k), k\geq 1,$ with $\gzeta(0)=\zeta(0)$ [@Gu3 Theorem 1.1].
### The general case of $\vec s \in \ZZ _{\le 0}^k$
[Let $\vec{s}\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}^k$. Suppose $s_i=0$ exactly for $k_j'\leq i\leq k_j''$ with $k_j'\leq k_j''$ for $1\leq j\leq q$ and $k_j''<k_{j+1}'-1$ for $1\leq j\leq q-1$. Then $(s_{k_j'},\cdots,s_{k_j''})$ are the longest consecutive zero strings, called the [**zero clusters**]{}. So (with the possibility of $k'_1=1$ or $k''_q=k$) $$\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_{k_1'-1},\!\!\!\!\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{k_1''-k_1'+1-{\rm terms}}\!\!\!\! , s_{k_1''+1},\cdots,s_{k_2'-1},
\cdots, \!\!\!\! \underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{k_q''-k_q'+1-{\rm terms}}\!\!\!\! ,s_{k_q''+1},\cdots,s_k ).
$$ For each $1\leq i\leq q$, let $\vec{k}^{(i)}=(k_i',\cdots,k_i'')$ and let $\Sigma_{\vec{k}^{(i)}}$ be the permutation group of $\vec{k}^{(i)}$, naturally a subgroup of $\Sigma_k$. Define the subgroup $$\Sigma(\vec s)=\Sigma_{\vec{k}^{(1)}} \times \cdots \times \Sigma_{\vec{k}^{(q)}} \subseteq \Sigma_k.$$ ]{}
So for $\sigma=(\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_q)\in \Sigma(\vec{s})$ with each $\sigma_i\in \Sigma_{\vec{k}^{(i)}}$, $1\leq i\leq q$, $\sigma(\vec{r})$ is obtained by $\sigma_i$ permuting $r_{k_i'},\cdots,r_{k_i''}$ and leaving the other entries fixed. Define $$\gzeta\lp\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\rp^{({\Sigma(\vec{s})})}=\sum_{\sigma\in {\Sigma(\vec{s})}}
\gzeta \lp\wvec{\vec{s}}{\sigma (\vec{r})}\rp,\quad
\uni{Z}_+(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}; \vep)^{({\Sigma(\vec{s})})} =\sum_{\sigma\in {\Sigma(\vec{s})}}
\uni{Z}_+(\wvec{\vec s}{\sigma (\vec{r})};\vep).$$
The limit $\disp{\lim _{\vec r\to -\vec s}\zeta\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\rp^{({\Sigma(\vec{s})})}}$ exists.
We first give some applications of the theorem and defer its proof to Section .
For $\vec s \in \ZZ ^k_{\le 0}$, $\gzeta(\vec s)$ is well-defined and $$\gzeta (\vec s)=\frac 1{|{\Sigma(\vec{s})}|}\lim _{\vec r\to -\vec s} \zeta\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\rp^{({\Sigma(\vec{s})})}.$$ If in addition $\vec s$ does not have consecutive zeros, then $$\gzeta(\vec{s})=\zeta \lp \wvec{\vec{s}}{-\vec{s}}\rp
=\lim_{\vec{r}\to -\vec{s}} \zeta\lp\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}\rp.$$
Taking the limit in Theorem when $\vec
r$ approaches $\vec s$ along the path $\vec r=\vec
s+\delta$, $\delta \to 0$, we have $$\lim _{\vec r\to -\vec s}\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec
r}\rp^{({\Sigma(\vec{s})})}= \lim _{\delta\to 0} \zeta\lp\wvec{\vec s}{-\vec s+\delta}\rp^{({\Sigma(\vec{s})})}.$$ By the definition of ${\Sigma(\vec{s})}$ and our choice of $\vec r$, ${\Sigma(\vec{s})}$ permutes the components of $\vec r$ that equal $\delta$. Therefore, $$\frac{1}{|{\Sigma(\vec{s})}|}\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec s}{-\vec s+\delta}\rp^{({\Sigma(\vec{s})})}= \zeta\lp\wvec{\vec s}{-\vec s+\delta}\rp$$ giving the first limit in the corollary. The second part follows since then $\Sigma(\vec s)$ is trivial.
We give an explicit formula when $k=2$. A similar formula holds for $k>2$, expressing $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ as a polynomial in the Bernoulli numbers. As a consequence, $\gzeta(\vec{s})$ is rational.
Let $s_1$, $s_2 \le 0$, but not both zero. Then $\gzeta(0,s_2)=\zeta(0)\zeta(s_2)-\zeta(s_2-1)$, and for $s_1<0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\gzeta (s_1, s_2)=\sum _{j=0}^{-s_1} \binc {-s_1}{j}
\zeta (-j)\zeta (s_1+s_2+j)-\frac{1}{1-s_1}\zeta(s_1+s_2-1)}\\
&&+\sum _{j=0}^{-s_1} \binc {-s_1}{j}\frac{(-1)^{s_1+s_2-j+1}}
{-s_1-s_2-j+1}\Big(\frac{s_1+s_2}{s_1}\Big)^{s_1+s_2+j-1}
\zeta(s_1+s_2-1).\end{aligned}$$
By Theorem , Proposition and Eq. (), we have Since $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum _{j=0}^{-s_1} \binc {-s_1}{j}
\frac {(-1)^{j+1}}{j+1}\Big(\frac {r_1+r_2}{r_1}\Big)^{j+1}=\frac
1{-s_1+1}\sum _{j=1}^{-s_1+1} \binc {-s_1+1}{j} (-1)^{j}\Big(\frac
{r_1+r_2}{r_1}\Big)^{j} \\
=&\frac 1{-s_1+1}\big ((1-\frac {r_1+r_2}{r_1})^{-s_1+1}-1\big
)=\frac 1{-s_1+1}(-\frac {r_2}{r_1})^{-s_1+1}-\frac 1{-s_1+1},\end{aligned}$$ the conclusion follows from Corollary .
In the following table, the element in row $s_1$ and column $s_2$ is $\gzeta(-s_1,-s_2)$, $1\leq s_1\leq 7,\ 1\leq s_2\leq 8$. It can be seen that elements on each of the even numbered subdiagonal lines are equal, and that for $s_1=s_2$ even, $\gzeta(s_1,s_2)=0$. They both follow from Eq. (). But the second one follows readily from the quasi-shuffle relation in Theorem .(): $ 2\gzeta(s_1,s_1)=\zeta(s_1)\zeta(s_1)-\zeta(2s_1)=0.$
[$$\hspace{-1.5cm}
\begin {array} {ccccccc}
\frac 1{288}& -\frac 1{240}& \frac {83}{64512}& \frac 1{504}& -\frac
{3925}{2239488}& -\frac 1{480}& \frac {342884347}{99656663040}
\medskip
\\
-\frac 1{240}& 0& \frac 1{504}& -\frac {319}{437400}&
-\frac 1{480}& \frac {2494519}{1362493440}& \frac 1{264}
\medskip
\\
-\frac {71}{35840}& \frac 1{504}&
\frac 1{28800}& -\frac 1{480}& \frac {114139507}{139519328256}&
\frac 1{264}& -\frac {313042283533}{93600000000000}
\medskip
\\
\frac 1{504}& \frac {319}{437400}& -\frac 1{480}& 0&
\frac 1{264}& -\frac {41796929201}{26873437500000}& -\frac
{691}{65520}
\medskip
\\
\frac {32659}{15676416}&
-\frac 1{480}& -\frac {21991341}{25836912640}&
\frac 1{264}& \frac 1{127008}& -\frac {691}{65520}& \frac {26194796926873}{5884626295848960}
\medskip\\
-\frac 1{480}& -\frac {2494519}{1362493440}& \frac 1{264}& \frac
{41796929201}{26873437500000}&
-\frac {691}{65520}& 0& \frac 1{24}
\medskip
\\
-\frac {75497471}{19931332608}& \frac 1{264}& \frac
{316292283533}{93600000000000}& -\frac {691}{65520}& -\frac
{36808933898915}{8238476814188544}& \frac 1{24}& \frac 1{115200}
\medskip
\\
\frac 1{264}& \frac
{16608667097}{2879296875000}& -\frac {691}{65520}& -\frac
{4607695}{491051484}& \frac 1{24}& \frac
{63967403428993199}{3561322226607185040}& -\frac {3617}{16320}
\end {array}$$ ]{}
### Compatibility with multiple zeta values defined by analytic continuation
We recall that the multiple zeta function $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ has analytic continuation to $\CC^k$ with singularities on the subvarieties in Eq. ().
For $(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}^k$, if $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ is well-defined by the analytic continuation, then it agrees with $\gzeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$.
When $k=1$, by Eq. () for $s\leq 0$, $$\gzeta(s)= \tilde{P}\big(Z(\wvec{s}{-s})\big)\big|_{\vep=0}=\zeta (s).$$ For $k=2$, by Eq. (), exactly when $s_1+s_2$ is negative and odd, the zeta values $\zeta(s_1,s_2)$ is defined by analytic continuation and thus agrees with the iterated limit $\disp{ \lim_{z_2\to s_2} \lim_{z_1\to s_1} \zeta(z_1,z_2)}$ defined in , Eq. (3). Note that our order of arguments in the definition of multiple zeta functions is opposite to their order. So $\zeta(z_1,z_2)$ here is $\zeta(z_2,z_1)$ in their paper. Thus our order of limits here is also opposite to their order.
For $n\geq 0$ and $q\geq 1$, let $(n)_q=n(n+1)\cdots (n+q-1)$. Then by Eq. (15) in : Since $s_1+s_2$ is negative and odd, $s_1+s_2-1$ is negative and even. Hence the first term is zero. Further, for $1\leq q\leq -s_1$, either $-q$ or $s_1+s_2+q$ is negative and even. Thus the sum also vanishes, leaving $\zeta(s_1,s_2)= -\zeta(s_1+s_2)/2$. By the same argument, from Corollary , we have $$\gzeta(s_1,s_2)=\zeta(0)\zeta(s_1+s_2)
=-\frac{\zeta(s_1+s_2)}{2}=\zeta(s_1,s_2).
\mlabel{eq:negodd}$$ By Eq. (), for $k\geq 3$, $\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ is not defined by analytic continuation for any non-positive integers $s_1,\cdots,s_k$. Thus we have completed the proof.
The proof of Theorem
=====================
Reduction to Proposition
-------------------------
With the notations in Theorem , define $$\uni{Z}^m_+\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep\rp
= \hspace{-.7cm}
\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in\Pi_k}\hspace{-.6cm}
\tilde{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(p)}}{\vec r ^{(p)}};\vep\rp
\check{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(p-1)}}{\vec r ^{(p-1)}};\vep\rp
\cdots \check{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(2)}}{\vec r ^{(2)}};\vep\rp
\check{P}\llp \vep^m\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s ^{(1)}}{\vec r ^{(1)}};\vep\rp\rrp\,
\rrp \cdots \rrp
\rrp.$$ Then by Theorem , we have $\uni{Z}_+^0\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep\rp
=\uni{Z}_+\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep\rp.$ For $\sigma\in \Sigma_k$, let $\sigma(\vec{s})^{(j)}$, $1\leq j\leq p$, be the partition vectors of $\sigma(\vec{s})=(s_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,s_{\sigma(k)})$ from the ordered partition $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)$ in Definition . Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)^{(\sigma)}:=\uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\sigma(\vec{r})};\vep)}
\mlabel{eq:msum}
\\
&=& \hspace{-.7cm}
\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in\Pi_k}\hspace{-.6cm}
\tilde{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(p)}}{\sigma(\vec r) ^{(p)}};\vep\rp
\cdots \check{P}\llp \uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s^{(2)}}{\sigma(\vec r) ^{(2)}};\vep\rp
\check{P}\llp \vep^m\uni{Z}\lp\wvec{\vec s ^{(1)}}{\sigma(\vec r) ^{(1)}};\vep\rp\rrp\,
\rrp \cdots \rrp.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}
=\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{s})} \uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec
r};\vep)^{(\sigma)}$$ By Proposition .() and Theorem , each coefficient in the Laurent series expansion of $\uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)$, and thus of $\uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep)^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}$, is a rational function $P(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r})/Q(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r})\in \CC(\vec{s},\vec{r})$ with $P,Q\in \CC[\vec{s},\vec{r}]$. We can assume that $P$ and $Q$ have no common factors. We call this coefficient [**ordinary**]{} at $\vec{r}=-\vec{s}$ if $Q(-\vec s)\not= 0$. We say that $ \uni {Z} _+^m\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}$ is [**ordinary**]{} if every coefficient of its Laurent series is ordinary.
Let $\sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{s})$. Let $P(\vec{r})/Q(\vec{r})$ be a coefficient of the Laurent series of $\uni{Z}_+^m(\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r})^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}$. The following statements are equivalent.
1. $P(\vec{r})/Q(\vec{r})$ is ordinary at $\vec{r}=-\vec{s}$.
2. $\disp{\lim_{\vec r\to -\vec s} P(\vec{r})/Q(\vec{r})}$ exists.
3. $Q(\vec{r})$ does not have a linear factor $r_{k_1}+\cdots+r_{k_t}$ such that $\{k_1,\cdots,k_t\}$ is a subset of $\vec{k}^{(j)}$ for some $1\leq j\leq q$ in Definition .
() $\Leftrightarrow$ () holds for any rational functions, and () $\Rightarrow$ () is clear since if $\{k_1,\cdots,k_t\}$ is a subset of some $\vec{k}^{(j)}$, then $s_{k_1}+\cdots+s_{k_t}=0$.
() $\Rightarrow$ (): Suppose $P(\vec{r})/Q(\vec{r})$ is not ordinary at $\vec{r}=-\vec{s}$. Then by Proposition .() and Theorem , $Q(\vec{r})$ has a factor $r_{k_1}+\cdots+r_{k_t}$ with $s_{k_1}=\cdots s_{k_t}=0$. Since the denominator of a sum of fractions is a factor of the product of the denominators of the fractions, this factor is a factor in the denominator $Q_\sigma(\vec{r})$ of a coefficient of the Laurent series of $\uni{Z}_+^m(\wvec{\vec s}{\sigma(\vec r)})$ for a $\sigma\in
\Sigma(\vec{s})$. If this $\sigma$ is $\id$, then by Proposition .() and Theorem , $r_{k_1}+\cdots+r_{k_t}=r_i+\cdots+r_{i+t}$ for some $i$. Thus from $s_{r_{k_1}}=\cdots=s_{r_{k_t}}=0$, $\{r_{k_1},\cdots,r_{k_t}\}=\{r_i,\cdots,r_i+t\}$ is a subset of $\vec{k}^{(j)}$ for some $1\leq j\leq q$ with the notation of Definition . If $\sigma\neq \id$, then $r_{k_1}+\cdots+r_{k_t}=r_{\sigma(i)}+\cdots+r_{\sigma(i+t)}$ for some $i$. Since $\sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{s})$ permutes the components of $\vec{k}^{(j)}$ among themselves, $\{r_{\sigma(i)},\cdots,r_{\sigma(i+t)}\}$ is still a subset of $\vec{k}^{(j)}$. Thus in any case, $Q(\vec{r})$ has a linear factor $r_{k_1}+\cdots+r_{k_t}$ such that $\{k_1,\cdots,k_t\}$ is a subset of $\vec{k}^{(j)}$ for some $1\leq j\leq q$.
Thus to prove Theorem , we just apply the following Proposition to the case when $m=0$ and then let $\vep$ go to $0$. Note that even though we only need $m=0$ for Theorem , we have to consider other values of $m$ for the inductive proof.
Let $\vec s \in \ZZ _{\le
0}^k$. Take $m\in \ZZ _{\le 0}$ if $s_1=0$ and take $m\in \ZZ$ if $s_1<0$. Then $ \uni {Z} _+^m\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}$ is ordinary at $\vec r=-\vec s$.
The proof of Proposition
-------------------------
The following chart gives an outline of the proof. $$\xymatrix{
\mbox{Special case}\ar[rd] && \mbox{Lemma~\mref{lem:induc}}\ar[r]& \mbox{Case 1} \ar[rdd] & \\
& \mbox{Lemma~\mref{lem:cong}} \ar[r] & \mbox{Subcase 2.1} \ar[rd] && \\
\mbox{General case} \ar[ru] &&& \mbox{Case 2} \ar[r] & \mbox{Prop.~\mref{pp:mgood}}\\
&& \mbox{Subcase 2.2} \ar[ru] &&\\
&&& \mbox{Case 3} \ar[ruu] &
}$$
We first introduce the following notations to simplify our expressions. For any Laurent series $f$, we use $\lb f\rb$ to denote $\check {P}\lp f\rp$. Also use $\overline{\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}}$ to denote $\uni {Z}\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep \rp$ and $\overline{\vec r}$ or $\overline{r_1\cdots r_k}$ to denote $\uni{Z}\lp \wvec{\vec 0}{\vec r};\vep\rp$. With these abbreviations, we have $$\uni{Z}_+^m\lp \wvec{\vec s}{\vec r};\vep\rp
= \sum_{ (i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_k} \tilde{P}
\left ( \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{(p)}}{\vec r ^{(p)}}}
\lb\cdots \lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{( 2 )}}{\vec r ^{( 2)}}}\lb
\vep ^m \overline {\wvec{\vec s ^{(1)}}{ \vec r ^{( 1 )}}}\rb\,
\rb \cdots\rb
\right ).$$
We now prove Proposition by induction on $k$. The case when $k=1$ is clear by Eq. (). Assume that the proposition is true for vectors with length $\le k$ and let $\vec s\in \ZZ _{\le 0}^{k+1}$. We will separately consider three cases with $$\mbox{\bf Case 1: when $s_1<0$; Case 2: $s_1=0$ but $\vec{s}\neq 0$ and
Case 3: $\vec{s}=0$}.$$ [**Case 1: assume $s_1<0$.** ]{} Then by our choice, $m$ is in $\ZZ $. Let $\vec s=(s_1, \vec s\,')$, $\vec r=(r_1, \vec
r\,')$. We clearly have the disjoint union $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{k+1}&=&\{(1,i_1,\cdots,i_p)\ \big|\ (i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_k\} \notag \\
&& \cup
\{(i_1+1,i_2,\cdots,i_p)\ \big|\ (i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_k\}.
\mlabel{eq:ab}\end{aligned}$$ For $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_k$, let $\vec{s}^{\,\prime (j)}, 1\leq j\leq p$ be the partition vectors of $\vec{s}^{\,\prime}$ from $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)$ in Definition . Similarly define $\vec{r}^{\,\prime (j)}$, $1\leq j\leq p$. Then by Eq. (), We will make use of the following lemma.
Let $\vec{s}\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}^k$, $\vec{r}\in \ZZ_{>0}^k$. Let $k'<k$ and $\vec{s}=(\vec{s}\,',\vec{s}\,''), \vec{r}=(\vec{r}\,',\vec{r}\,'')$ with $\vec{s}\,'$ and $\vec{r}\,'$ of length $k'$. Suppose a Laurent series $f(\wvec{\vec{s}\,'}{\vec{r}\,'};\vep)=\sum_{i<0} c_i\vep^i\in \CC(\vec{s}\,',\vec{r}\,')[[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$ is ordinary at $\vec{r}\,'=-\vec{s}\,'$. If $\uni{Z}_+^m(\wvec{\vec{s}\,''}{\vec{r}\,''};\vep)$ is ordinary at $\vec{r}\,''=-\vec{s}\,''$ for all $m\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}$ (resp. all $m\in \ZZ$), then $$\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_{k-k'}}
\tilde{P}\Llp \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime(p)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime\prime (p)}}}
\lb\cdots \lb\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (2)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime\prime (2)}}}
\lb \vep^{m} f(\wvec{\vec{s}\,'}{\vec{r}\,'};\vep) \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime(1)}}{ \vec r^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}}
\rb
\rb \cdots\rb \Rrp^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}\,''))}$$ is ordinary at $\vec{r}=-\vec{s}$ for all $m\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}$ (resp. all $m\in \ZZ$).
We have Since $i<0$, we have $m+i<0$ if $m\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}$ and $m+i\in \ZZ$ if $m\in \ZZ$. Hence each of the inner sum is ordinary at $\vec{r}\,''=-\vec{s}\,''$ and thus ordinary at $\vec r=-\vec s$ since the inner sum does not involve $\vec s\,'$ and $\vec r\,'$. By assumption each $c_i$ is ordinary at $\vec r\,'=-\vec s\,'$ and hence at $\vec r=-\vec s$ as $c_i$ does not involve $\vec s\,''$ and $\vec r\,''$. Thus the sum is ordinary at $\vec r=-\vec s$.
Back to the proof of Proposition in Case 1, since $s_1<0$, by Eq. (), $\big\langle \vep ^m \overline {\wvec{s_1}{r_1}} \big\rangle =\check{P}(\vep^m \uni{Z}(\wvec{s_1}{r_1})$ is ordinary at $r_1=-s_1$. Therefore the first sum in Eq. () is ordinary at $\vec r=-\vec s$ by Lemma and the induction hypothesis.
For the second term in Eq. (), for fixed $1\leq i_1\leq k$, identify an ordered partition $(i_2,\cdots,i_p)$ of $k-i_1$ with the ordered partition $(i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_p)$ of $k$, we have Let $\Sigma'=\Sigma(s_1,\vec{s}\,'^{(1)})$ and $\Sigma''=\Sigma(\vec{s}\,'^{(2)},\cdots,\vec{s}\,'^{(p)})=\Sigma(s_{i_1+1},\cdots,s_k)$. Then $\Sigma'\Sigma''=\Sigma'\times \Sigma''$ and thus is a subgroup of $\Sigma(\vec{s})$. Let $S$ be a complete set of coset representatives for the cosets $\{ \Sigma'\Sigma'' \sigma\ |\ \sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{s})\}$ of $\Sigma(\vec{s})$. So $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{(i_2,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_{k-i_1}}
\tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime(p)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime (p)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime(2)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\wvec{s_1,\vec s^{\,\prime (1)}}{r_1, \vec r ^{\,\prime (1)}}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb\Big)^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}
\mlabel{eq:s21}
\\
&=&
\sum_{\sigma\in S} \sum_{(i_2,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_{k-i_1}}
\tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime(p)}}{\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (p)}}} \lb\cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime(2)}}{\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (2)}}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\wvec{s_1,\vec s^{\,\prime (1)}}{\sigma(r_1, \vec r ^{\,\prime (1)})}}\rb ^{(\Sigma')}
\rb \cdots \rb \Big)^{(\Sigma'')}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$
Let $\sigma\in S$, by the definition of $\Sigma(\vec{s})$, we have $\sigma(r_1,\vec{r}\,^{\prime (1)})=(r_1,r_{\sigma(2)},\cdots).$ So by Proposition , each coefficient in the Laurent series expansion of $\lb \vep ^m \overline {\wvec{s_1,\vec
s^{\,\prime (1)}}{\sigma(r_1, \vec r ^{\,\prime} (1)})}\rb
^{(\Sigma')}$ has its denominator as a product of $(r_1+r_{\sigma(j_1)}+\cdots +r_{\sigma(j_t)})$, $t\geq 0$, with $1\leq j_1,\cdots,j_t\leq i_1$. Hence the expansion is ordinary at $\sigma(\vec r\,^{\prime})^{(1)}=-\sigma(\vec s\,^{\prime})^{(1)}$ since $s_1<0$ and $s_i\leq 0$.
Further by the induction hypothesis on $k$, $$\sum_{(i_2,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_{k-i_1}}
\tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime(p)}}{\sigma(\vec r^{\,})^{\prime (p)}}} \lb\cdots
\lb \vep^t \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime(2)}}{\sigma(\vec r^{\,})^{\prime (2)}}}
\rb \cdots \rb \Big)^{(\Sigma'')}$$ is ordinary at $(r'_{\sigma(i_1+1)},\cdots,r'_{\sigma(k+1)})=-(s_{i_1+1},\cdots, s_{k+1})$ for $t\in \ZZ_{\leq 0}$. Thus by Lemma , the inner sum on the right hand side of Eq. () is ordinary at $\sigma(\vec r)=-\vec s$ for each $\sigma\in S$. Note that $\sigma(\vec{s})=\vec{s}$ for $\sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{s})$ and being ordinary at $\sigma(\vec{r})=-\sigma(\vec{s})$ is equivalent to being ordinary at $\vec{r}=-\vec{s}$. Hence the left hand sum is ordinary at $\vec r=-\vec s$ in Eq. () and hence in Eq. () and hence in the second term of Eq. ().
[**Case 2: assume $s_1=0$, but $\vec s\neq 0$.**]{} Then $m\le 0$. Assume $s_1=s_2=\cdots =s_\ell=0$, $s_{\ell+1}\not =0$, $\ell \le k$. Then $\vec s =(\vec s\,', \vec s\,'')$ with $\vec s\,'=\vec{0}_\ell$ and $\vec{s}\,''=(s_{\ell+1},\cdots,s_{k+1})$. Similarly denote $\vec r= (\vec r\,',\vec r\,'')$ with $\vec r\,'=(r_1,\cdots,r_\ell)$ and $\vec r\,''=(r_{\ell+1},\cdots, r_{k+1})$. In the notation of Definition , $(1,\cdots,\ell)=\vec{k}^{(1)}$.
By Lemma , in order to prove that $\uni{Z}_+^m(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)$ is ordinary, we only need to show that no coefficient of its Laurent series expansion has a denominator with either
1. a [**type (i) factor:**]{} $r_{k_1}+\cdots+r_{k_t}$ where $k_1,\cdots,k_t\leq \ell$ or
2. a [**type (ii) factor:**]{} $r_{k_1}+\cdots+r_{k_t}$ where $\{k_1,\cdots,k_t\}$ is a subset of $\vec{k}^{(j)}$ for some $2\leq j\leq q$ in Definition .
[**Subcase 2.1: there are no type (i) factors.**]{} Note that any ordered partition of $\Pi
_{k+1} $ is of the form $(i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_p, j_1, j_2, \cdots,
j_q)$ or $(i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_p+j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_q)$, with $(i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_p)\in \Pi _\ell$, $(j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_q)\in
\Pi _{k+1-\ell}$. Using the notations in Definition , let $\vec{r}^{\,\prime(1)},\cdots,\vec{r}^{\,\prime(p)}$ be the partial vectors of $\vec r\,'$ from the ordered partition $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell$. Similarly let $\vec{s}^{\,\prime\prime(1)},\cdots, \vec{s}^{\,\prime\prime(q)}$ (resp. $\vec{r}^{\,\prime\prime(1)},\cdots,\vec{r}^{\,\prime\prime(q)}$) be the partition vectors of $\vec s\,''$ (resp. $\vec r\,''$) from the ordered partition $(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\uni {Z} _+^m\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}&= & \hspace{-1cm}
\sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell\\
(j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_q)\in \Pi _{k+1-\ell}\end{array}}}
\hspace{-1cm} \tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\lb\cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}}
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (p)}} \cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb
\rb \cdots \rb
\Big)^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}
\\
&& + \hspace{-1.3cm}\sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell\\
(j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_q)\in \Pi _{k+1-\ell}\end{array}}}
\hspace{-1cm} \tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec 0, \vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime (p)},\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb \cdots \rb
\Big)^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}\end{aligned}$$ Also define $\Sigma'=\Sigma_{\ell}=\Sigma(\vec{s}\,')$ and $\Sigma''=\Sigma(\vec{s}\,'')$ as in Definition . Then $\Sigma(\vec{s})=\Sigma_\ell \times \Sigma''$. So $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\uni {Z} _+^m\lp\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\rp^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))} \hspace{-.5cm}=\hspace{-1.3cm}\sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell\\
(j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_q)\in \Pi _{k+1-\ell}\end{array}}}
\hspace{-1cm} \tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}}
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (p)}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb ^{(\Sigma _\ell)}
\rb \cdots \rb
\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}} \notag \\
&& + \hspace{-1.3cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell\\
(j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_q)\in \Pi _{k+1-\ell}\end{array}}}
\hspace{-1.3cm} \tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec 0, \vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime (p)},\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb ^{(\Sigma _\ell)} \cdots \rb
\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}
\mlabel{eq:mzsum}\end{aligned}$$
Now for fixed $(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in\Pi _{k+1-\ell}$ and $\tau \in
\Sigma''$, the corresponding terms in the above summation are $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\tiny{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell }}
\tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(q)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}}}
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime(p)}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb ^{(\Sigma _\ell)}\rb \cdots \rb
\Big) & \\
&+ \sum_{\tiny{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell}}
\tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (q)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec 0, \vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime (p)},\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb ^{(\Sigma _\ell)} \cdots \rb
\Big)&\\
&= \tilde{P}\Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(q)}}} \lb \cdots
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(2)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(2)}}}
\llb \sum_{\tiny{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell }}\Big (
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}
{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (p)}} \cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}
\rb \rb \cdots \rb
& \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad
+\overline {\wvec{\vec 0, \vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime (p)},
\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}}}
\cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots
\Big )^{(\Sigma _\ell)}
\rrb \cdots \rb
\Big) &\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition .(), $$\overline {\wvec{\vec 0, \vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime (p)},\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})
^{(1)}}}=\overline { \vec r^{\,\prime (p)}}\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime
\prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+(r'_{I_{p-1}+1}+\cdots +
r'_{I_p})\vec{e} _1^{(j_1)}}},$$ where $\vec{e}^{(j_1)}_1$ is the first unit vector of length $j_1$ (which is the length of $\vec{r}\,^{\prime\prime (1)}$ and $\tau(\vec{r}\,'')^{(1)}$). So the inner sum on the right hand side above becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi _\ell}\left (
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (p)}} \cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb \right .\\
&& \qquad \left . +\,
\overline { \vec r^{\,\prime (p)}}
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+(r'_{I_{p-1}+1}+\cdots +r'_{I_p})\vec{e} _1^{(j_1)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb
\right )^{(\Sigma _\ell)}\\
&=&\sum_{(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi _\ell}\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_{\ell}} \left (
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (p)}} \cdots
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb \right .\\
&& \qquad \left . +\,
\overline { \sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (p)}}
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+(r'_{\sigma(I_{p-1}+1)}+\cdots +r'_{\sigma(I_p)})\vec{e} _1^{(j_1)}}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb
\right )\end{aligned}$$ For a given pair $g:=(\sigma,\pi)\in \Sigma_\ell \times \Pi_\ell$, let $(g)_1$ (resp. $(g)_2$) be the first term (resp. second term) in the above sum. Thus the double sum can be simply denoted by $$\sum _{g\in \Sigma_\ell\times \Pi_\ell}((g)_1+(g)_2).$$
We denote $f \equiv _\ell g$ if no coefficient of the Laurent series expansion of $f-g$ has a denominators with a factor $r'_\ell+r'_{k_1}+\cdots +r'_{k_t}$, $t\geq 0$, with $j_1,\cdots,j_t<\ell$. This is clearly an equivalence relation.
$\disp{\sum _{g\in \Sigma_\ell \times \Pi_\ell}((g)_1+(g)_2) \equiv_\ell 0.}
$
[**A special case.**]{} We first consider the special case when $g=(\sigma,\pi)\in \Sigma_\ell\times\Pi_\ell$ is of the form $(\cdots(\ell))$, that is, $\pi$ has $(\ell)$ as the last partition factor and $\sigma(\ell)=\ell$. Denote $a= \lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (p-1)}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb$. Then we verify that $$\begin{aligned}
(g)_1+(g)_2 &=&
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
\lb\bar r' _\ell \lb a\rb \rb
+
\bar r' _\ell\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime
\prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+r'_{\ell} \vec{e} _1^{(j_1)}}} \lb a \rb
\notag \\
&& \equiv _\ell
-\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
\lb \lb \bar r' _\ell\rb \lb a \rb \rb
- \lb \bar r' _\ell\rb
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+r'_{\ell}\vec{e} _1^{(j_1)}}}
\lb a \rb
\mlabel{eq:lcong}\\
&&=\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}}}
\lb \bar r' _\ell\rb \lb a\rb
-\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+r'_{\ell}\vec{e} _1^{(j_1)}}}
\lb \bar r' _\ell\rb \lb a\rb.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Here for the $\equiv_\ell$, note that the series expansion of $\lb \bar r'_\ell \rb + \bar r'_\ell$ is the power series part of the Laurent series of $\bar r'_\ell = \uni{Z}(\wvec{0}{r'_\ell};\vep)$, and hence by Eq. (), $r'_\ell$ does not occur in the denominators the series expansion of $\lb \bar r'_\ell \rb + \bar r'_\ell$. Then the $\equiv_\ell$ follows from the easily checked properties: if $f\equiv_\ell g$, then $ \lb f \rb \equiv \lb g\rb$, and if in addition $h\not\equiv_\ell 0$, then $fh \equiv_\ell gh$. The last equation in Eq. () holds since $\check{P}$ is an idempotent Rota-Baxter operator and hence by Eq. (), $$\lb \lb x \rb \lb y \rb \rb= \lb \lb \lp x \lb y\rb + \lb x\rb y +xy \rp \rb\rb
=\lb \lp x \lb y\rb + \lb x\rb y +xy \rp \rb = \lb x\rb \lb y \rb.$$
By Eq. (), $\lb \bar {r'_\ell}\rb =-\frac 1{r'_\ell \vep}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lim_{r'_\ell\to 0}\Big (\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
\lb \bar {r'_\ell}\rb
-\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+r'_{\ell}\vec{e}_1^{(j_1)}}}
\lb \bar {r'_\ell}\rb \Big) \\
&& =\frac{1}{\vep} \lim_{r'_\ell\to 0} \Big(\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
-\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+r'_{\ell}\vec{e}_1^{(j_1)}}}\Big)/r'_\ell
=\frac{1}{\vep} \frac{\partial}{\partial (r''_1)} \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}\end{aligned}$$ exists. Here the differentiation is taken termwise in the Laurent series. Thus $$\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{(1)}}}
\lb \bar {r'_\ell}\rb
-\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\tau(\vec r^{\,\prime \prime})^{ (1)}+r'_{\ell}\vec{e}_1^{(j_1)}}}
\lb \bar {r'_\ell}\rb \equiv _\ell 0.$$
[**The general case.** ]{} We now prove the lemma in general by induction on $\ell$. If $\ell=1$, then there can be only one partition $(1)$. So the special case applies and we are done. Assume the lemma is proved for $\ell-1$ and consider the case of $\ell$.
For $g=(\sigma,(i_1,\cdots,i_p))\in \Sigma_\ell\times \Pi_\ell$, consider the vector of partition vectors of $(\sigma(1),\cdots,\sigma(\ell))$ from $(i_1,\cdots,i_p)$, called a [**partitioned permutation**]{}, $$((\sigma(1),\cdots,\sigma(I_1)),(\sigma(I_1+1),\cdots,\sigma(I_2)),\cdots,
(\sigma(I_{p-1}+1),\cdots,\sigma(\ell))).$$ Here $I_j=i_1+\cdots+i_j$, $1\leq j\leq p$. So $I_p=\ell$. This gives a natural 1-1 correspondence between $\Sigma_\ell\times \Pi_\ell$ and $$\Pi_\ell^\Sigma:=\{
((n_1, \cdots n_{I_1}),(n_{I_1+1}, \cdots
n_{I_2}),\cdots ,(n_{I_{p-1}+1}, \cdots, n_{\ell}))\}
\mlabel{eq:parper}$$ where $(I_1,I_2-I_1,\cdots,\ell-I_{p-1})$ is in $\Pi_\ell$ and $(n_1,\cdots,n_{\ell})$ is in $\Sigma_\ell$. We can thus identify $\Sigma_\ell\times \Pi_\ell$ with $\Pi_\ell^\Sigma$ and call $p=\length(g)$ the length of $g$.
For $1\leq p\leq \ell$, let
- $\Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq p}\subseteq \Pi_\ell^\Sigma$ consisting of $g$ with $\length(g)\leq p$,
- $\Sigma_{\ell,\leq p}^{(1)}$ consisting of $g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq p}$ whose last partition factor is not $(\ell)$,
- $\Sigma_{\ell, \leq p}^{(2)}$ consisting of $g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq p}$ that do not contain $(\ell)$ as a partition factor,
- $\Sigma_{\ell, \leq p}^{(3)}=\Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq p}^{(1)}\backslash \Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq p}^{(2)}$, that is, consisting of $g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq p}$ that do contain $(\ell)$ as a partition factor, but not as the last factor.
Similarly define $\Sigma_{\ell,=p}$ and $\Sigma_{\ell, =p}^{(i)}$ for $i=1,2,3.$ Thus $\Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq \ell}=\Sigma_\ell^\Pi$ and by the special case, we have $$\sum_{g\in \Sigma_\ell^\Pi\backslash\Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq \ell}^{(1)}} ((g)_1+(g)_2)
\equiv_\ell 0.$$ So to prove Lemma we only need to prove $$\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq \ell}^{(1)}} ((g)_1+(g)_2)
\equiv_\ell 0.
\mlabel{eq:cong1}$$ For this we first use the induction on $p=\length(g)$ to prove that for $(g)=(g)_1$ or $(g)_2$,
$$\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\le p}^{(1)}}(g)
\equiv _\ell \sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,=p}^{(2)}}(g)
-\sum _{i=1}^{\ell-1}\sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell-1,\leq p-1}}(g)^{(i)}
\mlabel {eqn:length}$$
In the last term $(g)^{(i)}$ means replacing $(r'_1,\cdots,r'_{\ell-1})$ by $(r'_1, \cdots, r'_i+r'_\ell ,\cdots, r'_{\ell -1})$ in $(g)$.
The case of $\ell=1$ and thus $p=1$ is covered by the special case. For $\ell \ge 2$, we use induction on $p$. When $p=1$, there is only one partition. So Eq. () is an identity. If for $p$, formula () is true, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\le (p+1)}^{(1)}}(g)
&=& \sum_{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\le p}^{(1)}}(g)
+ \sum_{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,= (p+1)}^{(1)}}(g) \mlabel{eq:gind}
\\
&\equiv _\ell& \sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,=p}^{(2)}}(g)
-\sum _{i=1}^{\ell-1}\sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell-1, \leq p-1}}(g)^i +\sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,=p+1}^{(2)}}(g)
+\sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,=p+1}^{(3)}}(g).
\notag\end{aligned}$$
It is easily verified that the following relations are equivalence relations.
- An element in $\Sigma_{\ell, =p+1}^{(3)}$ is of the form $(\cdots (\ell)(a_1,\cdots,a_j)\cdots )$ with $\{a_1,\cdots,a_j\}
\subseteq [\ell]$. Define $g_1=(\cdots (\ell)(a_1, \cdots,
a_j)\cdots )\sim_3 g_2$ if $g_2$ can be obtained from $g_1$ by a permutation of $(a_1,\cdots,a_j)$. Thus an equivalence class for $\sim_3$ is of the form $(\cdots(\ell)(a_1,\cdots,a_j)^{\Sigma_j}\cdots)$.
- An element in $\Sigma_{\ell, =p}^{(2)}$ is of the form $(\cdots (a_1,
\cdots, a_j)\cdots )$ with $\ell\in \{a_1,\cdots,a_j\}$. Define $g_1=(\cdots (a_1, \cdots, a_j)\cdots )\sim_2 g_2$, where $\ell\in
\{a_1,\cdots,a_j\}$, if $g_2$ can be obtained from $g_1$ by by a permutation of $(a_1, \cdots a_j)$. Thus an equivalence class for $\sim_2$ is of the form $(\cdots(a_1,\cdots,a_j)^{\Sigma_{j}}\cdots)$.
- An element in $[\ell -1]\times \Sigma_{\ell-1,=p}$ is of the form $\big(i, (\cdots (\sigma(I_{j-1}+1), \cdots,
\sigma(I_j))\cdots)\big)$ where $\sigma\in \Sigma_{\ell-1}$, $(I_{j-1}+1,\cdots,I_j)$ is a block of an ordered partition of $\ell-1$ of length $p$ and $I_{j-1}+1\leq i\leq I_j$. Define $(i,
(\cdots (\sigma(I_{j-1}+1),\cdots,\sigma(I_j))\cdots) \sim
(i',g')$ if $I_{j-1}+1\leq i' \leq I_j$ and $g'$ can be obtained from $g$ by a permutation of $(\sigma(I_{j-1}+1),\cdots,
\sigma(I_j))$. An equivalence class for $\sim$ is of the form $$\cup_{i=I_{j-1}+1}^{I_j} (i, (\cdots(\sigma(I_{j-1}+1),\cdots,\sigma(I_j))
^{\Sigma_{I_j-I_{j-1}+1}}, \cdots)).$$
There are obvious one-to-one correspondences between these equivalence classes Here $(a_1,\cdots,a_j)=(\sigma(I_{j-1}+1),\cdots,\sigma(I_j))$.
For $g=(\cdots (\ell)(a_1, \cdots, a_j)\cdots )
\in \Sigma_{\ell,=p+1}^{(3)}$, as in Eq. () we have $$\begin{aligned}
(g)&=&\lb \lb \cdots \rb \bar r'_\ell \rb \overline {r'_{a_1} \cdots r'
_{a_j}}\cdots \equiv _\ell -\lb \lb \cdots \rb \lb \bar r'_\ell\rb
\rb \overline {r'_{a_1} \cdots r' _{a_j}}\cdots \\
&=&\lb \cdots \rb \lb
\bar r'_\ell \rb \overline {r'_{a_1} \cdots r' _{a_j}}\cdots \equiv
_\ell-\lb \cdots \rb \bar r'_\ell \overline {r'_{a_1} \cdots r'
_{a_j}}\cdots.\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition and Eq. (), we have $$\bar {r'_\ell}\ \overline{r'_{a_1}r'_{a_2}\cdots r'_{a_{j}}}^{(\Sigma_{j})}
=\overline{r'_{\ell} r'_{a_1}r'_{a_2}\cdots r'_{a_{j}}}^{(\Sigma_{j+1})}+\sum
_{i=1}^{j}\overline{r'_{a_1}\cdots \tilde{r}_{a_i}'\cdots
r'_{a_j}}^{(\Sigma_{j})}$$ where $\tilde{r}_{a_i}'=r'_{a_i}+r'_\ell$. Using Eq. () and (), we obtain $$\sum _{h\sim_3 g}(h)=-\sum _{h\sim_2 \psi (g)}(h)-\sum _{h\sim
\rho (g)}(h).$$ Here, for $h=(i,g)$, $(h)=(g)^{(i)}$. Summing over all the equivalence classes, we have $$\sum _{h\in \sigma_{\ell,=p+1}^{(3)}}(h)
=-\sum _{h\in \sigma_{\ell,=p}^{(2)}}(h)
-\sum _{h\in [\ell-1]\times \Sigma_{\ell-1,=p}} (h)
=-\sum _{h\in \sigma_{\ell,=p}^{(2)}}(h)
-\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1} \sum _{h\in \Sigma_{\ell-1,=p}} (h)^{(i)}.$$ Combining this with Eq. () gives $$\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\le p+1}^{(1)}}(g)
\equiv _\ell \sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,=p+1}^{(2)}}(g)
-\sum _{i=1}^{\ell-1}\sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell-1, \leq p}}(g)^{(i)},$$ completing the inductive proof of Eq. ().
Take $p=\ell+1$ in Eq. (). Since the maximal length of an ordered partition of $\ell$ is $\ell$, we have $$\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{\ell,\le \ell+1}^{(1)}}((g)_1+(g)_2)
\equiv _\ell
-\sum _{i=1}^{\ell-1}\sum _{g\in \Sigma_{\ell-1, \leq \ell}}((g)_1^{(i)}+(g)_2^{(i)})
=-\sum _{i=1}^{\ell-1}\sum _{g\in \Pi_{\ell-1}^\Sigma}((g)_1^{(i)}+(g)_2^{(i)}).$$ Now by the induction hypothesis on $\ell$, the right hand side is $\equiv _\ell 0$. On the other hand, by its definition, $\Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq \ell+1}^{(1)}=\Sigma_{\ell,\,\leq \ell}^{(1)}.$ Therefore Eq. (), and hence Lemma , is proved.
Thus we have proved $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{\Pi _\ell}\left (
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime(1)}}}
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (p)}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb \rb
\right .\\
&& + \left .
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}+(r'_{I_{p-1}+1}+\cdots +r'_{I_p})\vec{e} _1^{(1)}}}
\overline { \vec r^{\,\prime (p)}} \lb \cdots
\lb\overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb \right )^{(\Sigma _\ell)}\equiv _\ell0\end{aligned}$$ Because the action of $\Sigma_\ell$, the role of $\ell$ in the above expression is symmetric to any $1\leq t\leq \ell-1$. Thus no coefficient of its Laurent series has a denominator with a homogeneous linear factor $r'_{a_1}+\cdots +r'_{a_m}$ with $\{a_1,
\cdots , a_m \}\subset \{1,\cdots , \ell \}$. This completes Subcase 2.1.
[**Subcase 2.2: There are no type (ii) factors.**]{} Now for a fixed $\pi=(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_{\ell}$ and $\sigma\in \Sigma_\ell$, let $$\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{(p)}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{(1)}}
\rb\rb \cdots \rb
=\sum_{i<0} c_i^{\pi,\sigma} \vep^i \in \CC(\vec{s}\,',\vec{r}\,')[[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$$ be the Laurent series expansion. Then the first sum for $\uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}$ in Eq. () becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-1cm}\sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell \\ \tiny{(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}}\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm}\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_\ell}
\tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}}
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{(p)}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{(1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \rb \rb \cdots
\Big)^{(\Sigma'')} \\
&=& \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell \\ \tiny{(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}}\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm}\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_\ell}
\tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots
\lb \sum_{i<0} c_i^{\pi,\sigma} \vep^i
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}}\rb \cdots
\Big)^{(\Sigma'')} \\
&=& \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell \\ \sigma\in \Sigma_\ell\end{array}}}
\sum_{i<0} c_i^{\pi,\sigma} \sum_{\tiny{(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}}}
\tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots \lb \vep^i
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}}\rb \cdots
\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}\end{aligned}$$ By the induction hypothesis on $k$, the inner most sum has a Laurent series expansion whose coefficients have denominators with no type (ii) factors. Since $c_i^{\pi,\sigma}$ is a rational function in $r_1,\cdots,r_\ell$, the same can be said of the whole sum.
Similarly, let $$\overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{(p)}} \lb \cdots
\lb \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{ (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\sigma(\vec r^{\,\prime})^{(1)}}
\rb\rb \cdots \rb
=\sum_{-\infty<i} d_i^{\pi,\sigma} \vep^i \in \CC(\vec{s}\,',\vec{r}\,')[[\vep,\vep^{-1}]$$ be the Laurent series expansion. Then the second sum for $\uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}$ in Eq. () becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-1.5cm}\sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell\\
(j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_q)\in \Pi _{k+1-\ell}\end{array}}}
\hspace{-1.3cm} \tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}+(r'_{I_{p-1}+1}+\cdots +r'_{I_p})\vec{e} _1^{(1)}}}
\Big( \overline { \vec r^{\,\prime (p)}}\cdots
\lb \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (2)}}
\lb \vep ^m \overline {\vec r^{\,\prime (1)}}\rb
\rb \cdots \Big)^{(\Sigma_\ell)}
\rb \cdots\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}
\\
&=& \hspace{-.8cm}\sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_\ell\\ \sigma\in \Sigma_\ell\end{array}}}
\sum_{-\infty < i} d_i^{\pi,\sigma}\hspace{-.4cm} \sum_{\tiny{(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}}}
\hspace{-.7cm} \tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots
\lb \vep^i \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}+(r'_{\sigma(I_{p-1}+1)}+\cdots +r'_{\sigma(I_p)})\vec{e} _1^{(1)}}}
\rb \cdots\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}\end{aligned}$$ Since $I_{p-1}+1,\cdots,I_{p}\leq \ell$ and $\sigma\in \Sigma_\ell$, we have $\sigma(I_{p-1}+1),\cdots,\sigma(I_p)\leq \ell$. Thus when $\vec r\to -\vec s$, we have $r'_{\sigma(I_{p-1}+1)},\cdots, r'_{\sigma(I_p)} \to 0$. Therefore, for the inner sum above, $$\sum_{\tiny{(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}}}
\hspace{-.7cm} \tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots
\lb \vep^i \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}+(r'_{\sigma(I_{p-1}+1)}+\cdots +r'_{\sigma(I_p)})\vec{e} _1^{(1)}}}
\rb \cdots\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}\Big |_{\vec r=-\vec s}$$ exists since it equals to $${
\sum_{\tiny{(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}}}
\hspace{-.7cm} \tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots
\lb \vep^i \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}} \rb \cdots\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}_{\Big |_{\vec r=-\vec s}}
= \hspace{-.3cm}\sum_{\tiny{(j_1,\cdots,j_q)\in \Pi_{k+1-\ell}}}
\hspace{-.7cm} \tilde{P}\Big(
\overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime \prime(q)}}{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (q)}}}\cdots
\lb \vep^i \overline {\wvec{\vec s^{\,\prime\prime (1)}}
{\vec r^{\,\prime \prime (1)}}} \rb \cdots\Big)^{(\Sigma'')}_{\Big |_{\vec r\,''=-\vec s\,''}}
}$$ which exists by the induction hypothesis on $k$ and Lemma . Then by Lemma again, the above inner sum is ordinary at $\vec r=-\vec s$ and hence at $\vec r\,'=-\vec s\,'$ and so is free of type (ii) factors in the denominators of it Laurent series coefficients. Therefore the whole expression has a Laurent series expansion whose coefficients do not have any denominators with a type (ii) factor since $d_i^{\pi,\sigma}$ does not involve $\vec s\,''$ and $\vec r\,''$.
Thus $\uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}})^{(\Sigma(\vec{s}))}$ has no type (ii) factors, completing the proof of Case 2. [**Case 3: assume $\vec s=\vec 0$**]{}. The proof is basically the same as for Case 2 except that there is not type (ii) factors to exclude. For $\sigma\in \Sigma_{k+1}$ and $\pi=(i_1,\cdots,i_p)\in \Pi_{k+1}$, as in Eq. (), let $$g:=((n_1,\cdots,n_{I_1}),(n_{{I_1}+1},\cdots,n_{I_2}),\cdots,(n_{I_{p-1}+1},\cdots,n_{I_p}))\in \Sigma_{k+1}^\Pi$$ be the corresponding partitioned permutation. Let $$(g):= \tilde{P}\Big(\overline{\sigma(\vec{r})^{(p)}} \lb \cdots \lb\overline{\sigma(\vec{r})^{(2)}}\lb \vep^m \overline{\sigma(\vec{r})^{(1)}}\rb \rb \cdots \rb \Big).$$ Then $ \uni{Z}^m_+(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)= \sum_{g\in \Sigma_{k+1}^\Pi} (g).$ We first prove the following analog of Lemma by adapting its proof. $$\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{k+1}^\Pi} (g) \equiv _{k+1} 0.
\mlabel{eq:cong2}$$ Suppose $g$ has the last partition factor as $(k+1)$. Then $\sigma(k+1)=k+1$. Let $\lb a \rb = \lb \cdots \lb\overline{\sigma(\vec{r})^{(2)}}\lb \vep^m \overline{\sigma(\vec{r})^{(1)}}\rb \rb \cdots \rb
=\sum_{i<0} a_i \vep^i$. So $a_i$ are rational functions in $\{r_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,r_{\sigma(k)}\}
=\{r_1,\cdots,r_k\}$. Then by Eq. (), we have $$\begin{aligned}
(g)&=&\tilde{P}( \overline{r_{k+1}}\lb a\rb)\\
&=& \sum_{i<0} a_i \tilde{P}\llp\vep^i ( -(r_{k+1}\vep)^{-1}+\sum_{j=0}^\infty \zeta(-j)\frac{(r_{k+1}\vep)^j}{j!} )\rrp\\
&=& \sum_{i<0} a_i \tilde{P}\llp\vep^i (\sum_{j=0}^\infty \zeta(-j)\frac{(r_{k+1}\vep)^j}{j!} )\rrp\end{aligned}$$ since $\tilde{P}=\id-{P}$ is the projection of a Laurent series to its power series part. Thus no linear factor involving $r_{k+1}$ appears in the denominator of any coefficient of the Laurent series expansion of $(g)$.
Thus using the notation of the General Case in the proof of Lemma , we only need to prove $
\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{k+1, \leq k+1}^{(1)}} (g) \equiv _{k+1} 0.
$ For this we prove the following analog of Eq. () by using the same proof. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{g\in \Sigma_{k+1,\le p}^{(1)}}(g)
\equiv _{k+1} \sum _{g\in \Sigma_{{k+1},=p}^{(2)}}(g)
-\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sum _{g\in \Sigma_{k,\leq p-1}}(g)^{(i)}.
\mlabel {eqn:length1}
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Then the rest of the proof of Lemma carries through and gives Eq. (). Then again similar to Case 2, the symmetry of $r_1,\cdots, r_{k+1}$ in $\uni{Z}_+^m(\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}};\vep)$ shows that it is ordinary.
We have completed our inductive proof of Proposition in all three cases.
The quasi-shuffle relation for non-positive MZVs
================================================
The purpose of this section is to prove the following theorem and thus to complete the proof of Theorem .
$\gzeta(\vec{s})$, $\vec{s}\in
\ZZ_{\leq 0}^k$, satisfy the quasi-shuffle relation.
A lemma on stuffles
-------------------
For the proof of Thoerem , we use the stuffle interpretation of the quasi-shuffle product. The mathematics formulation of stuffles already appeared in Cartier’s construction of free commutative Rota-Baxter algebras in 1972, even though stuffle was defined using the same formulation in the study of MZVs 20 years later . It is well-known in the literatures of MZVs that quasi-shuffle product is the same as the stuffle product . To see it in another way, it was proved in that the stuffle product, in the variation of Cartier, is equivalent to the mixable shuffle product and the mixable shuffle product is shown in to to be the same as the quasi-shuffle product.
For an integer $n\geq 1$, denote $[n]=\{1,\cdots,n\}$ which is also identified with the vector $(1,\cdots,n)$. For integers $k,\ell\geq 1$, a [**$(k,\ell)$-stuffle triple**]{} is a triple $(r,\alpha,\beta)$ in $$\frakS:= \left \{ (r,\alpha,\beta)\ \left | \begin{array}{l}
\max(k,\ell)\leq r\leq k+\ell, \\
\alpha:[k]\to [r], \beta: [\ell]\to [r] \mbox{\ order preserving injections}, \\
\im(\alpha)\cup \im(\beta)=[r] \end{array} \right . \right \}$$ Thus for each $1\leq u\leq r$, at least one of $\alpha^{-1}(u)$ and $\beta^{-1}(u)$ is a singleton $\{w\}$ which we just write $w$. Similarly denote $$\tilde{\frakS}:= \left \{ (r,\alpha,\beta)\ \left | \begin{array}{l}
\max(k,\ell)\leq r\leq k+\ell, \\
\alpha:[k]\to [r], \beta: [\ell]\to [r] \mbox{\ injective (might not preserve order)}, \\
\im(\alpha)\cup \im(\beta)=[r] \end{array} \right . \right \}$$
Let $\vec x=(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ and $\vec y=(y_1,\cdots, y_\ell)$ be vectors of symbols. The [**stuffle of $\vec x$ and $\vec{y}$**]{} corresponding to $(r,\alpha,\beta)$ is defined by, in the notations of , [ $$\hspace{-.5cm}\vec z:= \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})=(z_1,\cdots,z_r), \
z_u=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
x_{\alpha^{-1}(u)}, & \alpha^{-1}(u)\neq \emptyset, \beta^{-1}(u)=\emptyset,\\
y_{\beta^{-1}(u)}, & \alpha^{-1}(u)= \emptyset, \beta^{-1}(u) \neq \emptyset,\\
x_{\alpha^{-1}(u)}y_{\beta^{-1}(u)}, & \alpha^{-1}(u)\neq \emptyset, \beta^{-1}(u) \neq \emptyset
\end{array} \right .
\mlabel{eq:Phi}$$ ]{} With the convention that $x_{\emptyset}=y_{\emptyset}=\bfone$ and thus $x_{\alpha^{-1}(u)}y_{\beta^{-1}(u)}=x_{\alpha^{-1}(u)}$ if $\beta^{-1}(u)=\emptyset$ and $x_{\alpha^{-1}(u)}y_{\beta^{-1}(u)}=y_{\beta^{-1}(u)}$ if $\alpha^{-1}(u)=\emptyset$, we simply have $$\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})=(x_{\alpha^{-1}(1)}y_{\beta^{-1}(1)},\cdots,
x_{\alpha^{-1}(r)}y_{\beta^{-1}(r)}).
\mlabel{eq:Phi2}$$ Note that this definition makes sense even for $(r,\alpha,\beta)\in \tilde{\frakS}$. More generally, for subvectors (that is, subsequences) $\vec{k}\subv,\vec{\ell}\subv,
\vec{r}\subv=(r_{i_1},\cdots,r_{i_{p\subv}})$ of $[k],[\ell],[r]$ respectively with $\alpha(\vec{k}\subv)\cup \beta(\vec{\ell}\subv)=\vec{r}\subv$, consider the corresponding subvectors $\vec{x}\subv,\vec{y}\subv,\vec{z}\subv$ of $\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}$ respectively. Define $$\Phi_{r\subv,\alpha|_{\vec{k}\subv},\beta|_{\vec{\ell}\subv}}
(\vec{x}\subv,\vec{y}\subv)
=(x_{\alpha^{-1}(r_{i_1})}y_{\beta^{-1}(r_{i_1})}, \cdots,
x_{\alpha^{-1}(r_{i_{p\subv}})}y_{\beta^{-1}(r_{i_{p\subv}})}).
\mlabel{eq:phi1}$$
1. For $\sigma\in \Sigma_k, \tau\in \Sigma_\ell$, $ \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec{x}),\tau(\vec{y}))= \Phi_{r,\alpha\circ \sigma^{-1}, \beta \circ \tau^{-1}}(\vec{x},\vec{y}).$
2. Distinct triples $(r,\alpha,\beta)$ in $\tilde{\frakS}$ give distinct vectors $\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$.
3. We have $ \tilde{\frakS}=\{ (r,\alpha\circ \sigma, \beta\circ \tau) |
(r,\alpha,\beta)\in \frakS, \sigma\in \Sigma_k, \tau\in \Sigma_\ell\}$, giving natural actions of $\Sigma_k\times \Sigma_\ell$ on $\tilde{\frakS}$ and on $\{\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) \ |\ (r,\alpha,\beta)\in \tilde{\frakS}\}$. Furthermore the later action is free.
4. Fix an $r_0$ with $\max(k,\ell)\leq r_0 \leq k+\ell$. Let $$\tilde{\frakS}_{r_0}=\{ (r,\alpha,\beta)\in\tilde{\frakS}\ |\ r=r_0\}.$$ Then for any $\pi\in \Sigma_{r_0}$, $ \pi(\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y}))
=\Phi_{r_0, \pi^{-1}\circ\alpha, \pi^{-1}\circ\beta} (\vec{x},\vec{y}),$ giving a natural action of $\Sigma_{r_0}$ on $\tilde{\frakS}_{r_0}$. Furthermore, this action is free.
5. For $(r,\alpha,\beta)\in \tilde{\frakS}$, denote $\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})=(z_1,\cdots,z_r)$. For $1\leq r'\leq r''\leq r$, denote $\vec{r}\subv=(r',r'+1,\cdots,r'')$ and $\vec{z}\,^\sharp=(z_{r'},z_{r'+1},\cdots,z_{r''})$. Further denote $$\vec{k}\subv= \alpha^{-1}(\vec{r}\subv)=(k_{i_1},\cdots,k_{i_p}), \quad
\vec{\ell}\subv= \beta^{-1}(\vec{r}\subv)=(\ell_{j_1},\cdots,\ell_{j_q}).$$ Then $$\vec{z}\,^\sharp=\Phi_{r\subv,\alpha|_{\vec{k}\subv}, \beta|_{\vec{\ell}\subv}}(\vec{x}\subv,\vec{y}\subv)$$ where the right hand side is defined by Eq. ().
In words, part () says that a part of a stuffle of two vectors is a stuffle of parts of the two vectors.
() follows from the definition of $\Phi$ and the bijectivity of $\sigma$ and $\tau$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec{x}),\tau(\vec{y}))
&=&(x_{\sigma(\alpha^{-1}(1))}y_{\tau(\beta^{-1}(1))}, \cdots,
x_{\sigma(\alpha^{-1}(r))}y_{\tau(\beta^{-1}(r))})\\
&=& (x_{(\alpha\circ\sigma^{-1})^{-1}(1)}y_{(\beta\circ\tau^{-1})^{-1}(1)}, \cdots,
x_{(\alpha\circ\sigma^{-1})^{-1}(r)}y_{(\beta\circ\tau^{-1})^{-1}(r)}).\end{aligned}$$ () Suppose $\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})
=\Phi_{r',\alpha',\beta'}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ for $(r,\alpha,\beta)$ and $(r',\alpha',\beta')$ in $\tilde{\frakS}$. Then $r=r'$ by comparing the length of the vectors. Further by the equation, and the fact that the $x_i$s and $y_j$s are distinct variables, we have, for $1\leq u\leq r$, $ \alpha^{-1}(u)\neq \emptyset$ if and only if $ \alpha'{}^{-1}(u) \neq \emptyset$. This implies $\alpha=\alpha'$ since both maps are injective with the same domain and codomain. Similarly $\beta=\beta'$.
() As is well-known, for an injective $\alpha:[k]\to [r]$, let $\im (\alpha) = \{n_1<\cdots<n_k\}$ and let $\sigma(i)=\alpha^{-1}(n_i)$, $1\leq i\leq k$. Then $\sigma\in \Sigma_k$ and $\alpha\circ \sigma(i)=n_i$, $1\leq i\leq k$. Thus $\alpha\circ \sigma$ is order preserving and injective. Similarly for injective $\beta:[\ell]\to [r]$ we have $\tau\in \Sigma_{\ell}$ with $\beta\circ \tau: [\ell]\to [r]$ order preserving and injective. Then for $(r,\alpha,\beta)\in \tilde{\frakS}$ we have $(r,\alpha,\beta)=(r,(\alpha\circ \sigma)\circ \sigma^{-1},
(\beta\circ \tau)\circ \tau^{-1})$, as needed.
The natural action of $(\sigma,\tau)\in \Sigma_k\times \Sigma_\ell$ on $\{\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}\ |\ (r,\alpha,\beta)\in \tilde{\frakS}\}$ is given by $$\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})^{(\sigma,\tau)}:
=\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec{x}),\tau(\vec{y}))
=\Phi_{r,\alpha\circ \sigma^{-1},\beta\circ \tau^{-1}}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$$ by part (). So by part (), $\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})^{(\sigma,\tau)}
=\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ implies $(r,\alpha,\beta)=(r,\alpha\circ \sigma^{-1},\beta\circ \tau^{-1}).$ Thus $\alpha=\alpha\circ \sigma^{-1}$ and then $\sigma^{-1}=\id$ on $[k]$ since $\alpha$ is injective. Similarly, $\tau^{-1}=\id$ on $[\ell]$.
() Fix a $(r_0,\alpha,\beta)\in \tilde{\frakS}_{r_0}$ and let $\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})=(z_1,\cdots,z_{r_0})$. Let $\pi\in \Sigma_{r_0}$. Then $ \pi(\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y}))
=(z_{\pi(1)},\cdots,z_{\pi(r_0)}).$ By the definition of $\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}$ in Eq. () and the bijectivity of $\pi$, we have $$z_{\pi(u)}= x_{\alpha^{-1}(\pi(u))}y_{\beta^{-1}(\pi(u))}
= x_{(\pi^{-1}\circ\alpha)^{-1}(u)}
y_{(\pi^{-1}\circ\beta)^{-1}(u)}.$$ So $\pi(\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y}))$ is $\Phi_{r_0, \pi^{-1}\circ\alpha, \pi^{-1}\circ\beta} (\vec{x},\vec{y})$.
Now let $\pi, \pi'\in \Sigma_{r_0}$. By item (), $ \Phi_{r_0,\pi^{-1}\circ \alpha, \pi^{-1}\circ \beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})
=\Phi_{r_0,\pi'{}^{-1}\circ \alpha, \pi'{}^{-1}\circ \beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ implies $(r_0,\pi^{-1}\circ \alpha, \pi^{-1}\circ \beta)
=(r_0,\pi'{}^{-1}\circ \alpha, \pi'{}^{-1}\circ \beta)$. Thus $\pi^{-1}\circ \alpha =\pi'{}^{-1}\circ \alpha$ and $\pi^{-1}\circ \beta =\pi'{}^{-1}\circ \beta$. Since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are injective and $\im\,\alpha\cup \im\, \beta = [r_0]$. We have $\pi=\pi'$.
() This follows directly from Eq. () and Eq. ().
The proof of Theorem
---------------------
As remarked at the beginning of this section, the quasi-shuffle product is also given by $$\vec{x} \msh \vec{y} = \sum_{(r,\alpha,\beta)\in \frakS } \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta} (\vec{x},\vec{y}).$$ For $\vec{a}\in \ZZ^k_{\leq 0}$ and $\vec{b}\in \ZZ^\ell_{\leq 0}$, only some of the stuffles $\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{a},\vec{b})$ are distinct. Denote them by $\vec{d}_j, j\in J$. So we have $ \vec{a}\msh \vec{b} =\sum_{j\in J} n_j \vec{d}_j.$ Denote $$I_j=\{ (r,\alpha,\beta) |\ \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{a},\vec{b})=\vec d_j\}.$$ Define the evaluation map $$\hspace{-.45cm}f: \{ \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) | (r,\alpha,\beta)\in \frakS\}
\to \{ \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{a},\vec{b}) |
(r,\alpha,\beta) \in \frakS\} = \{ \vec{d}_j | j\in J\}
\mlabel{eq:eval}$$ by sending $x_i$ to $a_i$ and $y_j$ to $b_j$. Then $ I_j =\{(r,\alpha,\beta)\ |\ \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec x,\vec y)\in f^{-1}(\vec{d}_j)\}$. So $|I_j|=n_j$.
Considering the actions of $\Sigma(\vec{a})\subset \Sigma_k$ and $\Sigma(\vec{b})\subset \Sigma_\ell$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-1cm}\sum _{\sigma \in \Sigma (\vec a), \tau \in \Sigma (\vec b)}(\vec
a *\vec b, \sigma (\vec x)*\tau (\vec y))
=\sum _{\sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{a}), \tau \in \Sigma(\vec{b})}
\sum_{(r,\alpha,\beta)\in \frakS}
\big (\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\vec a, \vec b), \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta} (\sigma(\vec x), \tau (\vec y))\big)}
\\
&=& \sum _{\sigma,\tau} \sum_{j\in J}\sum _{(r,\alpha,\beta)\in I_j}
(\vec d_j, \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec x), \tau (\vec y)))\\
&=& \sum _{j\in J} \sum
_{\sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{a}), \tau\in \Sigma(\vec{b}), (r,\alpha,\beta)\in I_j} (\vec d_j, \Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec x), \tau (\vec y)))\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed $\vec d_j$, the directions in the inner sum are $$S_j=\{\Phi_{r,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec{x}), \tau (\vec{y}))\ | \ (r,\alpha,\beta)\in I_j, \sigma\in \Sigma(\vec{a}), \tau\in \Sigma(\vec{b}) \}.$$ By its definition, $S_j$ carries a $\Sigma (\vec a)\times \Sigma (\vec b)$ action. Also by Lemma .(), $$|S_j|=|I_j| |\Sigma (\vec a)||\Sigma (\vec b)|=n_j|\Sigma (\vec a)||\Sigma (\vec b)|.$$ We next consider the action of $\Sigma (\vec d_j)$ and prove the following lemma.
Let $r_0$ be the length of the vector $\vec{d}_j$. The free action of $\Sigma_{r_0}$ on $$\{\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})\ |\ (r_0,\alpha,\beta)\in \tilde{\frakS}_{r_0}\}$$ defined in Lemma .() restricts to a free action of $\Sigma(\vec d_j)$ on $S_j$
Once it is shown that $S_j$ is closed under the action of $\Sigma(\vec{d}_j)$, its freeness is automatic since it is the restriction of a free action.
To prove the closeness of the action, let $\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec{x}),\tau(\vec{y}))\in S_j$ and $\pi\in \Sigma(\vec{d}_j)$. We only need to show that there are $(r_0,\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\beta})\in I_j$ and $(\tilde{\sigma},\tilde{\tau})\in \Sigma(\vec{a})\times
\Sigma(\vec{b})$ such that $\pi\big(\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\sigma(\vec{x}),\tau(\vec{y}))\big)
=\Phi_{r_0,\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\beta}}(\tilde{\sigma}(\vec{x}), \tilde{\tau}(\vec{y})).$ By Lemma .() and (), this means $$\Phi_{r_0,\pi^{-1}\circ\alpha\circ\sigma^{-1}, \pi^{-1}\circ\beta\circ\tau^{-1}}(\vec{x},\vec{y})
=\Phi_{r_0,\tilde{\alpha}\circ \tilde{\sigma}^{-1},\tilde{\beta}\circ\tilde{\tau}^{-1}}
(\vec{x}, \vec{y}).$$ So we only need to prove $
\pi^{-1}\circ\alpha\circ\sigma^{-1} = \tilde{\alpha}\circ \tilde{\sigma}^{-1}, \quad
\pi^{-1}\circ\beta\circ\tau^{-1}
=\tilde{\beta}\circ\tilde{\tau}^{-1}.
$ That is, to show that the following diagram commutes. $$\xymatrix{
[k] \ar[rr]^{\sigma^{-1}} \ar[d]^= && [k] \ar[rr]^\alpha &&
[r_0] \ar[d]^{\pi^{-1}} && [\ell] \ar[ll]_{\beta} &&
[\ell] \ar[ll]_{\tau^{-1}} \ar[d]^=\\
[k] \ar[rr]^{\tilde{\sigma}^{-1}} && [k] \ar[rr]^{\tilde{\alpha}} &&
[r_0] && [\ell] \ar[ll]_{\tilde{\beta}} && [\ell] \ar[ll]_{\tilde{\tau}^{-1}}
}
\mlabel{eq:sigdiag}$$ Note that the existence of such $\tilde{\sigma}$ and $\tilde{\tau}$ with $(\tilde{\sigma},\tilde{\tau})\in \Sigma_k\times \Sigma_\ell$ is already given in Lemma .(). We want to show that $(\tilde{\sigma},\tilde{\tau})$ is in $\Sigma(\vec{a})\times \Sigma(\vec{b})$ for $\pi\in \Sigma(\vec{d}_j)$.
First let us look at the action of $\pi$ “locally". Let $$\vec d_j=\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{a},\vec{b})
=(d_1,\cdots,d_{r_0})$$ and let the sub-vector $\vec{d}\subv=(d_{r'},\cdots,d_{r''})$, $1\leq r'\leq r'' \leq r_0$, be a 0-cluster of $\vec d_j$ as defined in Definitin . Denote $\vec{r}\subv=(r',\cdots,r'')$. Let $\vec{k}\subv=\alpha^{-1}(\vec{r}\subv)$ and $\vec{\ell}\subv=\beta^{-1}(\vec{r}\subv)$. Since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are order preserving maps between vectors, we see that $\vec{k}\subv=(k',k'+1,\cdots,k'')$ and $\vec{\ell}\subv=(\ell', \ell'+1,\cdots,\ell'')$ are sub-vectors of $[k]=(1,\cdots,k)$ and $[\ell]=(1,\cdots,\ell)$ respectively and $$\alpha\subv:=\alpha|_{\vec{k}\subv}, \quad \beta\subv:=\beta|_{\vec{\ell}\subv}$$ are order preserving maps with $\im(\alpha\subv)\cup \im(\beta\subv)=\vec{r}\subv$.
With the given $\sigma\in \Sigma(\vec a)$, $\tau\in \Sigma(\vec{b})$ and $\pi\in \Sigma_{\vec{r}\subv}\subset \Sigma(\vec{d}_j)$, the same proof for Lemma .(\[it:phi-act\]) shows that there is a bijection $\sigma\subv:\sigma(\vec{k}\subv)\to \vec{k}\subv$ and an order preserving injection $\alpha\subv: \vec{k}\subv \to \vec{r}\subv$ such that $ \pi^{-1}\circ\alpha\circ\sigma^{-1}|_{\sigma(\vec{k}\subv)}
= \alpha\subv \circ \sigma\subv,$ that is, the left square of the following diagram is commutative $$\xymatrix{
\sigma(\vec{k}\subv) \ar[rr]^{\sigma^{-1}} \ar[d]^= && \vec{k}\subv \ar[rr]^\alpha &&
\vec{r}\subv \ar[d]^{\pi^{-1}} && \vec{\ell}\subv \ar[ll]_{\beta} &&
\tau(\vec{\ell}\subv) \ar[ll]_{\tau^{-1}} \ar[d]^=\\
\sigma(\vec{k}\subv) \ar[rr]^{\sigma\subv} && \vec{k}\subv \ar[rr]^{\alpha\subv} &&
\vec{r}\subv && \vec{\ell}\subv \ar[ll]_{\beta\subv} && \tau(\vec{\ell}\subv) \ar[ll]_{\tau\subv}
}
\mlabel{eq:sigdiag1}$$ Similarly, there is a bijection $\tau\subv:\tau(\vec{\ell}\subv)\to \vec{\ell}\subv$ and an order preserving injection $\beta\subv: \vec{\ell}\subv \to \vec{r}\subv$ such that the right square of the diagram is commutative.
Since our choice of $\pi$ is the identity when restricted to $[r_0]\backslash \vec{r}\subv$, we have the trivial commutative diagram of bijections and order preserving maps $$\xymatrix{
[k]\backslash \sigma(\vec{k}\subv) \ar[r]^{\sigma^{-1}} \ar[d]^= & [k]\backslash \vec{k}\subv \ar[r]^\alpha &
[r_0]\backslash \vec{r}\subv \ar[d]^{\pi^{-1}} & [\ell]\backslash \vec{\ell}\subv \ar[l]_{\beta} &
[\ell]\backslash \tau(\vec{\ell}\subv) \ar[l]_{\tau^{-1}} \ar[d]^=\\
[k]\backslash \sigma(\vec{k}\subv) \ar[r]^{\sigma^{-1}} & [k]\backslash \vec{k}\subv \ar[r]^{\alpha} &
[r_0]\backslash \vec{r}\subv & [\ell]\backslash \vec{\ell}\subv \ar[l]_{\beta} & [\ell]\backslash \tau(\vec{\ell}\subv) \ar[l]_{\tau^{-1}}
}
\mlabel{eq:sigdiag2}$$ Taking the union of these two diagrams, we obtain a commutative diagram () where the bijections and order preserving maps are defined by $$\tilde{\sigma}(i)=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\sigma\subv^{-1}(i), & i\in \vec{k}\subv, \\
\sigma(i), & i\not\in \vec{k}\subv
\end{array} \right . \quad
\tilde{\alpha}(i)=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\alpha\subv(i), & i\in \vec{k}\subv, \\
\alpha(i), & i \not\in \vec{k}\subv
\end{array} \right . \quad 1 \leq i\leq k.$$ $$\tilde{\tau}(i)=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\tau\subv^{-1}(i), & i\in \vec{\ell}\subv, \\
\tau(i), & i\not\in \vec{\ell}\subv
\end{array} \right . \quad
\tilde{\beta}(i)=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\beta\subv(i), & i\in \vec{\ell}\subv, \\
\beta(i), & i \not\in \vec{\ell}\subv
\end{array} \right . \quad 1 \leq i\leq \ell.$$
We next show that $\tilde{\sigma}\in \Sigma(\vec{a})$ and $\tilde{\tau}\in \Sigma(\vec{b})$. Let $\vec{z}\subv=(z_{r'},\cdots,z_{r''})$ be the the sub-vector of $\Phi_{r_0,\alpha,\beta}(\vec{x},\vec{y})
=(z_1,\cdots,z_{r_0})$ corresponding to $\vec{r}\subv$. Similarly, denote $$\vec{x}\subv=(x_{k'},\cdots,x_{k''}),
\vec{y}\subv=(y_{\ell'},\cdots,y_{\ell''}),
\vec{a}\subv=(a_{k'},\cdots,a_{k''}),
\vec{b}\subv=(b_{\ell'},\cdots,b_{\ell''}).$$ By Lemma .(), we have $$\vec{z}\subv = \Phi_{r\subv,\alpha\subv,\beta\subv}(\vec{x}\subv,\vec{y}\subv),
\quad
\vec{d}\subv = \Phi_{r\subv,\alpha\subv,\beta\subv}(\vec{a}\subv,\vec{b}\subv).$$ Here $r\subv=r''-r'+1$.
Under the evaluation map (), $$f(\vec{z}\subv)
=f(\Phi_{r\subv,\alpha\subv,\beta\subv}(\vec{x}\subv, \vec{y}\subv))= \Phi_{r\subv,\alpha\subv,\beta\subv}(\vec{a}\subv, \vec{b}\subv)= \vec{d}\subv=\vec{0},$$ and $f(x_i)=a_i, f(y_j)=b_j, f(x_iy_j)=a_i+b_j$ are non-positive numbers or their sums. So we must have $\vec{a}\subv=\vec{0}$ and $\vec{b}\subv=\vec{0}.$ Thus $\vec{a}\subv$ (resp. $\vec{b}\subv$) is a part of a zero cluster of $\vec{a}$ (resp. $\vec{b}$). Thus $\vec{k}\subv\subseteq \vec{k}^{(i)}\subseteq [k]$ where $\vec{k}^{(i)}$ is the index set of a zero cluster of $\vec{a}$ (see Definition ()). Since $\Sigma(\vec{a})|_{\vec{k}^{(i)}}=\Sigma_{\vec{k}^{(i)}}$, we have $\sigma(\vec{k}\subv)\subseteq \sigma(\vec{k}^{(i)})
=\vec{k}^{(i)}.$ Further, there is $\tilde{\sigma}'\in \Sigma_{\vec{k}^{(i)}}$ such that $\tilde{\sigma}'|_{\vec{k}\subv}=\sigma\subv{}^{-1}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}'|_{\vec{k}^{(i)}\backslash\vec{k}\subv}=\sigma.$ Since $\Sigma(\vec{a})=\Sigma_{\vec{k}^{(i)}}\times \Sigma''$, we further have $\tilde{\sigma}=(\tilde{\sigma}',\sigma'')\in \Sigma(\vec{a}).$ Similarly, $\tilde{\tau}\in \Sigma(\vec{b})$.
Thus $S_j$ is closed under the action of $\Sigma(\vec{r}\subv)$ and hence of $\Sigma(\vec{d}_j)$ since $\Sigma (\vec d_j)$ is the direct product of such $\Sigma(\vec{r}\subv)$ from all the zero clusters of $\vec{d}_j$.
By Lemma , there are $n_j|\Sigma (\vec a)||\Sigma (\vec b)|/|\Sigma (d_j)|$ orbits. Let $$\vec r_h, \ h=1, \cdots, n_j|\Sigma (\vec a)||\Sigma (\vec b)|/|\Sigma (d_j)|$$ be a complete set of representatives of $S_j$, then $$\sum _{\sigma \in \Sigma (\vec a), \tau \in \Sigma (\vec b)}(\vec
a *\vec b, \sigma (\vec x)*\tau (\vec y))=\sum _{j} \sum _h(\vec
d_j, \vec r_h)^{(\Sigma (\vec d_j))}$$ Thus Note that, for a fixed $h$, $\vec x \to -\vec a, \vec y\to -\vec b$ means $\vec r_h \to -\vec d_j$. Then $$\lim _{\vec x \to -\vec a, \vec y\to -\vec b}
\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec d_j}{\vec r_h}\rp^{(\Sigma (\vec d_j))}
= \lim _{r_h\to -\vec d_j}
\zeta\lp\wvec{\vec d_j}{\vec r_h}\rp^{(\Sigma (\vec d_j))}.$$ So by Theorem , we have $$\gzeta(\vec a)\gzeta(\vec b)=\frac 1{|\Sigma (\vec a)||\Sigma
(\vec b)|}\sum _{j} n_j|\Sigma (\vec a)||\Sigma (\vec b)|\gzeta
(\vec d_j)=\sum _j n_j\gzeta (\vec d_j)=\gzeta (\vec a *\vec b).
$$ This completes the proof of Theorem .
[abcdsfgh]{}
M. Aguiar and S. Hsiao, Canonical characters on quasi-symmetric functions and bivariate Catalan numbers, [*Electron. J. Combin.*]{} [**11(2)**]{} (2005), \#R15, 34pp.
S. Akiyama, S. Egami and Y. Tanigawa, Analytic continuation of multiple zeta-functions and their values at non-positive integers, [*Acta Arith.*]{} [**98**]{} (2001), 107–116.
S Akiyama and Y. Tanigawa, Multiple zeta values at non-positive integers, [*Ramanujan J.*]{} [**5**]{} (2001), 327–351.
T. Arakawa and M. Kaneko, Multiple zeta values, poly-Bernoulli numbers, and related zeta functions, [*Nagoya Math. J.*]{} [**153**]{} (1999), 189–209.
J. M. Borwein, D. J. Broadhurst, D. M. Bradley, and P. Lisoněk, [Special values of multiple polylogarithms]{}, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*, **353**, (2001), no. 3, 907–941. [arXiv: [math.CA/9910045]{}]{}
D. M. Bradley, Partition identities for the multiple zeta function, in “Zeta Functions, Topology, and Quantum Physics" T. Aoki et. al. (eds.), Springer, 2005, 19–29.
D. M. Bradley, [Multiple $q$-zeta values]{}, [*[J. Algebra]{}*]{}, [**[283]{}**]{}, (2005), no. 2, 752–798 [arXiv: [math.QA/0402093]{}]{}
D. J. Broadhurst and D. Kreimer, [Association of multiple zeta values with positive knots via Feynman diagrams up to $9$ loops]{}, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{}, [**[393]{}**]{}, (1997), no. 3-4, 403–412.
J.-L. Bryliski, B. Zhang, [Equivariant Todd classes for toric varieties,]{} arXiv:math.AT/0311318.
P. Cartier, [On the structure of free Baxter algebras]{}, [*Adv. in Math.*]{}, [**9**]{}, (1972), 253–265.
P. Cartier, [Fonctions polylogarithmes, nombres polyzêtas et groupes pro-unipotents]{}, [*Astérisque*]{}, [**[282]{}**]{}, (2002), 137–173, (Sém. Bourbaki no. 885).
A. Connes and D. Kreimer, [Renormalization in quantum field theory and the Riemann-Hilbert problem. I. The Hopf algebra structure of graphs and the main theorem]{}, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**210**]{}, (2000), no. 1, 249–273. A. Connes and D. Kreimer, [Renormalization in quantum field theory and the Riemann-Hilbert problem. II. The $\beta$-function, diffeomorphisms and the renormalization group]{}, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**216**]{}, (2001), no. 1, 215–241. A. Connes and M. Marcolli, From physics to number theory via noncommutative geometry, part II: renormalization, the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence, and motivic Galois theory, [arXiv:hep-th/0411114]{}.
V. G. Drinfel’d, [On quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebras and a group closely related to ${\rm Gal}(\bar{\QQ}/\QQ)$,]{} [*Leningrad Math. J.*]{} [**2**]{} (1991), 829–860.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo [Mixable Shuffles, Quasi-shuffles and Hopf Algebras]{}, [*J. Alg. Combinatorics*]{}, [**24**]{} (2006), 83–101, [arXiv: [math.RA/0506418]{}]{}.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo, Multiple zeta values and Rota-Baxter algebras, [arXiv:math.NT/0601558]{}.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard, L. Guo and D. Kreimer, [Integrable Renormalization II: the General case,]{} [Annales Henri Poincaré]{}, [**[6]{}**]{}, (2005), 369–395. K. Ebrahimi-Fard, L. Guo and D. Kreimer, [Spitzer’s Identity and the Algebraic Birkhoff Decomposition in pQFT]{}, [*[J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{}*]{}, [**[37]{}**]{}, (2004) 11037–11052. [arXiv: [hep-th/0407082]{}]{}
R. Ehrenborg, On postes and Hopf algebras, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**119**]{} (1996), 1-25.
F. Fares, Quelques constructions d’algèbres et de coalgèbres, Université du Québec à Montéal (1999).
H. Figueroa, J. M. Gracia-Bondía, [[Combinatorial Hopf algebras in quantum field theory I]{}]{}, [*Reviews of Mathematical Physics*]{}, [**[17]{}**]{} (2005), 881–976. arXiv: [arXiv:hep-th/0408145]{}
A. G. Goncharov, [Periods and mixed motives]{}, [arXiv: [math.AG/0202154]{}]{}.
A. Goncharov and Y. Manin, [Multiple $\zeta$-motives and moduli spaces $\overline{\mathcal M}_{0,n}$]{}, [*Comp. Math.*]{} [**140**]{} (2004), 1 - 14.
L. Guo, [Baxter algebras, Stirling numbers and partitions]{}, [*[J. Algebra Appl.]{}*]{}, [**[4]{}**]{}, (2005), no. 2, 153–164. [arXiv: [math.AC/0402348]{}]{}
L. Guo and W. Keigher, [Free Baxter algebras and shuffle products]{}, [*Adv. in Math.,*]{} [**150**]{}, (2000), 117–149.
L. Guo and W. Keigher, [On Baxter algebras: completions and the internal construction]{}, [*Adv. in Math.*]{}, [**[151]{}**]{}, (2000), 101–127.
M. Hazewinkel,
Generalized overlapping shuffle algebras [*J. Math. Sci. (New York)*]{}, [**106**]{} (2001), 3168-3186.
M. E. Hoffman, [Multiple harmonic series]{}, [*Pacific J. Math.*]{}, [**152**]{} (1992), no. 2, 275–290.
M. E. Hoffman, [The algebra of multiple harmonic series]{}, [*J. Algebra*]{}, [**194**]{}, no. 2, (1997), 477–495.
M. E. Hoffman, [Quasi-shuffle products]{}, [*J. Algebraic Combin.*]{}, [**11**]{}, no. 1, (2000), 49–68.
M. E. Hoffman, [Algebraic aspects of multiple zeta values]{}, in ”Zeta Functions, Topology and Quantum Physics" T. Aoki et. al. (Eds.), Springer, (2005), 51–73, arXiv:[[math.QA/0309425]{}]{}
K. Ihara, M. Kaneko and D. Zagier, [Derivation and double shuffle relations for multiple zeta values]{}, Compos. Math. [**142**]{} (2006), 307–338.
D. Kreimer, [Knots and Feynman Diagrams]{}, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics, [**[13]{}**]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2000).
J.-L. Loday, On the algebra of quais-shuffles, arXiv: math.QA/0506498.
D. Manchon, [[Hopf algebras, from basics to applications to renormalization]{}]{}, Comptes-rendus des Rencontres mathmématiques de Glanon 2001. ArXiv:math.QA/0408405
D. Manchon and S. Paycha, Shuffle relations for regularized integrals of symbols, arXiv:math-ph/0510067.
D. Manchon and S. Paycha, Renormalized Chen integrals for symbols on $\RR^n$ and renormlized polyzeta functions, arXiv:math.NT/0604562.
K. Matsumoto, The analytic continuation and the asymptotic behaviour of certain multiple zeta-functions I, [*J. Number Theory*]{}, [**101**]{} (2003), 223–243.
G. Racinet, [Doubles mélanges des polylogarithmes multiples aux racines de l’unité]{}, [*Pub. Math. IHES*]{}, [**95**]{} (2002), 185-231.
G.-C. Rota and D. A. Smith, [Fluctuation theory and Baxter algebras]{}, Symposia Mathematica, Vol. IX (Convegno di Calcolo delle Probabilità, INDAM, Rome, 1971), pp. 179–201. Academic Press, London, (1972).
T. Terasoma, [Mixed Tate motives and multiple zeta values,]{} [*Invent. Math.*]{}, [**[149]{}**]{}, (2002), no. 2, 339–369. [arXiv: [math.AG/0104231]{}]{}
D. Zagier, [Values of zeta functions and their applications]{}, First European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. II (Paris, 1992), 497–512, [*Progr. Math.*]{}, [**[120]{}**]{}, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1994
J. Zhao, Analytic continuation of multiple zeta functions. [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**128**]{} (2000), 1275-1283.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A qualitative (and selective) discussion of current activities and problems in the field is given.'
---
CERN-TH/97-134\
June 1997\
hep-ph/9706457
[**Renormalon Phenomenology: Questions and Directions**]{} [^1]
[M. Beneke]{}\
[*Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland*]{}\
The basic idea of ‘renormalon phenomenology’ is simply this: to parametrise, or at least unravel, power-like infrared (IR) sensitive contributions to hard processes. Just as perturbative IR logarithms in QCD lead to the introduction of non-perturbative parameters, such as parton densities in DIS processes, so do power-like dependences on an IR factorisation scale indicate power-suppressed non-perturbative contributions. In DIS they are known as higher-twist corrections. Now one aims at a more general understanding of power corrections, including truly Minkowskian processes. The fact that this is connected with renormalons, that is, large-order behaviour in perturbation theory, can be considered as an accident of history. \[The connection between large orders and small momentum is by itself quite interesting and has led to a better understanding of the systematics of exact multi-loop results. This, however, is not the subject of the present talk.\] In a wider sense the problem is the generalisation of perturbative factorisation beyond leading power accuracy.
DIS structure functions provide a useful example to start with. The twist expansion of the longitudinal structure function can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fl}
F_L(x,Q)/(2 x)
&=& \sum_i\int\limits_x^1\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\,C_i^{[2]}(x,\xi,Q,\mu)
\,f_i(\xi,\mu)
\nonumber\\
&&\,+\frac{1}{Q^2}\sum_j\int \!d\xi_1 d\xi_2\,C_j^{[4]}(x,\xi_1,\xi_2,Q,\mu)
\,T_j(\xi_1,\xi_2,\mu) + \ldots.\end{aligned}$$ It is well-known that due to logarithmic operator mixing, the factorisation scale dependence in the leading twist term cancels only over different contributions (quarks and gluons) in the sum over $i$. It is less known that the separation of twist-2 and twist-4 is also not unique. It would be obvious, if the factorisation in transverse momentum were introduced explicitly, in which case powers of $\mu^2/Q^2$ would arise. In dimensional regularisation, the ambiguity in separating twists appears as renormalons: the series expansion of the coefficient function $C^{[2]}_i$ diverges in large orders in $\alpha_s$ and can not be unambiguously defined. This IR renormalon divergence comes from small momenta in the loops. The ambiguity is compensated by corresponding ultraviolet contributions to the matrix elements $T_j$ of twist-4 (non-local) operators. This point is crucial: although IR renormalons are IR compared to the scale $Q$, they correspond to ultraviolet effects viewed from the scale $\Lambda$, the scale of QCD. As a consequence, we can learn very little on the specifics of non-perturbative effects. What one does learn is the scaling of power corrections with the scale $Q$, just from the consistency requirement that a physical quantity must be unambiguous.
Calculations rely on approximations and to date these correspond to an analysis of IR sensitive regions in one-loop virtual corrections or one gluon emission. The set of bubble diagrams is one way to trace these regions through the large-order behaviour of these diagrams [@Z]. The same set of graphs can also be evaluated through a dispersion relation for the running coupling [@BB1; @DMW]. The IR contributions can then be found as non-analytic terms at small values of the dispersion variable. For sufficiently inclusive observables the dispersion variable can be identified with a gluon mass [@BBZ]. For other interesting quantities like event shape variables and fragmentation functions calculations with a gluons mass correspond to an alternative scheme of IR regularisation, not related to renormalons.
The past two years have seen many phenomenological applications of renormalons. Usually they involve the type of calculations just described, together with additional assumptions that can be judged only by their empirical success. The second line of interest pursues ‘operator interpretations’ of renormalons in Minkowski space, in analogy to higher-twist operators in DIS. If successful, one could then dispense of particular sets of diagrams and approach an understanding of power corrections comparable to applications of operator product expansions in Minkowski space. The following gives a telegram overview of some of the problems that have been addressed recently.\
[*The Drell-Yan process.*]{} This process has been the first process without operator product expansion, where power corrections have been analysed with the help of renormalons. Since collinear factorisation can be extended to $1/Q^2$ corrections [@QIU91], the main question is whether soft gluons could invalidate this result and introduce $1/Q$ corrections. \[$Q$ is the mass of the Drell-Yan pair.\] The Drell-Yan process seems to be well-suited to address this question, as soft gluon radiation has been extensively studied and the resummation of corresponding large logarithms is well understood.
The first investigations [@DY1] of renormalons in Drell-Yan production accordingly started from the soft gluon resummation formula and reported the presence of $1/Q$ corrections. It was then realized [@BBDY] that the approximations legitimate for a systematic resummation of logarithms lose $1/Q$ power corrections and that $1/Q$ corrections cancel in the full result, when these approximations are abandoned. While the leading logarithms originate from the region $k_\perp\ll k_0\ll Q$, the region $k_\perp\sim k_0$, that is, large angle gluon radiation, is equally important for power corrections.
The result of [@BBDY] is based on the analysis of one-loop diagrams. Although the absence of $1/Q$ corrections to all orders may be plausible, this has been shown so far only in an abelian theory [@ASZ], where it follows from the fact that one gluon emission is already the only building block for multiple soft gluon emission amplitudes. For QCD, a proof is still missing. Since the non-abelian vertices enter only at two loops, it might be useful to extend the analysis of IR sensitive regions to two-loop diagrams. This would also provide a check on possible interpretations of power corrections to Drell-Yan production in terms of some operators. If $1/Q$ corrections are indeed absent, as we believe, the same twist-4 multi-parton correlations that enter DIS would seem the best bet for these operators at order $1/Q^2$ [@QIU91].\
[*Hadronic event shape variables*]{}[@E1; @E2; @E3]. These are the simplest observables for which $1/Q$ corrections have been found. They come only from the soft region and it is natural to associate them with hadronization corrections. In addition, experimental information exists for various center-of-mass energies $Q$ in $e^+ e^-$ collisions and a $1/Q$ term fits the difference between data and NLO perturbation very well [@delphi].
One can take a step further towards the absolute magnitude of power corrections by assuming that $1/Q$ corrections are universal [@E2], i.e. that a single non-perturbative number controls $1/Q$ corrections to all event shape variables. To be precise, one assumes that for any (averaged) event shape $S$ (such as the average $1-T$ etc.), the $1/Q$ power correction is given by $$\label{s}
S_{|1/Q} = K_S\cdot\frac{\langle \mu_{had}\rangle}{Q}$$ with a unique parameter $\langle \mu_{had}\rangle$ and a calculable coefficient $K_S$ that depends on $S$. Note that if one identifies $K_S$ with the residue of the IR renormalon pole that leads to the $1/Q$ ambiguity, $K_S$ can not be calculated, because all higher order diagrams contribute to the residue. However, the universality assumption implies that they contribute equally to different event shapes so that the ratio $K_{S_1}/K_{S_2}$ can be found by a one-loop calculation up to corrections of order $\alpha_s(Q)$. Since one event shape measurement is required to fix $\langle \mu_{had}\rangle$, knowledge of the ratio is sufficient to predict $1/Q$ corrections to other event shapes.
The universality assumption seems to work well phenomenologically, to an accuracy of about 20%. The calculation has now been done also for event shape variables in DIS [@DWDIS] and a good fit to the data is obtained with the same value of $\langle \mu_{had}\rangle$ as in $e^+ e^-$ collisions [@EDIS]. This could not have been expected theoretically.
It is fair to say that even for event shape variables in $e^+ e^-$ collisions alone a good theoretical argument in favour of universality still remains to be found. Diagrammatically it is evident that higher order contributions do not contribute equally to the renormalon residue [@E3], mainly because event shapes resolve large angle soft gluon emission at the level of $1/Q$ power corrections even in the two-jet limit [@BBDY]. As a consequence every event shape corresponds to a different weight on the distribution of soft gluons [@sterman] (see also [@BBM]), which can not be described by a single number $\langle \mu_{had}\rangle$. Another problem is the ‘uniqueness problem’: even if universality held (or held approximately), we do not know how to calculate ratios $K_{S_1}/K_{S_2}$ unambiguously. As mentioned above, calculations based on bubble diagrams or on a finite gluon mass as IR regulator lead to different results [@BBDY; @E3; @BBM]. Since there is no obvious reason to prefer one or the other, this difference must be considered as an uncertainty in $K_{S_1}/K_{S_2}$. For the longitudinal cross section, this difference is small [@BBM], about 20%. Given these reservations, the fact that universality appears to work approximately is by itself quite interesting and remains to be understood.\
[*$x$-dependence of twist-4 corrections in DIS*]{} [@DMW; @x]. Since the moments of DIS structure functions have an operator product expansion, one may not expect renormalons to give any further insight on their power behaviour. However, if one assumes that the $x$-dependence of the twist-4 correction follows the $x$-dependence of the corresponding IR sensitive contribution in perturbation theory, the ‘unknowns’ at twist-4 are reduced from functions to numbers. This is a very strong assumption and one may consider the result as a model for twist-4 multi-parton correlation functions. For example, eq. (\[fl\]) reduces to $$\label{fl2}
F_L(x,Q)/(2 x)
= \sum_i\int\limits_x^1\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\,f_i(x/\xi,\mu)\,
\left[C_i^{[2]}(\xi,Q,\mu)+A_i(\xi)\frac{\Lambda^2}{Q^2}\right]
+ \ldots$$ with calculable functions $A_i(\xi)$. Comparison with twist-4 corrections extracted from DIS data shows surprising agreement of the model with the $x$-dependence of the data.
Theoretically it seems rather obscure that the model should work so well and again it is the data itself that teaches us an interesting lesson. Two suggestions have been put forward: the first [@DMW] is based on the idea of universality, which postulates that all non-perturbative effects are generated through integrals over an IR finite coupling, at least to first approximation. This postulate itself appears hard to digest; the second [@BBM] is an a posteriori explanation based on the correspondence of IR renormalons and cut-off dependence of higher-twist operators: the above model could be justified, if the matrix elements of twist-four operators were dominated by their cut-off piece rather than by ‘genuine’ non-perturbative effects. Again, there is no dynamical understanding why this should be so, unless we consider both $A_i(\xi)$ and the data on twist-4 corrections as effective parametrisation of higher order perturbative corrections beyond NLO. Another possibility is that one is mainly seeing generic $x$-dependences that follow from kinematics such as $A_i(x)/C_i^{[2]}(x)\sim 1/(1-x)$ as $x\to 1$.
Whatever the agreement with the data, the model by construction gives no insight into hadron structure. In other words, in terms of moments $$\label{moment}
\frac{M_n^{twist-4}}{M_n^{twist-2}}|_{\mbox{hadron 1}} -
\frac{M_n^{twist-4}}{M_n^{twist-2}}|_{\mbox{hadron 2}} \equiv 0.$$ The model can only work for those aspects of twist-4 corrections which are not hadron-specific. Let me also note that in present applications, the added twist-4 correction does not have the correct scale-dependence. This constitutes an additional uncertainty, although the problem is not fundamental and could be solved by higher-loop calculations of $A^i(\xi)$.\
[*Fragmentation*]{} [@BBM; @DW]. The same model has been suggested for fragmentation processes in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation, although there is as yet no data to compare with. The uniqueness problem mentioned for event shape variables affects the calculation of the functions $A^i(x)$ in fragmentation even more severely. On the other hand fragmentation processes are particularly interesting, because although the leading-twist formalism is analogous to DIS, there is no operator product expansion to provide information beyond leading power. It has been found that for non-zero value of the scaling variable $x$, the leading power corrections are of order $1/Q^2$, in agreement with the collinear expansion of fragmentation functions in [@BBOPE]. But this statement ceases to be true for moments in $x$, which include the soft region at small $x$. The power expansion of fragmentation processes has strong soft gluon singularities at small $x$, which are non-integrable. After integration over $x$, including the small-$x$ region, every term $(\Lambda^2/(Q^2 x^2))^n$ in the expansion at non-zero $x$ can contribute to the leading power correction to the moments. The leading power correction depends on the order of the moment, a situation that is excluded for moments of DIS structure functions. In particular, the total longitudinal cross section receives a $1/Q$ power corrections similar to other event shapes. Only for high enough moments is the soft region suppressed and power corrections scale universally as $1/Q^2$ due to collinear regions. As a consequence, a light-cone expansion for moments of fragmentation expansions does not exist. Note that in DIS and fragmentation, the twist expansion also breaks down as $x\to 1$. However, the singularities as $x\to 1$ are integrable and do not alter the power behaviour of the power expansion of moments.
It is known that at small $x$ multiple gluons emission and coherence effects lead to a suppression of soft hadron production, which formally follows from resummation of logarithms in $x$ in perturbation theory. One may wonder how multiple soft gluon emission would affect the $x$-behaviour of power corrections in the small-$x$ region, which has been crucial in understanding the emergence of a $1/Q$ correction to the longitudinal cross section. It may well be that the two problems are in fact disconnected because they refer to different momentum regions in Feynman integrals. On the other hand, the question of how to reconcile the two different sets of higher order diagrams that correspond to multiple gluon emission and to renormalons has not yet been addressed.\
[*Soft gluon cancellations beyond logarithms.*]{} A more general understanding of under which circumstances $1/Q$ corrections exist would be highly desirable. From what we have learnt, such corrections, if present, would arise only from soft, but not from collinear partons. The approach to the problem taken in [@AZ] makes essential use of the KLN and Low theorems, but still has to be completed for the non-abelian theory. As shown in [@AZ] the KLN theorem alone already guarantees the absence of $1/Q$ corrections to a process inclusive over degenerate final and initial states, basically because the KLN transition amplitudes have no $1/k^0$ contributions (where $k^0$ is the emitted gluon’s energy). As a consequence, the amplitude squared integrated over phase space is proportional to $dk^0 k^0$ for small $k^0$ which implies at most $1/Q^2$ corrections. The main obstacle in this approach appears to be the generalisation of the Low theorem required to dispense of the sum over degenerate initial states implied by the KLN theorem.
Another possibility would be to investigate in what situations the Ward identities that guarantee the cancellation of soft gluon divergences in the factorisation proofs generalise to the cancellation of $1/Q$ corrections as well.\
More theoretical work is needed particularly in this direction. Meanwhile, the phenomenology of renormalons is encouraging, but some magic seems to be at work: things work that needn’t have to.
[99]{} Zakharov, V.I., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B385**]{}, 452 (1992); Beneke, M., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B405**]{}, 424 (1993) Beneke, M. and Braun, V.M., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B348**]{}, 513 (1995); Ball, P., Beneke, M. and Braun, V.M., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B452**]{}, 563 (1995). Dokshitser, Yu.L, Marchesini, G. and Webber, B.R., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B469**]{}, 93 (1996). Beneke, M., Braun, V.M. and Zakharov, V.I., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 3058 (1994). Qiu, J. and Sterman, G., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B353**]{}, 105 (1991), [*ibid.*]{} [**B353**]{}, 137 (1991). Contopanagos, H. and Sterman, G., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B419**]{}, 77, (1994); Korchemsky, G.P. and Sterman, G., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B437**]{}, 415, (1995). Beneke, M. and Braun, V.M., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B454**]{}, 253, (1995). Akhoury, R., Sotiropoulos, M.G. and Zakharov, V.I., [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D56**]{}, 377 (1997) Manohar, A.V. and Wise, M.B., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B344**]{}, 407 (1995); Webber, B.R., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B339**]{}, 148 (1994). Dokshitser, Yu.L. and Webber, B.R., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B352**]{}, 451 (1995); Akhoury, R. and Zakharov, V.I., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B357**]{}, 646 (1995). Nason, P. and Seymour, M.H., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B454**]{}, 291 (1995). See, e.g., DELPHI collaboration, DELPHI 96-107 CONF 34, paper pa02-003 submitted to ICHEP’96, Warsaw 1996. Dasgupta, M. and Webber, B.R., Cavendish-HEP-96/5 \[hep-ph/9704297\] Martyn, H.-U. and Rabbertz, K. (for the H1 Collaboration), [*these proceedings*]{}. Sterman, G., [*these proceedings*]{}. Beneke, M., Braun, V.M., Magnea, L., [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)*]{} [**54A**]{}, 183 (1997) \[hep-ph/9609266\]; CERN-TH/96-362 \[hep-ph/9701309\], to appear in [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B**]{}. Stein, E. et al., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B376**]{}, 177 (1996); Dasgupta, M. and Webber, B.R., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B382**]{}, 273 (1996); Maul, M. et al., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B401**]{}, 100 (1997). Dasgupta, M. and Webber, B.R., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B484**]{}, 247 (1997) Balitsky, I.I. and Braun, V.M., [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B361**]{}, 93 (1991). Akhoury, R. and Zakharov, V.I., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 2238 (1996); Akhoury, R., Stodolsky, L. and Zakharov, V.I., MPI-PH-96-88 \[hep-ph/9609368\]
[^1]: Talk presented at the Fifth International Workshop on ‘Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD’ (DIS’97), Chicago, IL, April 1997.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study analytically the effect of a weak random chemical potential of zero average in an Einstein-Maxwell background. For uncorrelated disorder this perturbation is relevant however we show that it can become marginal or even irrelevant by tuning disorder correlations. At zero temperature we find that, to leading order in the disorder strength, the correction to the conductivity for irrelevant perturbations vanishes. In the marginal case, in order to renormalize a logarithmic divergence, we carry out a resummation of the perturbative expansion of the metric that leads to a Lifshitz-like geometry in the infrared. Disorder in this case also induces a positive correction to the conductivity. At finite temperature the black hole acquires an effective charge and the thermal conductivity has the expected Drude peak that signals the breaking of translational invariance. However the electric conductivity is not affected by the random chemical potential to leading order in the disorder strength.'
author:
- 'Antonio M. García-García'
- Bruno Loureiro
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Marginal and Irrelevant Disorder in Einstein-Maxwell backgrounds'
---
Introduction
============
Disorder plays an important role on the transport properties of interacting electrons in solids. A small amount of disorder in systems with translational symmetry makes the direct current conductivity finite. Similarly, disorder slows down the classically diffusive dynamics of electrons in solids at finite temperature. In real materials disorder is typically introduced by chemical doping which in some cases obscures its effect: the conductivity may increase because the slow down of the motion caused by disorder is counterbalanced by the addition of new carriers.
By contrast, in the limit of vanishing temperature and interactions quantum coherence phenomena enhance dramatically the effect of disorder. According to the one parameter scaling theory of localization [@Abrahams1979], classical diffusion in two and lower dimensions is completely arrested for any disorder and sufficiently long times. This quantum coherence phenomenon, usually referred to as Anderson localization [@Anderson1958], also occurs in higher dimensions [@Frohlich1983] for sufficiently strong disorder. The metal-insulator transition at finite disorder is characterized by universal critical exponents [@Vollhardt1980; @Vollhardt1982; @Garcia2008]. Overwhelming numerical [@Rodriguez2011; @Slevin2014; @Garcia2007], analytical [@Frohlich1983; @Abou-Chacra1973], and more recently experimental [@Roati2008; @Billy2008] evidence, from cold atom physics where interactions can be tuned to be negligible, have all but confirmed the predictions of the scaling theory of localization in the non-interacting limit. However in real materials there are always interactions that may potentially weaken or completely destroy Anderson localization. For two spatial dimensions a diagrammatic resummation showed [@Gorkov1979] that constructive interference between clockwise and counter clockwise loops, the so called weak-localization corrections, induces a logarithmic increase of the resistivity for sufficiently low temperatures [@Gorkov1979]. Interestingly the effect of weak interactions in a weakly disordered potential, neglecting coherence effects, causes a similar log increases though with a different prefactor [@Altshuler1980]. Therefore, in this limit at least, it seems that interactions do not destroy weak-localization which is in full agreement with experimental results. More recently, interest has shifted to the stability of full Anderson localization in the presence of interactions. Qualitative calculations [@Basko2006a; @Basko2006] in the physics literature and more rigorous, but restricted to mean-field interactions, mathematical results [@Wang2008] agree that Anderson localization for sufficiently strong disorder still persists in the presence of weak interactions. This novel state of quantum matter, usually referred to as many body localized, is strictly an insulator since the conductivity vanishes in the limit of zero frequency and temperature. However it has still some distinctive dynamical properties like logarithmic, instead of linear, growth [@Bardarson2012] of the entanglement entropy after a quench, vanishing of the ac conductivity as a power law, $\sigma \propto \omega^\alpha$ with $ 0<\alpha \leq 2$ without logarithmic corrections [@Gopalakrishnan2015] or glassy features like the possibility of slow logarithmic diffusion [@Wang2008]. A detailed understanding of the interplay between disorder and interactions is seriously hampered by computational limitations and the lack of analytical tools to tackle strong interactions.
Holographic dualities [@Maldacena1997], that propose that certain strongly coupled field theories in $d$ dimensions are dual to classical theories of gravity in $d+1$ dimensions, offer a promising framework to tackle this problem.
Indeed there are already several studies of the role of disorder in a strongly coupled field theory with a gravity-dual. Originally disorder was introduced [@Hartnoll2008b; @Fujita2008; @Hartnoll2012] as a deformation of the boundary field theory that coupled the random potential to an operator of the conformal field theory. The addition of this perturbation breaks translational invariance so effectively the role of disorder was to induce momentum relaxation which alters substantially the transport properties of the dual field theory.
In the context of holographic superconductors the effect of a random chemical potential has been studied numerically but only in the probe limit where disorder does not backreact in the metric [@Arean2014; @Zeng2013]. Disorder has also been considered in hyperscaling violating backgrounds, also in the probe limit [@Lucas2014; @Lucas2015; @Lucas2015a]. Backreaction effects of a weak but marginally disordered scalar at zero temperature leads to logarithmic divergences in the infrared that suggest an instability of the perturbation theory [@Adams2011; @Adams2014]. However it was later proposed [@Hartnoll2014] that that these divergences were an artefact of the perturbation theory in non-linear problems that could be cured by the Poincaré-Lindstedt method. The resulting metric in the infrared, after an effective resummation of logarithmic corrections, becomes Lifshitz-like with a dynamical critical exponent that depends on the strength of disorder. In the infinite temperature case [@Hartnoll2015; @Hartnoll2015a] it seems that the presence of a horizon prevents any Lifshitz scaling in the infrared. Numerical simulations for stronger disorder [@Hartnoll2014; @Hartnoll2015a], still for a disordered scalar at zero and finite temperature, have not shown any qualitative change to these results.
In the context of Einstein-Maxwell theories it has been recently proposed [@Donos2014b; @Donos2015] a general expression for the averaged conductivity in gravity-duals, modified by disorder or any other source of inhomogeneity, in terms of the solution of the Einstein equations for the metric. The study of these solutions has just started: the effect of weak disorder in the Einstein-Maxwell theory induced by a random chemical potential including backreaction effects, recently studied in Ref.[@OKeeffe2015], reveals surprising features like a conductivity that increases with disorder. We note that the disorder investigated in Ref.[@OKeeffe2015] is a relevant perturbation that leads to linear, instead of logarithmic, divergences in the metric. Although the Poincaré-Lindstedt method is technically applicable in this case it is less clear that these divergences are really an artefact of the perturbation theory.
Here we revisit this problem by studying an Einstein-Maxwell background with a random, but in general correlated, chemical potential of zero average at zero and finite temperature. By modifying the correlations of the disordered chemical potential we tune the conformal dimension of the gauge field so that we can also investigate irrelevant and marginal perturbations. In the limit of zero temperature we have found that, to leading order, irrelevant perturbations do not modify the conductivity in the limit of zero temperature. By contrast, for marginal disorder the corrections to the conductivity are positive. In this case the metric develops perturbative logarithmic singularities in the infrared that can be resummed by using the Poincaré-Lindstedt method [@Hartnoll2014]. The resulting geometry is Lifshitz-like in the infrared with a dynamical critical exponent that depends on the disorder strength. In the finite temperature case the effect of perturbative disorder is weaker. The electrical conductivity does not get corrections in the disorder strength to leading order though the black-hole becomes charged even in this limit.
We start by introducing the Einstein-Maxwell theory with a random but correlated chemical potential.
Correlated Disorder in the Einstein-Maxwell background {#model}
======================================================
We investigate the interplay of disorder and interactions in field theories with a gravity dual. For that purpose we study an asymptotic anti-de Sitter ($AdS$) Einstein-Maxwell theory in $d+1=4$ space-time dimensions with a random chemical potential given by the action $$\label{action}
S=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g} \left[ R + 6 -\frac{1}{4} F^2\right],$$ where $F$ is the Maxwell tensor, $R$ the scalar curvature. For convenience we have set $l_{\text{AdS}_4}=2\kappa^2_4 = 1$. We choose to work in Fefferman-Graham coordinates $\dd s^2 = \frac{1}{z^2} \left(\dd z^2 + g_{\mu\nu}(x^{\mu},z)\dd x^{\mu}\dd x^{\nu} \right)$ which we suppose are globally defined. Here $z=0$ is the AdS boundary, with coordinates $x^{\mu} = (t,x,y)$. The equations of motion are given by
\[eemaxwell\] $$\begin{aligned}
R_{ab} + 3 g_{ab} = \frac{1}{4}F_{\phantom{c}a}^{c}F_{bc} - \frac{1}{8} g_{ab} F^2 \label{emaxwelleq}, \\
\partial_{a}\left( \sqrt{-g}F^{ab} \right) = 0 \label{maxwelleq}.\end{aligned}$$
We are only interested in spatially inhomogeneous solutions of the equations above, for which neither the metric components nor the gauge field depend on time. Therefore the $U(1)$ gauge field $A = a_t({\mathbf{x}},z) \dd t$, which we assume is the only non-zero component, and the metric $g_{\mu\nu}({\mathbf{x}},z)$ depends explicitly on the bulk ($z$) and the boundary spatial coordinates (${\mathbf{x}}$). This system of equations support both zero and finite temperature solutions, which are specified by the infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) boundary conditions. For the zero temperature case, we require all metric components and the gauge field to be regular at the Poincaré horizon $z\to\infty$. For the finite temperature case, we require the existence of a horizon, *i.e.* a point $z_0\in (0,\infty)$ such that $g_{tt}({\mathbf{x}},z) \sim \gamma_{tt}({\mathbf{x}})(z-z_0)+O\left((z-z_0)^2\right)$ and $g_{zz}({\mathbf{x}},z) \sim \frac{\gamma_{zz}({\mathbf{x}})}{z-z_0}+O\left(1\right)$ for $|z -z_0| \ll 1$, with all other components $g_{ij}$ regular. Similarly, close to the boundary we impose,
\[boundaryconditions\] $$\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{z\to0} g_{ab} \dd x^a \dd x^b&= \frac{1}{z^2} \left( \dd z^2-\dd t^2+\dd x^2+\dd y^2 \right) , \label{bcmetriccharged}\\
\lim\limits_{z\to 0} a_t({\mathbf{x}},z)&= \mu({\mathbf{x}}) \label{bcvectorpotential}.\end{aligned}$$
According to the holographic dictionary the bulk action (\[action\]), with the above boundary conditions, is dual to a $d=3$ conformal field theory (CFT) at finite chemical potential $\mu({\mathbf{x}}) = \lim\limits_{z\to 0}a_t(x,z)$. Disorder is introduced, in one or both boundary directions, through a random chemical potential in the boundary $\mu({\mathbf{x}})$. Next we give a detailed account of the properties of this random chemical potential so that we can use it to model irrelevant and marginal perturbations in the dual field theory.
Correlated Disorder and relevance of perturbations {#impdisorder}
--------------------------------------------------
We introduce disorder in the holographic setting by imposing that the chemical potential $\mu({\mathbf{x}})$ is a stochastic field depending on the spacelike boundary coordinates. This random boundary condition promotes the vector potential $A=a_t(z,{\mathbf{x}})\dd t$ and the metric components to stochastic processes indexed by ${\mathbf{x}}$. Similarly the equations of motion and becomes stochastic equations.
We specify the distribution of $\mu({\mathbf{x}})$ by a spectral decomposition $$\label{bcvp}
\mu({\mathbf{x}}) = \bar{V} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \frac{\dd[n] k}{(2\pi)^n} ~e^{i {\mathbf{k}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}} \mu_{\mathbf{k}},$$ where $n=1$ if disorder is only in one direction or $n=2$ if disorder is in both directions and the parameter $\bar{V}$ measures the amplitude of the source ($\mu\sim O(\bar{V})$). Further, we assume $\mu_{\mathbf{k}}$ is a spectral stochastic process taking values in a Gaussian distribution of zero average $\mathbb{E}[\mu_{\mathbf{k}}]=0$ and variance $\sigma_{\mathbf{k}}^2$ where $\mathbb{E}[\dots]$ denotes the average with respect to the probability distribution. From now on we will restrict ourselves to isotropic disorder $\mu_{\mathbf{k}} = \mu_k$ so that Eq. can be written effectively as a one dimensional integral $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \dd[n]k = \text{Vol}(\mathbb{S}^{n}) \int_{0^+}^{\infty}\dd k~ k^{n-1}$. We stress that even though $\mu_k$ is Gaussian, this does not imply $\mu({\mathbf{x}})$ is Gaussian itself unless $\sigma_{k}^2$ is $k$ independent. It was shown recently [@OKeeffe2015] that precisely in this case even a weakly disordered chemical potential $\bar{V} \ll 1$ induces a relevant perturbation in the geometry which casts some doubts on the reliability of the perturbation theory.
Interestingly the relevance, or not, of the perturbation depends on the disorder correlations as the mass dimension of $\bar{V}$ is controlled by the mass dimension of $\sigma_k^2$. Specifically, we have $[\mu] = [\bar{V}]+n+[\mu_k] = [\bar{V}] + \frac{1}{2}(n+[\sigma_{k}^2])$. Therefore introducing powers of $k$ in $\sigma_k$ makes disorder more and more irrelevant. For instance assuming $\sigma_k^2 \propto k^s$ $$\label{power}
[\bar{V}]= 1- \frac{n+s}{2}.$$ Therefore disorder is relevant ($\bar{V}>0$) if $n+s < 2$, marginal ($\bar{V}=0$) if $n+s = 2$ and irrelevant ($\bar{V}<0$) if $n+s > 2$. In the following we will restrict to marginal and irrelevant perturbations by employing correlated potentials such that $n+s \geq 2$. Surprisingly, we shall see that this *a priori* naive power counting actually determines the perturbative flow of the renormalization group (RG) in the Einstein-Maxwell system. Finally we note that for a fixed $s$, increasing the number of dimensions in which we introduce disorder makes disorder less relevant. The fact that translation invariance is left unbroken in a bulk direction constrains the dynamics of the fields to the orthogonal directions. It is therefore no surprise that disorder is more relevant in this case. Indeed it is a well known result in condensed matter systems that disorder is more relevant in lower dimensional systems [@Abrahams1979].
Explicit implementation of disorder {#iranduv}
-----------------------------------
We have now all the ingredients to define the correlated disordered potential to be employed in the rest of the paper. For most of the analytical calculations we shall employ Eq. assuming isotropic disorder [^1] and a Gaussian $\mu_k$ with zero average $\mathbb{E}[\mu_k]=0$ and variance $$\label{variance}
\sigma_k^2 = 2^{s+1} k^s e^{-2ka}.$$ Note that the exponential factor assures convergence of the boundary deformation by smoothly suppressing high momenta modes. This introduces a UV length scale $a =1/k_0$, necessary to cure divergences for irrelevant perturbations, which can be interpreted as a lattice constant that effectively suppresses modes with wavelength smaller than the lattice spacing. We stress that since we are interested on averaged quantities that are computed analytically it is not necessary an explicit expression for $\mu({\mathbf{x}})$.
However in the finite temperature case we shall find more convenient at times to employ the following explicit representation of the random chemical potential commonly used in the holography literature [@Zeng2013; @Arean2014; @Arean2014a; @Arean2015; @Hartnoll2014; @Hartnoll2015; @Hartnoll2015a; @OKeeffe2015] $$\label{discrep}
\mu({\mathbf{x}}) =\bar{V} \sum\limits_{\{ m_i \} =1}^{N-1} A_{\{m_i\}}\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n} \cos(k_{m_i}x^i + \gamma_m).$$ where $A_{\{m_i\}} = \bar{V}(\sqrt{\Delta k \sigma_{\{m_i\}}})^n$ with $\Delta k = k_0/N$ and $k_{m_i} = m_i \Delta k$. Here $\gamma_m\in [0,2\pi)$ are i.i.d. random variables. Further, we define $\Delta k = k_0/N$ and $k_{m_i} = m_i \Delta k$. Averages $\mathbb{E}[\cdots]$ in this representation are taken with respect to the i.i.d distribution of phases $\gamma_m$, the variance is given by Eq. though the UV cutoff $k_0=1/a$ is sharp and applied directly to the sum. Note that in this representation there is also a natural IR scale $k_* = 1/L = 1/{Na}$ which is only taken to zero in the averaging procedure.
Both the discrete and the continuous representations are equivalent in the limit $a\to 0$ and $L\to\infty$. For finite values of the cutoffs we still expect qualitatively similar results.
Random chemical potential at zero temperature
=============================================
In this section we study the $d+1=4$ Einstein-Maxwell action at zero temperature in the presence of a weak and correlated random chemical potential. We investigate the cases of disorder acting in one and two boundary space dimensions. Although both cases are quantitatively different, they have a similar IR behaviour as long as correlations are chosen so that disorder is marginal. For marginal disorder we find logarithmic IR divergences in the metric that can be resumed by the Poincaré-Lindstedt method leading to a Lifshitz-like metric. We proceed with the calculation of the DC conductivity for both irrelevant and marginal disorder. We find the perturbative correction vanishes for irrelevant disorder and is positive for marginal disorder. The divergence of the marginal flow signals an instability of the system towards, possibly to a charged ground state at finite temperature.
Metric corrections for disorder in one dimension
------------------------------------------------
Consider the action with boundary conditions at zero temperature. We fix coordinates $x^{\mu}=(t,x,y)$ in the boundary and restrict disorder to act only in the $x$ direction. Following the discussion in section \[impdisorder\], we introduce disorder by requiring $\mu(x)$ to be a homogeneous random field with spectral decomposition $$\mu(x) = \bar{V} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{\dd k}{2\pi} ~e^{i k x} \mu_k,$$ where $\mu_k$ is a gaussian spectral process with zero mean. Finding exact solutions of the system is a hard task so we restrict ourselves to a perturbative analysis in disorder strength $\bar{V}$. Acording to Eq., for $\sigma_k = 1$ we have $[\bar{V}] = 1/2 > 0$ and therefore disorder is relevant in this case. A perturbative analysis is therefore inadequate, as disorder can drive the theory to a new fixed point far from $AdS_4$. This lead us to consider correlated disorder with $\sigma_k = 2^{s+1}|k|^{s}e^{-2|k|a}$. It is easy to see that by choosing $s = 1$ disorder will be marginal. Therefore we might be able to find new disordered fixed points close to $AdS_4$ by adapting the analysis of Ref. [@Hartnoll2014] for a scalar coupled to gravity to the case of Einstein-Maxwell theory.
To set up the perturbation theory, we write the most general static line element in Fefferman-Graham coordinates compatible with our boundary conditions $$ds^2 = \frac{1}{z^2}\left[-A(x,z)\dd t^2 + \dd z^2 + B(x,z)\dd x^2 + D(x,z)\dd y^2 \right],$$ and proceed with a perturbative expansion in $\bar{V}\ll1$
$$\begin{aligned}
A(x,z) &= 1 + \bar{V}^{2} \alpha(x,z) + O(\bar{V}^2), & B(x,z) &= 1 + \bar{V}^{2} \beta(x,z) + O(\bar{V}^2), \\
D(x,z) &= 1 + \bar{V}^{2} \delta(x,z) + O(\bar{V}^2), & a_t(x,z) &= \bar{V} \varphi(x,z) + O(\bar{V}^3),\end{aligned}$$
where all $\alpha,\beta,\delta,\varphi$ have been lifted to stationary stochastic processes via the boundary conditions and Einstein’s Equations. Note that to order $\bar{V}^0$ the background is pure $AdS_4$. To order $\bar{V}^1$, Maxwell’s Equation is a Laplace equation $$\partial_z^2\varphi + \partial_x^2 \varphi = 0,$$ which can be solved by decomposing $\varphi(x) = \int \frac{\dd k}{2\pi}~ e^{i k x}\varphi_k(z)$ and imposing the boundary conditions together with regularity at $z\to\infty$: $$\label{solvp}
\varphi(x,z) = \int \frac{\dd k}{2\pi}~e^{-|k|z+ikx}\mu_k .$$
We now need to insert this into the $O(\bar{V}^2)$ Einstein’s Equations, that can be reorganized to give:
\[eom\] $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\left(\alpha+\delta\right) \right] &= \frac{1}{2}\left[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 -(\partial_x\varphi)^2 \right] \label{eq1},\\
z^2 \partial_z \left(z^{-1}\partial_z\beta\right) &= -\partial_z\left(\alpha+\delta \right) \label{eq2},\\
\partial_z\partial_x(\alpha+\delta) &= z^2 \partial_z\varphi\partial_x\varphi \label{eq3},\\
2z^3 \partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\left(\alpha-\delta\right) \right] + 2z \partial_x^2\left(\alpha-\delta\right) &= 2z^3\left[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 +(\partial_x\varphi)^2 \right]. \label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$
In practice this can be solved explicitly by inserting Eq. in the right hand side of the above equation, developing $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ in harmonics and integrating the resulting EOM’s. However, since we are not interested in the specific realizations of the random geometry but rather in the possible IR averaged fixed points, we take the average of the above equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{averages}
\mathbb{E}[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 -(\partial_x\varphi)^2]&= 0, \\
\mathbb{E}[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 +(\partial_x\varphi)^2] &=
\int_{0^+}^{\infty} \frac{\dd k}{2\pi}~ 2^{s+2} k^{s+2} e^{-2 k(z+a)}= \frac{\Gamma(s+3)}{4\pi(z+a)^{s+3}}\label{avemt}.\end{aligned}$$
where we assumed $s>-3$ [^2]. From the above it is clear that the solutions of equations and are regular for all $z\ge0$ while solutions of can develop divergences depending of the value of $s$. Explicitly we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[\alpha+\delta] &= \eta, \label{alphadelta}\\
\mathbb{E}[\beta] &= \eta, \label{beta}\\
\mathbb{E}[\alpha-\delta] &= -\frac{\Gamma(s+3)}{4\pi(s+2)}\int \frac{\dd z}{(z+a)^{s}}\propto\left\{\begin{matrix}
\log (z+a) & \text{ for } s=1, \\
(z+a)^{1-s} & \text{ for } s\neq 1.
\end{matrix}\right. \label{analysisdisorder}\end{aligned}$$
where we have imposed regularity at $z\to\infty$ and the boundary conditions $\mathbb{E}[(\alpha-\delta)(x,0)] = \text{const}$. Note that this result reproduces exactly what we naively expect from the power counting analysis: for $s<1$, disorder is relevant and therefore the perturbation scheme breaks down with the appearance of power law divergences in the deep IR $z\to\infty$. For $s>1$, disorder is irrelevant, and indeed the background flows to pure $AdS_4$ in the IR. For $s=1$ disorder is marginally relevant, as signaled by a log divergence as we flow towards the IR. This log behavior was first observed in [@Adams2014] and later reproduced in [@Hartnoll2014; @Hartnoll2015] in the case of a disordered scalar. Our analysis for the charged case suggests that the log divergences for marginal deformations are a quite general feature of holographic disorder.
### Resummation of the metric for marginal disorder {#secresum}
In a perturbative RG analysis, one is interested in how the deformation of a given action can change the IR behaviour of the theory. Divergences signal an instability of the flow towards new fixed points. In particular, logarithmic divergences are usually associated with marginal deformations which can sometimes be resummed, to all orders, to give the explicit IR effective action [@Cardy1996]. A similar procedure to resum log divergences in Holography was first proposed by Hartnoll and Santos in [@Hartnoll2014]. As was mentioned in the introduction, the upshot is that log divergences in holography are associated with IR geometries that can be characterized by their scaling properties. In the case of scalar deformations, they found an emergent Lifshitz scaling with dynamical critical exponent $\bar{z}(\bar{V})$ which is an increasing function of disorder.
The general idea is to modify the metric ansatz by including a function that regularize the divergences order by order in perturbation theory, similar to the Poincaré-Lindsteadt method used in the study of non-linear oscillators. Our ansatz is $$\label{ansatzresum}
ds^2 = \frac{1}{z^2}\left[-\frac{A(x,z)}{F_1(z)^{p(\bar{V})}}\dd t^2 + \dd z^2 + B(x,z)\dd x^2+ \frac{D(x,z)}{F_2(z)^{q(\bar{V})}}\dd y^2\right],$$ and consists of corrections only to the IR diverging components of the metric. Since divergences appear in the second order of perturbation theory, we can expand $p(\bar{V}) = p_2 \bar{V}^2+O(\bar{V}^4)$ and $q(\bar{V}) = q_2 \bar{V}^2+O(\bar{V}^4)$ and require $\lim\limits_{z\to 0}F_{1,2} = 1$ in order to preserve the UV physics. The equations of motion now read:
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\left(\alpha+\delta-\log F_1^{p_2}F_2^{q_2}\right) \right] &= \frac{1}{2}\left[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 -(\partial_x\varphi)^2 \right],\\
z^2 \partial_z \left(z^{-1}\partial_z\beta\right) &= -\partial_z\left(\alpha+\delta-\log F_1^{p_2}F_2^{q_2} \right) ,\\
\partial_z\partial_x(\alpha+\delta) &= z^2 \partial_z\varphi\partial_x\varphi ,\\
z^2 \partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\left(\alpha-\delta-\log \frac{F_1^{p_2}}{F_2^{q_2}}\right) \right] + \partial_x^2\left(\alpha-\delta\right) &= z^2\left[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 +(\partial_x\varphi)^2 \right]. \end{aligned}$$
From the above it is clear that choosing $F_1 = F_2 = F$ and tuning $p = 1/2 = -q$ leaves $\alpha + \delta$ and $\beta$ unchanged while shifts $\alpha-\delta \to \alpha-\delta - \log F(z)$ by the log of an arbitrary function $F(z)$. Any choice of $F(z)$ satisfying the constraint $F(0) = 1$ and such that $F(z)\sim z$ as $z\to\infty$ will regularize the IR log divergence previously found (*e.g.* $F(z) = 1+ (z/a)^2$). Up to a rescaling of the coordinates by a constant, the averaged IR metric can then be written as: $$\mathbb{E}[ds^2_{IR}] \sim -\frac{\dd t^2}{z^{2b_1}} + \frac{\dd z^2 + \dd x^2}{z^2}+\frac{\dd y^2}{z^{2b_2}},$$ for $b_1 = 1+\bar{V}^2/2 + O(\bar{V})^4$ and $b_2 = 1-\bar{V}^2/2 + O(\bar{V})^4$. The emergent IR metric has an anisotropic scaling symmetry in the bulk directions. This should not be a surprise since isotropy is broken by disorder. Next we show isotropy is recovered by considering disorder in both boundary space directions.
Metric corrections for disorder in two dimensions {#sectiondisorder2d}
-------------------------------------------------
In the previous section, we found that working with the averaged geometry is enough to determine the instability of the RG flow. The way the metric diverges is intimately connected to the emergent scaling behaviour of the IR disordered fixed points. In this section we show that a similar log divergence emerges when disorder is considered in all space boundary directions. The advantage is that isotropy is recovered, making easier to generalize to higher dimensions and finite temperature. As expected, the resulting metric has an emergent Lifshitz scaling in the IR.
The framework used above can be generalized to include disorder in both bulk directions $(x,y)$ with the changes: $$\begin{aligned}
k \to{\mathbf{k}} = (k_x, k_y), & & x\to{\mathbf{x}}=(x,y), & & \int \dd k \to \int \dd[2] k. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The power counting now give us $[\bar{V}] = -s/2$, and disorder is marginal for $s=0$. This is not surprising, since by performing the above changes in Eq. , it is clear that the double integral contributes with an additional power of $k$.
The only difference in the averaged equation of motion is the appearance of non-trivial $y$ dependence in the gauge field $A$ components. They can be conveniently rearranged as [^3]:
\[eom2\] $$\begin{aligned}
4\partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\alpha \right] &=\mathbb{E}\left[3(\partial_z\varphi)^2 +(\nabla\varphi)^2 \right]=\frac{3}{2\pi}(z+a)^{-4} \label{eq42d}, \\
2\partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\left(\beta+\delta\right) \right] &=-\mathbb{E}\left[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 +(\nabla\varphi)^2 \right]=-\frac{3}{4\pi}(z+a)^{-4} \label{eq32d}, \\
\partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\left(\beta-\delta\right) \right] &=\mathbb{E}\left[(\partial_x\varphi)^2 -(\partial_y\varphi)^2 \right]=0 \label{eq22d}, \\
2\partial_z \left[z^{-2}\partial_z\left(\alpha+\beta+\delta\right) \right] &=z~ \mathbb{E}\left[(\partial_z\varphi)^2 -(\nabla\varphi)^2 \right]=0 \label{eq12d},\end{aligned}$$
where we introduced the bulk gradient $\nabla = (\partial_x,\partial_y)$. As advertised, now disorder does not break isotropy in the bulk, and this is reflected in the equations of motion . In the one dimensional case $\mathbb{E}[\partial_y\varphi]=0$ and the average in the right hand side do not vanish. The equations above can be easily solved to give: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha = -(\beta+\delta)= -\frac{1}{8\pi}\log (z+a),\end{aligned}$$ which is in agreement with marginally relevant deformations. In analogy with the one dimensional case, it is again possible to resum these logarithmic corrections. Up to a coordinate redefinition, the IR geometry will take the form: $$\mathbb{E}[ds^2_{IR}] \sim -\frac{\dd t^2}{z^{2\bar{z}}} + \frac{\dd z^2}{z^2} + \frac{\dd x^2 + \dd y^2}{z^{2}}.$$ with $\bar{z}= 1 + \bar{V}^2 + O(\bar{V}^2)$. This IR fixed point corresponds to a quantum field theory with *Lifshitz* scaling, since it is invariant under $(t,x,y)\to (\lambda^{\bar{z}}t, \lambda x, \lambda y)$. The emergence of Lifshitz scaling in the context of disordered holography was first observed in Ref. [@Hartnoll2014]. It is an interesting fact that Lifshitz-like scaling emerges in different dimensions and for different random sources. This suggests that Lifshitz geometries in the IR are a robust feature of marginal disorder in holography.
Conductivity of the dual field theory {#sectioncond}
-------------------------------------
We now turn our attention to how disorder affects the transport of the dual theory. In condensed matter, the effect of weak disorder in a metal is to decrease the conductivity [@Kramer1993]. This is the first sign that for strong enough disorder the system undergoes a metal-insulator transition. According to the *scaling theory of localization* [@Abrahams1979; @Anderson1980] (or [@Kramer1993] for a review) the knowledge of the scaling of the conductance with the system size allows to derive a real space RG equation and eventually to establish the existence of the metal-insulator transition.
In holography, it was established that a range of theories in both zero and finite temperature have a finite and constant incoherent contribution to the conductivity in addition to the usual coherent contribution coming from a finite charge density [@Davison2015a]. In particular this contribution is also present at zero temperature and charge density [@Policastro2002; @Iqbal2009]. Our aim is to understand how disorder affects this contribution. For simplicity, we work with disorder in one dimension and compute the DC conductivity in this direction. We will show that an irrelevant disordered chemical potential does not contribute to the conductivity, while a marginal deformation has the effect of increasing it. In both cases disorder does not suppress the incoherent contribution to the conductivity. It is an open question why those degrees of freedom seem to be protected from relaxation. In principle this is different from the behaviour expected in condensed matter systems where disorder always suppresses the conductivity. We note that a direct comparison is difficult as our perturbation may also induce a net increase of carriers that enhance the conductivity.
Computing transport coefficients in inhomogeneous backgrounds is an involved task. Since we are only interested in the DC conductivity, we are going to take a shortcut first proposed by Donos and Gauntlett in Ref. [@Donos2014b] which consist in applying a constant electric field $E^x\equiv E$ in the disordered direction at the dual boundary theory. In the bulk, this is implemented by a fluctuation in the vector potential that solves the time dependence of the Maxwell’s Equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta A = (a_x(x,z)-Et)\dd x.\end{aligned}$$ This fluctuation generates a non-trivial boundary current obtained via the usual holographic dictionary $j^x = \lim\limits_{z\to 0}\partial_z a_x$. The conductivity is then defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conductivity}
\sigma = \left.\frac{\mathbb{E}[j^x]}{E}\right|_{z=0}.\end{aligned}$$ The fluctuation above also couples to the metric via the Einstein’s Equations, and consistency require turning on metric fluctuations. In a radial gauge $h_{za} = 0$ for $a\in\{z,t,x,y\}$, the Einstein’s Equations decouple in two sectors, and is sufficient to consider only the metric fluctuation $h_{tx}$.
As in the previous section, we proceed with a perturbative analysis. Inspection of the equations of motion to first order in $E$ and second order in $\bar{V}$ requires $$\begin{aligned}
a_x(x,z)=a_x^{(0)}(x,z)+\bar{V}^2 a_x^{(2)}(x,z) +O(\bar{V}^4),&& h_{tx}(x,z)=\bar{V} h_{tx}^{(1)}+O(\bar{V}^3).\end{aligned}$$ Note in particular that we need to expand the fluctuation $a_x$ to $O(\bar{V}^2)$ in order to respect the holographic dictionary and match the boundary current $j^x = \lim\limits_{z\to 0}\partial_z a_x$ to the bulk current $\sqrt{-g}F^{xz}$. To compute conductivity we need to solve the Einstein-Maxwell order by order for $\{a_x^{(0)},a_x^{(2)},h_{tx}^{(1)}\}$ and take the relevant average over disorder. As boundary conditions for the fluctuations, we require $\delta A_x$ to be ingoing and the dual field theory Minkowski metric to be fixed, or in other words $\lim\limits_{z\to0}z^2 h_{tx} = 0$[^4].
To order $\bar{V}^0$, the $(z)$ and $(x)$ Maxwell’s Equations give $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z \partial_x a_x^{(0)}(x,z) = 0,\\
\partial^2_z a_x^{(0)}(x,z) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $\partial_z a_{x}^{(0)} = \text{constant}$. To fix this constant, we need to apply ingoing boundary conditions. Note that $u=t-z$ and $v=t+z$ are the two null coordinates in $AdS_4$. Therefore for the fluctuation to be ingoing, we require $\delta A_x(x,z,t) = \delta A_x (x,v)$ which fixes $\partial_z a_{x}^{(0)} = -E$. This gives the order $O(\bar{V}^0)$ contribution to the DC conductivity $\sigma = 1 +O(\bar{V}^2)$, which agrees with the pure $AdS_4$ value.
The order $O(\bar{V}^2)$, the $(z)$ and $(x)$ Maxwell’s Equations read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conserveqs}
\partial_z \left[E(\alpha-\beta+\delta)-2z^2 h_{tx}^{(1)}\partial_z\varphi-2\partial_z a_x^{(2)} \right]=0, \\
\partial_x \left[E(\alpha-\beta+\delta)-2z^2 h_{tx}^{(1)}\partial_z\varphi-2\partial_z a_x^{(2)} \right]=0,\end{aligned}$$ Note that these are exactly the equations for the conservation of the bulk current to $O(\bar{V}^2)$. They fix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ax2}
\partial_z a_x^{(2)} = c - 2z^2 h_{tx}^{(1)}\partial_z\varphi + \frac{E}{2}(\alpha-\beta+\delta),\end{aligned}$$ for an arbitrary constant $c$. Note that the average of the above is exactly the numerator in . Since $\mathbb{E}[\alpha-\beta+\delta]=0$ everywhere in the bulk from Eqs. , and $\lim\limits_{z\to 0}\mathbb{E}[z^2 h_{tx}^{(1)}\partial_z\varphi]=0$ to avoid deformations of the dual field theory Minkowski metric, $c$ is exactly the correction the the conductivity we are after. To fix $c$, we need to impose ingoing boundary conditions in the Poincaré horizon $z=\infty$, or in other words $\delta A_x (t,z,x) = \delta A_x(v,x)$ for $v=t+z$. This fixes $\lim\limits_{z\to\infty}\partial_z a_x^{(2)}(x,z)=0$, and we can formally write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fixingc}
c=\lim\limits_{z\to\infty} 2\mathbb{E}[z^2 h^{(1)}_{tx}\partial_z \varphi].\end{aligned}$$
As we mentioned before, the Einstein’s equations for $h_{tx}^{(1)}$ decouple from the background $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z\partial_x \left(z^2 h^{(1)}_{tx}\right) = z^2 E \partial_x\varphi, \\
\partial_z \left(z^{-2}\partial_z(z^2 h^{(1)}_{tx})\right)= E\partial_z\varphi,\end{aligned}$$ and can be readily solved by inserting the source and integrating, $$\begin{aligned}
z^2 h^{(1)}_{tx}(x,z)=E\int \frac{\dd k}{2\pi}\frac{\mu_k}{k^3}2^{s+1}e^{-kz+ikx}\left(2+2kz+k^2z^2\right)+C(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $C(x)$ is a (random) integration constant. We suppose $C(x)$ admits a spectral representation with gaussian measure and write $C(x) = \int \frac{\dd k}{2\pi}e^{ikx}\mu_k c_k$ for a deterministic constant $c_k$. The boundary condition $\lim\limits_{z\to 0} z^2 h_{tx}=0$ then fixes $c_k = -2 k^{-3}$. Note that with this choice we have in particular $\lim\limits_{z\to 0}\mathbb{E}[z^2h^{(1)}_{tx}\partial_z\varphi]=0$ as claimed before. We can now explicitely fix $c$ by computing the average in Eq. $$\begin{aligned}
c=\left\{\begin{matrix}0 && \text{ for } s>1, \\ \frac{8\log{2}-5}{\pi} && \text{ for } s=1. \end{matrix}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore for irrelevant disorder there are no corrections to the background conductivity to second order, $\sigma = 1 + O(\bar{V}^2)$, while for relevant disorder we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma = 1+\bar{V}^2 \gamma+O(\bar{V}^4),\end{aligned}$$ for $\gamma = \pi^{-1}(8\log{2}-5)>0$. This result is consistent with the previously discussed fact that for irrelevant deformations the background $AdS_4$ remains the IR fixed point of the system, while for marginal deformations the background geometry receives logarithmic corrections. Note that for $s<1$ the deformation is relevant. In this case $c$ diverges polynomially and perturbation theory breaks down.
One might ask if the resummation carried out in the last sections alters the computation of the conductivity. This is not the case since as we argued before the metric fluctuations decouple from the background equations of motion. Resumming the background IR divergence for marginal deformations therefore does not change the conductivity, which is finite in the IR.
Random chemical potential at finite temperature
===============================================
A natural generalization of the previous discussion is to include the effects of temperature. In practice, this is equivalent to imposing an AdS black brane boundary condition to the vacuum, around which we carry out a perturbative calculation. From the field theory perspective, we will be studying the perturbative effect of a random chemical potential in a quantum field theory at finite temperature. In practice, the presence of a horizon spoils the symmetry between the boundary coordinates $(t,x,y)$, which makes the calculations more involved. Following some previous ideas [@Hartnoll2015], we will see that the problem can be analyzed in two opposite limits: high and low momenta modes. The high momenta modes will be exactly those that will contribute to the leading divergences of the metric components, therefore determining the emerging IR scaling. On the other hand, low momenta modes are constant along the bulk and will have the effect of renormalizing the temperature and charge of the black brane. We shall see that the initially uncharged black brane geometry develops an effective net charge proportional to the strength of the perturbation. Moreover to leading order in the disorder strength the thermal conductivity, but not the electrical conductivity, develops a Drude peak consistent with the breaking of translational symmetry by the random chemical potential.
Equations of Motion
-------------------
Consider again the action . If $A = 0$, this action supports a finite temperature vacuum given by a $d+1=4$ AdS Schwarzschild black brane. Introducing a random chemical potential in the boundary can be seen as perturbation around this vacuum as long as $T\gg \bar{V}$. However, in order for disorder to be still relevant we need $k_0 = 1/a \gg T$. Therefore we are working with the hierarchy $k_0 \gg T \gg \bar{V}$. In analogy with the zero temperature case, we can set up a perturbative calculation around this background by looking at solutions of the system with the ansatz:
\[ansatz3\] $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &= \frac{1}{z^2}\left[-f(z)A(z)\dd t^2 + \frac{\dd z^2}{f(z)} + B(z)(\dd x^2 + \dd y^2) \right], \label{ansatz3a}\\
A &= a_t(z,{\mathbf{x}}) \dd t. \label{ansatz3b}\end{aligned}$$
Following our previous discussion we are working directly with the averaged metric $A(z) = \mathbb{E}[A(z,{\mathbf{x}})]$, $B(z) = \mathbb{E}[B(z,{\mathbf{x}})]$ and with disorder in both boundary directions $(x,y)$, for which we can imposed isotropy. We also suppose that $f$ is a function of the holographic coordinate $z$ with a first order pole at a point $z_0$. It will be convenient to consider the rescaling $u = z/z_0$, such that $f(u=1) = 0$. As before, we set up our perturbation theory by letting
$$\begin{aligned}
A(u) &= 1 + \bar{V}^{2} \alpha(u) + O(\bar{V}^2), &B(u) &= 1 + \bar{V}^{2} \beta(u) + O(\bar{V}^2), \\
a_t(x,u) &= \bar{V} \varphi(x,u) + O(\bar{V}^3).\end{aligned}$$
The task is to solve the system together with the boundary conditions $\alpha(0) = \beta(0)$ and $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \varphi({\mathbf{x}}, u) = \int \frac{\dd[2]k}{2\pi} ~ e^{i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}} \mu_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. Further, we impose regularity and ingoing boundary conditions at the horizon $u=1$.
To order $\bar{V}^0$, the equations of motion are those for the AdS Schwarzschild background,
\[emblackeningf\] $$\begin{aligned}
-6+6f-4uf' + u^2f'' = 0, \\
3-3f+uf' = 0,\end{aligned}$$
which are trivially satisfied by $f = 1-u^3$. To order $\bar{V}$, we have Maxwell’s Equations for the vector potential, while no further metric equations are sourced: $$f\partial_u^2\varphi +z_0^2 \partial_x^2 \varphi = 0.$$ Again, we decompose $\varphi = \int \frac{\dd[2]{k}}{(2\pi)^2}~e^{i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}\varphi_{{\mathbf{k}}}(u)$ to get: $$\label{maxwellfinite}
f\varphi''_\kappa -{\mathbf{\kappa}}^2 \varphi_k = 0,$$ where we have defined the dimensionless momentum $\kappa = z_0 |{\mathbf{k}}|$. Unfortunately we cannot solve the above equation explicitly. However we will be interested in two limits, the low (or zero) $\kappa\ll 1$ and high $\kappa\gg 1$ momentum modes. In the first limit, we have $\varphi'_{0} = \eta$ which is constant, while in the second limit $\kappa \gg 1$ we can rely on the WKB approximation $$\varphi_k(u) = \mu_k f^{-1/4} e^{-\kappa \int f^{-1/2}}.$$
To order $\bar{V}^2$, Einstein’s Equations give: $$\begin{aligned}
f \alpha'' + \frac{(uf'-2f)}{2 u}(3\alpha'+\beta')&= -\frac{u^2 z_0^2}{2f} \mathbb{E}\left[f(\partial_u \varphi)^2+z_0^2(\nabla \varphi)^2\right], \\
f\alpha'' +2f\beta''+\frac{3uf'-2f}{2u} \alpha' + \frac{uf'-2f}{2u}\beta' &= \frac{u^2 z_0^2}{2f} \mathbb{E}\left[-f(\partial_u \varphi)^2+z_0^2(\nabla \varphi)^2\right], \\
f\beta'' - \frac{f}{u}\alpha' - \frac{uf'-4f}{u} &= \frac{u^2 z_0^2}{2f} \mathbb{E}\left[f(\partial_u \varphi)^2-z_0^2(\partial_x\varphi)^2+z_0^2(\partial_y\varphi)^2\right], \\
f\beta'' - \frac{f}{u}\alpha' - \frac{uf'-4f}{u} &= \frac{u^2 z_0^2}{2f} \mathbb{E}\left[f(\partial_u \varphi)^2+z_0^2(\partial_x\varphi)^2-z_0^2(\partial_y\varphi)^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ where we made use of the zeroth order equations. These can be explicitly decoupled in two second order equations
$$\begin{aligned}
(3+f)^2f^{-1/2}\partial_u\left(\frac{f^{3/2}}{u^2(3+f)}\partial_u\alpha\right) &=z_0^2~ \mathbb{E}[3(\partial_u\varphi)^2+z_0^2(\nabla \varphi)^2] \label{eomfinite1},\\
4 f^{3/2}\partial_u \left(\frac{f^{1/2}}{u^2}\partial_u \beta\right) &=-z_0^2~ \mathbb{E}[f(\partial_u\varphi)^2+z_0^2(\nabla \varphi)^2] \label{eomfinite2}.\end{aligned}$$
High momenta modes
------------------
The effect of modes with $\kappa\gg 1$ was first discussed in Ref. [@Hartnoll2015] in the context of a random scalar deformation. Since the calculations for the high momenta modes for the charged deformation is similar, we only review the results and direct the reader to Ref. [@Hartnoll2015] for the technical details.
An explicit calculation shows that for $\kappa\gg1$ the main contribution to integrating equations and comes from the near boundary region $u=0$. Note that in this region these equations reduce to and , giving logarithmic corrections to the metric coefficient $\alpha \sim \log{z_0/a}$. The important remark is that the second order correction to the surface gravity of the background is proportional to $\alpha$. In particular, this implies that the temperature of the black hole receives second order logarithmic corrections from the high momenta modes. If we further assume that these corrections can be resummed as in the zero temperature setting, the temperature will develop a Lifshitz scaling $T\sim z_0^{-\bar{z}}$ with the horizon. The upshot is that all other thermodynamic quantities are affected by the way they scale with temperature. It is important to note that this is a direct consequence of the logarithmic corrections for the metric coefficient $\alpha$. Since we find a similar correction, the results of Ref. [@Hartnoll2015] should apply here.
What about lower momenta modes? From Eq. , it is clear that for $\kappa \ll 1$ the source is approximately constant in the bulk, and therefore does not contribute to the singular behaviour of the metric. From the RG point of view, these modes are irrelevant and can only possibly renormalize the background geometry. As we will discuss below, this is indeed the case.
Low momenta modes {#lowmomem}
-----------------
We will show that low momenta modes play the role of renormalizing the background by introducing a charge $Q\sim \bar{V}$ in the originally neutral black brane.
Consider the renormalized emblackening factor $f = \bar{f} + \bar{V}^2 \delta f$ where $\bar{f}(u) = 1-u^3$ with ansatz . This shift has no effect in the zeroth and first order equations. However, it introduces an extra factor in Eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
\left(u^{-3}\delta f\right)'-\bar{f}^{1/2}\partial_u \left(\frac{\bar{f}^{1/2}}{u^2}\partial_u \beta\right) &=\frac{z_0^2}{4\bar{f}}~ \mathbb{E}[\bar{f}(\varphi_{\kappa}')^2+\kappa^2 \varphi_{\kappa}^2].\end{aligned}$$ In particular, for $\kappa\ll 1$ the left hand side is constant, since by Maxwell’s Equations $(\varphi'_{\kappa \ll 1})^2=\mu_0^2$. This is precisely the statement that low momenta modes are constant along the bulk. Close to the horizon $u=1$ the first term on the right hand side drops, giving: $$(u^{-3}\delta f)' = \frac{z_0^2}{4} \mu_0^2,$$ which can be easily solved by $\delta f(u) = \frac{z_0^2}{4}\mu_0^2 \left( u^4 - u^3 \right)$ and requiring $\delta f(0) = \delta f(1) = 0$. This correction gives precisely the emblackening factor $f(u) = 1 - (1+Q^2) u^3+ Q^2 u^4$ expected for an AdS Reissner-Nordstrom black brane with charge, $$\begin{aligned}
Q^2 =\frac{z_0^2}{4}\mu_0^2 \bar{V}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the constant low momenta modes have the effect of renormalizing the near horizon geometry of the initially uncharged black brane, adding a charge proportional to the sourced disorder. However note that this only contributes to the previous discussion at order $O(\bar{V}^4)$.This explains why to leading order it is justified to look only at high momenta modes when analyzing the divergences of the metric under the flow of the renormalization group. We expect the full non-linear solution to be a charged black brane with a temperature reflecting both contributions discussed above.
Conductivity and momentum dissipation {#condfinitetemp}
-------------------------------------
Recent works by Donos, Gauntlett [@Donos2014b; @Donos2014c; @Banks2015; @Donos2015a], built upon previous membrane paradigm ideas [@Iqbal2009], have simplified enormously the task of computing averaged DC conductivities in inhomogeneous backgrounds at finite temperature. Specifically, in [@Donos2014b] they provide an explicit formula for the DC conductivity of the Einstein-Maxwell system sourced by a periodic potential in terms of near horizon data. The generalization of their results to our model read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conddonos}
\sigma = 1 + \bar{V}^2X^{-1} \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\varphi_{(0)}}{A_{(0)}} \right]^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $X = \mathbb{E}\left[\left(\frac{\varphi^{(0)}}{A_{(0)}}\right)^2 \right]-\mathbb{E}[B_{(0)}^{-3}\partial_x B_{(0)}]-\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\varphi_{(0)}}{A_{(0)}} \right]^2$ and the metric and gauge field are evaluated at the horizon $u=1$. In order to compute the corrections to the conductivity is necessary to take averages of fractions, which is usually a hard task. However we can still get a qualitative picture without having to compute the averages explicitly. First, it is clear that generically $X\neq0$ since the first term is an average over a second moment. The same is *a priori* not clear for the numerator, which is an average over a first moment.
In perturbation theory, $A = 1 + \bar{V}^2 \alpha$, and we can expand the denominator for small $\bar{V}$: $\mathbb{E}\left[\varphi_{(0)}/A_{(0)} \right] \sim \mathbb{E}\left[\varphi_{(0)}]-\bar{V}^2\mathbb{E}[ \alpha_{(0)}\varphi_{(0)} \right]+O(\bar{V}^4)$. By construction we have $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_{(0)}]=0$, and the problem simplifies to computing $\mathbb{E}[\alpha_{(0)}\phi_{(0)}]$. In principle to compute this average explicitly one needs the exact background to second order. However by looking at the most general spectral decomposition of $\alpha$ that solves the equations of motion one can compute the average in function of the coefficients $\alpha_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. Without loss of generality we can write $\alpha = \alpha_{hom}(u)+\alpha_{inh}({\mathbf{x}},u)$. It is clear that only $\alpha_{inh}$ contributes to the perturbative corrections of the conductivity, since any homogeneous part (which is a constant at the horizon) vanishes when averaged with the source $\phi_{(0)}$. From the equations of motion we can write (c.f. appendix \[appendix1\] for further details) $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{inh}({\mathbf{x}},u) = \sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}} \alpha^{0}_{{\mathbf{k}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i}\cos{2\theta_{i,{\mathbf{k}}}} + \sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}\neq{\mathbf{l}}} \alpha^{+}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i}\cos{\theta^+_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}+\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}\neq{\mathbf{l}}} \alpha^{-}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i}\cos{\theta^-_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where we used a discrete representation for simplicity (c.f. Eq. ), and defined $\theta^{\pm}_{i,k_i,l_i} =\theta_{i,k_i}\pm\theta_{i,l_i}$. Letting $\varphi = \sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}} \varphi_{{\mathbf{k}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i}\cos{\theta_{i,{\mathbf{k}}}}$ and evaluating at $u=1$, one check that $\mathbb{E}[\alpha_{inh(0)}\phi_{(0)}]=0$ and therefore $$\sigma=1+O(\bar{V}^4).$$ One could be tempted to extend this argument to fourth or higher orders in $\bar{V}$. However this is a really hard task as it would also require the computation at least of the third order contribution to the vector potential as well as the fourth order contribution to the metric.
It is intriguing that the random chemical potential does not contribute, to leading order at least, to the background electric conductivity. The likely physical reason for that behaviour is a peculiar feature of this realisation of disorder: charge carriers, whose average charge vanishes, and that naturally contributes to the electrical conductivity, are at the same time the source of disorder in the system. This dual role is rather unusual in condensed matter systems where scatterers are typically uncharged and quenched and therefore do not contribute to the electrical conductivity.
We confirm that this unexpected result is a peculiarity of the electrical conductivity in this model of disorder by computing the thermal conductivity $\kappa$ [^5], which describes transport of energy instead of charge. Following again the results of [@Donos2014b], $\kappa$ is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa = \frac{(4\pi)^2 T}{X+ \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\varphi_{(0)}}{A_{(0)}} \right]^2}.\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to check that now the thermal conductivity depends on disorder, even to leading order, since we have an average over a second moment of the source $\varphi$ inside $X$, which gives a non-zero contribution to second order. We can estimate this in the high temperature limit $T\gg k_0$ where the main contribution to the geometry is $\varphi_{\kappa\ll 1} = (1-u)\mu(x,y)$. Therefore $\kappa = \frac{(4\pi)^4 T^3}{9} \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[\mu^2]}$ which leads to, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thermo}
\kappa = \frac{(4\pi)^3}{9} \frac{T^3}{k_0 \bar{V}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ As was expected, in the absence of disorder $\bar{V}\to 0$, $\kappa$ diverges as $1/\bar{V}^2$ since for no disorder translational invariance is recovered. The expression also suggests that the relaxation scale of momentum is given by $\tau^{-1} \sim k_0 \bar{V}^2$. This is in full agreement with recent results in a set up similar to ours where disorder is introduced by a random scalar field in the boundary [@Hartnoll2015a].
Finally, it is important to stress that all these results are restricted to averaged conductivities. It would be interesting to know higher moments and the full probability distribution of the relevant observables. That for instance could provide additional information on the effect of a random chemical potential on the electrical conductivity for which we have clearly observed that a simple average misses important features.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied analytically the role of weak disorder in Einstein-Maxwell theory and its relation, by holography, with the transport properties of the dual field theory. Disorder is introduced through a random correlated chemical potential whose conformal dimension can be tuned by modifying the strength of the correlations. In that way we can investigate, within the Einstein-Maxwell theory, irrelevant, marginal or relevant perturbations. We have focused in the first two cases where we have found that, to leading order, irrelevant perturbations do not alter the conductivity while marginal perturbations induce a positive correction. Both results are in agreement with the recently proposed bound [@Lucas2014; @Lucas2015; @Lucas2015a] for the DC conductivity at finite temperature. Curiously disorder does not seem to suppress incoherent transport even at zero temperature. It would be interesting to understand why these field theory degrees of freedom are protected from disorder. In the marginal case at zero temperature we also found infrared logarithmic singularities in the metric that, after resummation as in Ref. [@Hartnoll2014], lead to a Lifshitz-like geometry. At finite temperature we have shown that despite the fact that the chemical potential has zero average the black hole develops some net charge. The thermal conductivity is consistent with a disordered potential that induces relaxation of momentum. However the average electrical conductivity, as in the zero temperature case, is still not affected by disorder to leading order in perturbation theory. It would be interesting to study the conditions to observe a transition from a neutral to a charged infrared background as disorder is increased in the limit of a chemical potential with zero average. Another interesting question is to clarify the conditions for a correction to the conductivity at finite temperature due to disorder. We plan to address these problems in the near future.
A. M. G. thanks Hong Liu and Elias Kiritsis for illuminating discussions. A. M. G. acknowledges partial support from EPSRC, grant No. EP/I004637/1. B. L. thanks Andrew Lucas for interesting discussions and suggestions concerning the conductivity. B.L. is supported by a CAPES/COT grant No. 11469/13-17. Both authors are grateful to the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics for the hospitality and the INFN for partial support during the completion of this work.
Conductivity at finite temperature {#appendix1}
==================================
Consider the Einstein-Maxwell system at finite temperature with an inhomogenous chemical potential in both boundary directions. We work in coordinates such that the horizon is at $u=1$ and the boundary at $u=0$. To zeroth order in perturbation theory, Einstein’s Equations fix the usual Schwarzschild emblackening factor as in . Looking for solutions of the type $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz4}
ds^2 &= \frac{z_0^2}{u^2}\left[-f(u)(1+\bar{V}^2\alpha(u,{\mathbf{x}}))\dd t^2 + \frac{z_0^2 \dd z^2}{f(u)} + (1+\bar{V}^2\beta(u,{\mathbf{x}}))(\dd x^2 + \dd y^2) \right], \\
A &= \bar{V}\varphi(u,{\mathbf{x}}) \dd t.\end{aligned}$$ The second order equations read: $$\begin{aligned}
2uf\partial_u^2\alpha + 2u z_0^2\nabla^2\alpha + (3uf'-6f)\partial_u\alpha+2(uf'-4f)\partial_u\beta &= -u^3z_0^2f^{-1} \left[f(\partial_u\varphi)^2+z_0^2(\nabla\varphi)^2\right] \tag{tt},\\
2uf\partial_u^2\alpha+4uf\partial_u^2\beta+(3uf'-2f)\partial_u\alpha+2(uf'-2f)\partial_u\beta &=u^3z_0^2f^{-1}\left[(f\partial_u\varphi)^2-z_0^2(\nabla\varphi)^2\right] \tag{uu},\\
f'\partial_x\alpha+2f\partial_x\partial_u(\alpha+\beta) &= -\frac{1}{2}u^2 z_0^2 f^{-1}\partial_x\varphi\partial_u\varphi \tag{ux},\\
2uf\partial_u^2\beta+2uz_0^2\nabla^2\beta+2uz_0^2\partial_x^2\alpha -2f\partial_u\alpha+2(uf'-4f)\partial_u\beta &=u^3z_0^2f^{-1}\left[f(\partial_z\varphi)^2-z_0^2\left( (\partial_x\varphi)^2-(\partial_y\varphi)^2\right)\right] \tag{xx},\\
f'\partial_y\alpha+2f\partial_y\partial_u(\alpha+\beta) &= -\frac{1}{2}u^2 z_0^2 f^{-1}\partial_y\varphi\partial_u\varphi \tag{uy},\\
f\partial_y\partial_x\alpha &= u^2 z_0^2\partial_x\varphi\partial_y\varphi \tag{xy}, \\
2uf\partial_u^2\beta+2uz_0^2\nabla^2\beta+2uz_0^2\partial_y^2\alpha -2f\partial_u\alpha+2(uf'-4f)\partial_u\beta &=u^3z_0^2f^{-1}\left[f(\partial_z\varphi)^2+z_0^2\left( (\partial_x\varphi)^2-(\partial_y\varphi)^2\right)\right] \tag{yy},\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced $\nabla = (\partial_x, \partial_y)$. It is convenient to look at the following linear combinations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqsreduced}
4f^{1/2}\partial_u \left(u^{-2}f^{1/2}\partial_u\beta \right)+2u^{-2}\nabla^2\beta &=-z_0^2f^{-1}\left[f(\partial_u^2\varphi)^2+z_0^2(\nabla\varphi)^2\right], \\
(3+f)^2f^{-1/2}\partial_u\left(\frac{f^{3/2}}{u^2(3+f)}\partial_u\alpha\right)+2u^{-2}z_0^2f\nabla^2\alpha+u^{-2}z_0^2(f-3)\nabla^2\beta &=z_0^2f^{-1}~ \mathbb{E}[3f(\partial_u\varphi)^2+z_0^2(\nabla \varphi)^2],\end{aligned}$$ where we took $-tt+uu+xx+yy$ and $3/2(f+1)+1/2(f-3)(uu-xx-yy)$ respectively. Note in particular that these equations reduce to and over averaging. The source can be expanded in the spectral basis as $$\varphi(u,{\mathbf{x}}) =\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}} \varphi_{{\mathbf{k}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i\in\{x,y\}} \cos{\theta_{\mathbf{i,k}}},$$ where ${\mathbf{k}} = (k_x,k_y) = (n_x,n_y)k_0/N$ with $n_x,n_y\in\{1,2,\dots,N-1\}$ and $\theta_{i,k_i} = k_i x^i + \gamma_i$ for $\gamma_i\in[0,2\pi)$ i.i.d. random variables (c.f. discussion in section \[iranduv\]). We have opted for a discrete representation here for clarity, but this should not change the result. Recall that $\varphi_{{\mathbf{k}}}(u)$ can be obtained from Maxwell’s Equations , but an explicit solution is not needed for our purposes.
Further, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_u\varphi)^2 &= \left(\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}} \varphi'_{{\mathbf{k}}}\prod\limits_{i} \cos{\theta_{i,{\mathbf{k}}}}\right) \left(\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{l}}} \varphi'_{{\mathbf{l}}}\prod\limits_{i} \cos{\theta_{i,{\mathbf{l}}}}\right) = \sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}} \varphi'_{{\mathbf{k}}}\varphi'_{{\mathbf{l}}}\prod\limits_{i} \cos{\theta_{i,{\mathbf{k}}}}\cos{\theta_{i,{\mathbf{l}}}} \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}} \varphi'_{{\mathbf{k}}}\varphi'_{{\mathbf{l}}}\prod\limits_{i} \left(\cos{\theta^-_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}+\cos{\theta^+_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}} (\varphi'_{{\mathbf{k}}})^2\prod\limits_{i} \left(1+\cos{2\theta_{i,{\mathbf{k}}}}\right)+ \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}\neq{\mathbf{l}}} \varphi'_{{\mathbf{k}}}\varphi'_{{\mathbf{l}}}\prod\limits_{i} \left(\cos{\theta^-_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}+\cos{\theta^+_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}\right),\\
(\nabla\varphi)^2 &= \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}} ({\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{l}}) \varphi_{{\mathbf{k}}}\varphi_{{\mathbf{l}}}\prod\limits_{i} \left(\cos{\theta^-_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}-\cos{\theta^+_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}} k^2(\varphi_{{\mathbf{k}}})^2\prod\limits_{i} \left(1-\cos{2\theta_{i,{\mathbf{k}}}}\right)+ \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}\neq{\mathbf{l}}}({\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{l}}) \varphi_{{\mathbf{k}}}\varphi_{{\mathbf{l}}}\prod\limits_{i} \left(\cos{\theta^-_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}-\cos{\theta^+_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\theta^{\pm}_{i,k_i,l_i} = \theta_{i,k_i}\pm\theta_{i,l_i}$. This determines the spectral decomposition of the metric coefficients in terms of the sources. For example, we can write $\alpha(u,{\mathbf{x}}) = \alpha_{hom}(u) + \alpha_{inh}({\mathbf{x}},u)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{inh}({\mathbf{x}},u) = \sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}} \alpha^{0}_{{\mathbf{k}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i}\cos{2\theta_{i,{\mathbf{k}}}} + \sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}\neq{\mathbf{l}}} \alpha^{+}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i}\cos{\theta^+_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}}+\sum\limits_{{\mathbf{k}}\neq{\mathbf{l}}} \alpha^{-}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}(u)\prod\limits_{i}\cos{\theta^-_{i,{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{l}}}},\end{aligned}$$ with a similar expression for $\beta$. By linearity, the task of solving equations now reduces to solving coupled ODEs for $\alpha_{hom}, \beta_{hom}$, $\alpha^{0},\beta^{0}$ and $\alpha^{\pm},\beta^{\pm}$. This is in principle doable but cumbersome, and does not bring any insight. Examples of explicit solutions for zero and finite temperature backgrounds in a similar context were given in references [@Hartnoll2014; @OKeeffe2015; @Hartnoll2015]. However for the purposes of applying the formula we do not need the full solution.
By linearity of the mean, we just need to compute terms like $\mathbb{E}[\cos{\theta_k}]$,$\mathbb{E}[\cos{2\theta_n}\cos{\theta_k}]$ and $\mathbb{E}[\cos{\theta^{\pm}_{nm}}\cos{\theta_{k}}]$ for $n\neq m$. The first is trivially zero since it is the integral of one cosine over a full period. To compute the other terms, we use the angle sum rule $\cos{\theta^{\pm}_{nm}} = \cos{\theta_{n}}\cos{\theta_{m}}\mp \sin{\theta_{n}} \sin{\theta_{m}}$. In order to have a nonzero integral we need all cosines and sines to group into a single power, since any single cosine vanishes when integrated over. For the second term, this will only happen when $k=n$, but in this case the integrals are over $\cos^3{\theta}$ and $\sin^2{\theta}\cos{\theta}$ which vanish on a period. In the third term, there will be always a cosine or sine left over since $n\neq m$. Thus $\mathbb{E}[\cos{\alpha_k}]=\mathbb{E}[\cos{2\theta_n}\cos{\theta_k}] = \mathbb{E}[\cos{\theta^{\pm}_{nm}}\cos{\theta_{k}}] = 0$ generically. The result quoted in section \[condfinitetemp\] follows.
[^1]: When working in higher dimensions, we denote $k=|{\mathbf{k}}|$. In one dimension we explicitely include the modulus to avoid ambiguities.
[^2]: We are not interested in the range $s<0$ since we already know disorder is relevant in this case a perturbative approach is not adequate.
[^3]: To avoid charging the notation, we conveniently denote $\mathbb{E}[\alpha(x,z)] = \alpha(z)$, etc.
[^4]: We are grateful to Andrew Lucas for pointing this out.
[^5]: Not to be mistaken with the dimensionless momentum we defined before.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the results of a zero-field muon spin relaxation (ZF-$\mu$SR) study of superconducting Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$ ($0.5 \! \leq \! x \! \leq \! 0.9$) in search of weak spontaneous internal magnetic fields associated with proposed time-reversal-symmetry breaking mixed pairing states. The measurements were performed on polycrystalline samples, which do not exhibit the mesoscopic phase separation previously observed in single crystals of Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$. No evidence of spontaneous internal magnetic fields is found in any of the samples at temperatures down to $T \! \sim \! 0.02$ K.'
author:
- 'Z. Lotfi Mahyari'
- 'A. Cannell'
- 'C. Gomez'
- 'S. Tezok'
- 'A. Zelati'
- 'E.V.L. de Mello'
- 'J.-Q Yan'
- 'D.G. Mandrus'
- 'J.E. Sonier'
title: 'Zero-Field $\mu$SR Search for a Time-Reversal-Symmetry-Breaking Mixed Pairing State in Superconducting Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$'
---
The microscopic mechanism responsible for superconductivity in iron-based superconductors manifests itself in the Cooper-pair wave function symmetry, and consequently the symmetry of the superconducting ground state has been a central issue of investigation.[@Hirschfeld:11] In the 122 iron-based superconductor Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$ there is evidence for a transformation of the pairing symmetry with hole doping. Near optimal hole-doping ($x \! \sim \! 0.4$) the pairing state is widely believed to be of $s_{\pm}$ symmetry, with a full superconducting (SC) gap occurring on hole Fermi surface (FS) pockets at the Brillouin zone (BZ) center ($\Gamma$ point), and a full SC gap of opposite sign present on electron FS pockets centered about the M($\pi$,0)/(0,$\pi$) point.[@Ding:11] Such an $s_{\pm}$-wave pairing state may be mediated by spin fluctuations.[@Mazin:08]
Currently being debated is the situation at strong doping, where the electron FS pockets essentially vanish.[@Sato:09] Laser angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements indicate that KFe$_2$As$_2$ ($x \! = \! 1$) has a complicated SC gap structure, with full and nodal gaps on the inner and middle BZ-centered hole FS pockets, respectively.[@Okazaki:12] Meanwhile, magnetic penetration depth,[@Hashimoto:10] thermal transport,[@Dong:10; @Reid:12; @Wang:12] and specific heat[@Abdel:13] measurements on KFe$_2$As$_2$ favor a state of $d$-wave pairing symmetry. The latter results support calculations predicting the evolution of Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ into a nodal $d$-wave superconductor concomitant with the disappearance of the electron FS pockets.[@Thomale:11; @Maiti:11] Yet recent ARPES measurements of Ba$_{0.1}$K$_{0.9}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ show that despite such a drastic change in the FS topology, isotropic SC gaps consistent with $s$-wave symmetry persist on unaltered hole FS pockets at the $\Gamma$ point.[@Xu:13]
While it remains unclear whether or how Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$ transforms from a nodeless $s$-wave to nodal $d$-wave superconductor at full doping, a change from one pure pairing symmetry state to another may occur via an intermediate phase of mixed symmetry, where the pure states are nearly degenerate. In particular, a time-reversal symmetry breaking (TRSB) $s \! + \! id$ state has been predicted to occur over some unspecified range of $x$ between optimal and full hole doping.[@Lee:09] The possibility of a mixed $s \! + \! id$ symmetry state in Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ and other iron-based superconductors has been considered in several subsequent theoretical works.[@Stanev:10; @Platt:12; @Fernandes:13] Recently it has been proposed that pure KFe$_2$As$_2$ actually has $s_{\pm}$ pairing symmetry, but differs from Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$ at optimal doping in that the $s$-wave gaps of opposite sign occur on the hole FS pockets at the $\Gamma$ point.[@Maiti:13] In this case there is the possibility of an intermediate $s \! + \! is$ state between optimal and full doping where the $s$-wave gaps on the hole FS pockets transform from having the same to opposite signs. Like the proposed $s \! + \! id$ state, the $s \! + \! is$ state breaks time-reversal symmetry.
In a bulk superconductor with a TRSB order parameter, weak spontaneous currents are generated around impurities and lattice defects.[@Sigrist:98] This should occur even for the above mentioned TRSB multiband $s \! + \! is$ state.[@Sigrist] In such systems ZF-$\mu$SR has been demonstrated to be an ideal local probe of the weak internal magnetic fields ($\sim \! 0.05$ to 1 G) produced by the spontaneous currents. To date, weak internal fields compatible with a TRSB pairing state have been detected by ZF-$\mu$SR in the superconducting phases of U$_{1-x}$Th$_x$Be$_{13}$,[@Heffner:90] Sr$_2$RuO$_4$,[@Luke:98] PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$,[@Aoki:03] LaNiC$_2$,[@Hillier:09] PrPt$_4$Ge$_{12}$,[@Maisuradze:10] Pr(Os$_{1-x}$Ru$_x$)$_4$Sb$_{12}$ and Pr$_{1-y}$La$_y$Os$_4$Sb$_{12}$,[@Shu:11] LaNiGa$_2$,[@Hillier:12] and most recently in SrPtAs.[@Biswas:12] The TRSB states that have been proposed for Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ do not necessarily occur immediately below the superconducting transition temperature ($T_c$), but may emerge at lower $T$.[@Lee:09; @Maiti:13] These two possibilities are depicted in Fig. \[fig1\]. Here we report a ZF-$\mu$SR search for a TRSB pairing state in Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ ($0.5 \! \leq \! x \! \leq \! 0.9$) at temperatures extending down to $T \! \sim \! 0.02$ K.
![(Color online) Schematic phase diagram of Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ as a function of temperature $T$ and $x$, showing a predicted mixed TRSB pairing state ($s \! + \! i d$ or $s \! + \! i s$) occurring somewhere between $x \! = \! 0.4$ and $x \! = \! 1$. The $s_{\pm}$ (he) state corresponds to $s$-wave gaps of opposite sign on the hole (h) and electron (e) FS pockets. The $s_{\pm}$ (hh) state corresponds to $s$-wave gaps of opposite sign on the hole FS pockets at the $\Gamma$ point in the BZ (in the absence of electron FS pockets) as proposed in Ref. . In (a) the TRSB mixed symmetry state onsets at $T_c$ for a certain value of $x$, whereas in (b) it occurs significantly below $T_c$ irrespective of $x$. In (b) the pure $s_{\pm}$ (he) state evolves continuously into the pure $s_{\pm}$ (hh) state at temperatures above the $s \! + \! is$ state. On the other hand, a first-order transition (represented by a nearly vertical line) occurs between the pure $s_{\pm}$ (he) and $d$-wave states at temperatures between $T_c$ and the onset of the $s \! + \! id$ state.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1_BaKFeAs_Sonier.eps){width="8.0cm"}
![(Color online) Representative ZF-$\mu$SR asymmetry spectra of Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ for (a) $x \! = \! 0.5$, (b) $x \! = \! 0.8$, and (c) $x \! = \! 0.9$, measured with the sample contained in a He$^4$ continuous-flow cryostat. The solid curves superimposed on the data points are fits to Eq. (\[eq:Asymmetry\]), which are described in the main text.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2_BaKFeAs_Sonier.eps){width="8.0cm"}
Single crystal growth of Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$, especially for overdoped compositions, is rather challenging due to the vaporization and reaction of K with the alumina crucibles. Our own growth efforts failed to obtain uniform crystals with controlled K-contents, and consequently polycrystalline samples were used in the present study. The Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ ($x \! = \! 0.5$, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9) samples were synthesized starting with the individual elements. First, purified Fe and As powders, and small pieces of Ba and K were mixed and loaded into an alumina crucible inside of a glove box. The alumina crucible was sealed in a Ta tube, and the Ta tube subsequently sealed in a quartz tube under 1/3 atmosphere of ultra-high purity argon. The ampoule was gradually heated to 750 $^{\circ}$C in a programmable furnace at a ramp rate of 15 $^{\circ}$C per hour. After staying at 750 $^{\circ}$C for 48 hours, the furnace was shut off. The mixture was taken out of the alumina crucible and thoroughly ground to ensure homogeneity, and then pelletized inside of a glove box. The pellets have a diameter of 1.8 cm and weigh $\sim \! 4.5$ g. Each pellet was then loaded into an alumina crucible and sealed in a Ta tube. The final sintering was performed at 900 $^{\circ}$C for 48 hours. Room temperature x-ray powder diffraction was performed on a PANalytical X’Pert Pro MPD powder x-ray diffractometer using Cu K$\alpha$ radiation. The x-ray powder diffraction pattern confirmed that all of the samples are essentially single phase. The $T_c$ value of each sample was determined from the temperature dependence of the bulk magnetization, measured at an applied magnetic field of 20 Oe with a Quantum Design Magnetic Properties Measurement System — yielding $T_c \! = \! 47$, 30, 20, 11, and 8 K for the $x \! = \! 0.5$, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 samples, respectively. The transition width for all samples is $\pm 1$ K. These values of $T_c$ agree with previous literature reports.[@Johrendt:09; @Avci:12]
The ZF-$\mu$SR measurements were performed at TRIUMF in Vancouver, Canada, on the M15 surface positive muon ($\mu^+$) beam line, using a Quantum Technology Corp. side-loading, He$^4$ continuous-flow cryostat for measurements down to $T \! \sim \! 2$ K, and an Oxford Instruments dilution refrigerator for measurements down to $T \! \sim \! 0.02$ K. In the cryostat the samples were suspended with thin aluminized Mylar tape, and in the dilution refrigerator mounted on a pure Ag sample holder — in both cases to avoid a temperature-dependent background contribution to the ZF-$\mu$SR signal from materials with electron magnetic dipole moments. A “veto” detector placed downstream of the sample was used to reject muons that did not stop in either the sample or the sample holder.
An implanted $\mu^+$ precesses about the local magnetic field $B$ with a Larmor frequency $\omega \! = \! \gamma_\mu B$, where $\gamma_\mu$ is the muon gyromagnetic ratio. In the SC phase, diamagnetic screening of any external magnetic field along the muon spin direction can result in the onset of an enhanced temperature-dependent relaxation of the ZF-$\mu$SR signal at $T_c$, mimicking the effect of induced weak spontaneous internal fields associated with a TRSB pairing state. Even if the mixed TRSB states predicted for Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ occur only at temperatures well below $T_c$, the additional temperature-dependent relaxation caused by diamagnetism can mask the contribution of the weak spontaneous fields. Hence it is crucial to minimize the external field in this type of experiment. This was achieved by using 3 orthogonal pairs of Helmholtz coils to compensate for the magnetic field penetrating quartz or pure Si placed at the sample position. In quartz or Si the positive muon binds to an electron to form the hydrogen-like state muonium (Mu $\equiv \! \mu^+$e$^-$), where the muon senses its local environment through the coupled electron. The much larger magnetic moment of the electron provides an enhanced sensitivity to internal magnetic fields, such that the gyromagnetic ratio of Mu is $\gamma_{Mu} \! \sim \! 103 \gamma_{\mu}$. By this method the external magnetic field contribution at the sample position was reduced to less than 0.1 Oe.
![(Color online) (a)-(e) Temperature dependence of the exponential relaxation rate $\lambda$, and (f) the $x$ dependence of $\Delta$, from fits of the ZF-$\mu$SR signals to Eq. (\[eq:Asymmetry\]).[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3_BaKFeAs_Sonier.eps){width="9cm"}
![(Color online) Results of the low-temperature measurements using a dilution refrigerator. (a) ZF-$\mu$SR asymmetry spectra of Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ at $T \! = \! 0.02$ K for $x \! = \! 0.7$, 0.8, and 0.9. (b) Temperature dependence of the exponential relaxation rate $\lambda$ from fits of the low-temperature ZF-$\mu$SR signals to Eq. (\[eq:Asymmetry\]).[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4_BaKFeAs_Sonier.eps){width="9.5cm"}
Earlier $\mu$SR experiments on single crystals detected a coexistence of mesoscopic phase-separated static magnetic order and nonmagnetic/SC regions near $x \! = \! 0.5$,[@Aczel:08; @Goko:09; @Park:09] whereas a ZF-$\mu$SR study of polycrystalline samples of Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ reported microscopic coexistence of magnetism and superconductivity in the underdoped region $x \! \leq \! 0.23$.[@Wiesenmayer:11] Figure \[fig2\] shows a comparison of the ZF-$\mu$SR asymmetry spectra of our $x \! = \! 0.5$, 0.8 and 0.9 polycrystalline samples at a temperature far above $T_c$, and in the superconducting phase at $T \! \sim \! 2$ K. The absence of a coherent oscillation in these ZF-$\mu$SR time spectra is compatible with investigations of the magnetic phase diagram of polycrystalline Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ by other techniques,[@Avci:12; @Rotter:09] which indicate that antiferromagnetic ordering vanishes by $ x \! = \! 0.3$. Furthermore, the lack of an appreciable temperature dependence to the ZF-$\mu$SR signal indicates that randomly oriented or isolated quasi-static electronic magnetic moments are also absent.
The solid curves through the data points of the asymmetry spectra in Fig. \[fig2\] are fits to $$A(t) = A(0) G_{\rm KT}(t) \exp[-\lambda(T) t] \, ,
\label{eq:Asymmetry}$$ where $G_{\rm KT}(t) = \left[\frac{1}{3} +\frac{2}{3}(1-\Delta^2 t^2) e^{-\Delta^2 t^2/2}\right]$ is a “static Gaussian Kubo-Toyabe function”. It is used here to account for the time evolution of the muon-spin polarization caused by the randomly oriented nuclear moments in the sample, which generally contribute a temperature-independent Gaussian distribution in field of width $\Delta/\gamma_\mu$. For the low-$T$ measurements in the dilution refrigerator there is a small additional temperature-independent contribution to the ZF-$\mu$SR signal from muons stopping in the sample holder. While this component necessarily adds to the sample signal, we find good fits are still achieved using Eq. (\[eq:Asymmetry\]). The fitted value of $\Delta$ is essentially independent of K concentration \[see Fig. \[fig3\](f)\], indicating a minor change in the nuclear dipole contribution. The exponential relaxation function in Eq. (\[eq:Asymmetry\]) is intended to account for any additional sources of internal magnetic field, and unlike $\Delta$ was free to vary with temperature in the fits to the ZF-$\mu$SR signals. As shown in Figs. \[fig3\](a) to \[fig3\](e), the exponential relaxation rate $\lambda$ does not systematically vary with $x$ nor exhibit an abrupt increase at low temperatures indicative of spontaneous internal magnetic fields. The small finite value of $\lambda$ may be due to a fluctuating muon-nuclear interaction, but is more likely caused by paramagnetic fluctuations of trace amounts of an impurity phase — such as FeAs$_2$, which above $T \! = \! 2$ K is known to cause an exponential relaxation of the ZF-$\mu$SR signal.[@Baker:08]
The larger value of $\lambda$ at $T \! = \! 2$ K for the $x \! = \! 0.8$ sample measured in the He$^4$ cryostat \[see Fig. \[fig3\](d)\] is caused by muons stopping upstream of the sample in dense helium gas, where the external magnetic field is larger. This is obvious from the low-temperature measurements carried out using the dilution refrigerator. As shown in Fig. \[fig4\](a), the ZF-$\mu$SR signal at $T \! = \! 0.02$ K does not vary with $x$. Moreover, there is no onset of an increased relaxation rate of the ZF-$\mu$SR signal at any temperature below $T_c$.
Despite the theoretical predictions, the absence of spontaneous internal magnetic fields in our measurements suggests that a TRSB mixed symmetry pairing state does not occur at or below $x \! = \! 0.9$. With this said there are a few possibilities to consider: (i) The region where the $s \! + \! id$ (or $s \! + \! is$) state is present may be very narrow and fall between two of the dopings studied here. (ii) There may simply be a first-order phase transition between the pure symmetry states at all temperatures below $T_c$. (iii) In the coexistence region, the predominant tendency may be states with the same phase, such as $s \! + \! d$, which do not break time-reversal symmetry. Possibilities (ii) and (iii) have been discussed in Ref. as a consequence of the presence of nematic fluctuations. Finally, there is the possibility that formation of the $s \! + \! id$ state is thwarted by impurity scattering in the real material. In pure KFe$_2$As$_2$, substitution of Fe by small concentrations of Co rapidly suppresses $T_c$, reminiscent of the high sensitivity of a $d$-wave superconductor to impurity scattering.[@Wang:12] Likewise, it is possible that the $s \! + \! id$ state is equally sensitive to Ba substitution of K between the FeAs layers.
We thank the staff of TRIUMF’s Centre for Molecular and Materials Science for technical assistance, and C. Wu, R.M. Fernandes, R.F. Kiefl, L. Taillefer, C. Kallin, A. Chubukov, and M. Sigrist for informative discussions. The work at TRIUMF was supported by the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. JQY and DGM thank Dr. Chenglin Zhang for his help in synthesis. Work at ORNL was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division.
[xx]{}
P.J. Hirschfeld, M.M. Korshunov, I.I. Mazin, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**74**]{}, 124508 (2011).
H. Ding, K. Nakayama, P. Richard, S. Souma, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, M. Neupane, Y.-M. Xu, Z.-H. Pan, A.V. Fedorov [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**23**]{}, 135701 (2011).
I.I. Mazin, D.J. Singh, M.D. Johannes, and M.H. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 057003 (2008).
T. Sato, K. Nakayama, Y. Sekiba, P. Richard, Y.-M. Xu, S. Souma, T. Takahashi, G.F. Chen, J.L. Luo, N.L. Wang, and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 047002 (2009).
K. Okazaki, Y. Ota, Y. Kotani, W. Malaeb, Y. Ishida, T. Shimojima, T. Kiss, S. Watanabe, C.-T. Chen, K. Kihou [*et al.*]{}, Science [**337**]{}, 1314 (2012).
K. Hashimoto, A. Serafin, S. Tonegawa, R. Katsumata, R. Okazaki, T. Saito, H. Fukazawa, Y. Kohori, K. Kihou, C.H. Lee [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 014526 (2010).
J.K. Dong, S.Y. Zhou, T.Y. Guan, H. Zhang, Y.F. Dai, X. Qiu, X.F. Wang, Y. He, X.H. Chen, and S.Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 087005 (2010).
J.-Ph. Reid, M.A. Tanatar, A. Juneau-Fecteau, R.T. Gordon, S. René de Cotret, N. Doiron-Leyraud, T. Saito, H. Fukazawa, Y. Kohori, K. Kihou [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 087001 (2012).
A.F. Wang, S.Y. Zhou, X.G. Luo, X.C. Hong, Y.J. Yan, J.J. Ying, P. Cheng, G.J. Ye, Z.J. Xiang, S.Y. Li, X.H. Chen, arXiv:1206.2030.
M. Abdel-Hafiez, V. Grinenko, S. Aswartham, I. Morozov, M. Roslova, O. Vakaliuk, S. Johnston, D.V. Efremov, J. van den Brink, H. Rosner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 180507 (2013).
R. Thomale, C. Platt, W. Hanke, J. Hu, and B.A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 117001 (2011).
S. Maiti, M.M. Korshunov, T.A. Maier, P.J. Hirschfeld, and A.V. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 147002 (2011).
N. Xu, P. Richard, X. Shi, A. van Roekeghem, T. Qian, E. Razzoli, E. Rienks, G.-F. Chen, E. Ieki, K. Nakayama [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1308.3888.
W.-C. Lee, S.-C. Zhang, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 217002 (2009).
V. Stanev and Z. Tesanović, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 134522 (2010).
C. Platt, R. Thomale, C. Honerkamp, S.-C. Zhang, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 180502(R) (2012).
R.M. Fernandes and A.J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 127001 (2013).
S. Maiti and A.V. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 144511 (2013).
M. Sigrist, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**99**]{}, 899 (1998).
M. Sigrist (private communciation).
R.H. Heffner, J.L. Smith, J.O. Willis, P. Birrer, C. Baines, F.N. Gygax, B. Hitti, E. Lippelt, H.R. Ott, A. Schenck [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2816 (1990).
G.M. Luke, Y. Fudamoto, K.M. Kojima, M.I. Larkin, J. Merrin, B. Nachumi, Y.J. Uemura, Y. Maeno, Z.Q. Mao, Y. Mori [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**394**]{}, 558 (1998).
Y. Aoki, A. Tsuchiya, T. Kanayama, S.R. Saha, H. Sugawara, H. Sato, W. Higemoto, A. Koda, K. Ohishi, K. Nishiyama [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 067003 (2003).
A.D. Hillier, J. Quintanilla, and R. Cywinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 117007 (2009).
A. Maisuradze, W. Schnelle, R. Khasanov, R. Gumeniuk, M. Nicklas, H. Rosner, A. Leithe-Jasper, Y. Grin, A. Amato, and P. Thalmeier, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 024524 (2010).
L. Shu, W. Higemoto, Y. Aoki, A.D. Hillier, K. Ohishi, K. Ishida, R. Kadono, A. Koda, O.O. Bernal, D.E. MacLaughlin, Y. Tunashima [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 100504(R) (2011).
A.D. Hillier, J. Quintanilla, B. Mazidian, J.F. Annett and R. Cywinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 097001 (2012).
P.K. Biswas, H. Luetkens, T. Neupert, T. Stürzer, C. Baines, G. Pascua, A.P. Schnyder, M.H. Fischer, J. Goryo, M.R. Lees [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 180503(R) (2013).
D. Johrendt and R. Pöttgen, Physica C [**469**]{}, 332 (2009).
S. Avci, O. Chmaissem, D.Y. Chung, S. Rosenkranz, E.A. Goremychkin, J.P. Castellan, I.S. Todorov, J.A. Schlueter, H. Claus, A. Daoud-Aladine [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 184507 (2012).
A.A. Aczel, E. Baggio-Saitovitch, S.L. Budko, P.C. Canfield, J.P. Carlo, G.F. Chen, Pengcheng Dai, T. Goko, W.Z. Hu, G.M. Luke [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 214503 (2008).
T. Goko, A.A. Aczel, E. Baggio-Saitovitch, S.L. Budko, P.C. Canfield, J.P. Carlo, G.F. Chen, Pengcheng Dai, A.C. Hamann, W.Z. Hu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 024508 (2009).
J.T. Park, D.S. Inosov, Ch. Niedermayer, G.L. Sun, D. Haug, N.B. Christensen, R. Dinnebier, A.V. Boris, A.J. Drew, L. Schulz [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 117006 (2009).
E. Wiesenmayer, H. Luetkens, G. Pascua, R. Khasanov, A. Amato, H. Potts, B. Banusch, H.-H. Klauss and D. Johrendt [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 237001 (2011).
M. Rotter, M. Tegel, I. Schellenberg, F.M. Schappacher, R. Pöttgen, J. Deisenhofer, A. Günther, F. Schrettle, A. Loidl and D. Johrendt, N. J. Phys. [**11**]{}, 025014 (2009).
P.J. Baker, H.J. Lewtas, S.J. Blundell, T. Lancaster, F.L. Pratt, D.R. Parker, M.J. Pitcher, and S.J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 212501 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Competing magnetic interactions in geometrically frustrated magnets give rise to new forms of correlated matter, such as spin liquids and spin ices. Characterizing the magnetic structure of these states has been difficult due to the absence of long-range order. Here, we demonstrate that the spin Seebeck effect (SSE) is a sensitive probe of magnetic short-range order (SRO) in geometrically frustrated magnets. In low temperature (2 - 5 K) SSE measurements on a model frustrated magnet $\mathrm{Gd_{3}Ga_{5}O_{12}}$, we observe modulations in the spin current on top of a smooth background. By comparing to existing neutron diffraction data, we find that these modulations arise from field-induced magnetic ordering that is short-range in nature. The observed SRO is anisotropic with the direction of applied field, which is verified by theoretical calculation.'
author:
- Changjiang Liu
- 'Stephen M. Wu'
- 'John E. Pearson'
- 'J. Samuel Jiang'
- 'N. dAmbrumenil'
- Anand Bhattacharya
title: 'Probing short-range magnetic order in a geometrically frustrated magnet by spin Seebeck effect'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Pure spin currents carried by magnetic excitations are of fundamental interest and may be used to transmit and store information [@Bauer2012]. One method of generating a pure spin current is through the spin Seebeck effect (SSE), where a thermal gradient drives a current of magnons. Spin currents have been generated in this way using both ferromagnetic (FM) [@Uchida2010] and antiferromagnetic (AFM) [@Wu2016; @Seki2015] magnons. It has been shown that for correlated paramagnetic insulators, a spin current may be generated via the SSE or paramagnetic spin pumping [@Shiomi2014; @Wu2015]. It is presumed that this is due to short lived magnons (paramagnons) arising as a result of correlations between spins [@Fleury1969; @Mila1991; @Doubble2010; @Shiomi2014; @Okamoto2016; @Qin2017].
Current understanding of the SSE in magnetic insulators is based on the diffusion of thermally activated magnons [@Xiao2010; @Adachi2013; @Rezende2016; @Rezende2016a]. Such a mechanism is supported by recent experiments studying the length scale, temperature and magnetic field dependencies of SSE in ferrimagnetic insulator Yttrium Iron Garnet (YIG) [@Kehlberger2015; @Uchida2014; @Ritzmann2015]. The diffusive magnons have finite lifetime and diffusion length. The fact that SSE can be measured in nanometer thickness YIG films and in the picosecond time scale [@Kimling2017] suggests that the SSE is sensitive to magnons in very small volume or with very short lifetimes. These aspects of SSE suggest that it may be used as a sensitive probe of magnetic order in unconventional magnetic materials, such as geometrically frustrated systems.
In this work, we use the SSE to probe the magnetic short-range order (SRO) in a model frustrated magnet gadolinium gallium garnet ($\mathrm{Gd}{}_{3}\mathrm{Ga}{}_{5}\mathrm{O}{}_{12}$, GGG). It was shown earlier that the generation of a spin current by SSE does not need magnetic long-range order (LRO) [@Wu2015; @Hirobe2017]. While this suggests that spin correlations or SRO may play a role, a definitive demonstration of a connection between SRO and the SSE has been missing. Here, we demonstrate for the first time that a specific antiferromagnetic order that is short-range in nature can be detected by the SSE in the absence of LRO.
As is shown in Fig. 1(a), the Gd sites in GGG form a hyperkagome lattice, a three-dimensional kagome lattice consisting of two interpenetrating corner-sharing triangular sublattices [@Petrenko1998; @Deen2015]. The exchange interaction between nearest-neighbor $\mathrm{Gd}^{3+}$ ions are antiferromagnetic. Owing to geometrical frustration on the hyperkagome lattice, GGG hosts an rich phase diagram at low temperatures ($T<1$ K) [@Deen2015]. There is no magnetic LRO in GGG down to 25 mK, even though the Curie-Weiss temperature is $\theta_{\mathrm{CW}}\sim-2.3$ K [@Kinney1979; @Petrenko1998; @Dunsiger2000; @Wu2015]. It has been shown that many interesting phases arise within GGG, including spin liquid states [@Petrenko1998], protected spin clusters [@Ghosh2008] and a hidden multipolar order [@Paddison2015]. In our experiment, we use the SSE to probe magnetic-field-induced SRO in GGG in the temperature regime (2 - 5 K) where effects due to geometric frustration starts to emerge as we approach the magnitude of $\theta_{\mathrm{CW}}$.
To accomplish this, SSE devices were patterned onto GGG single crystals with polished surface along (111) or (001) (see also Supplemental Material). Platinum (Pt) was used as spin detector material. Local heating was achieved by passing an electric current through a gold heater wire [@Wu2015a], electrically isolated from the spin detector layer by a thin MgO layer. The resulting temperature gradient is perpendicular to the sample plane, which drives spin excitations from the GGG into the Pt detector, where a voltage develops as a result of the inverse spin Hall effect (ISHE). Figure 1(b) depicts the structure of the fabricated SSE device. Using these devices, our measurement results agree with the original SSE experiments on GGG [@Wu2015] which was carried out at a higher range of temperature ($T$ > 5 K). Shown in Fig. 2(a) are the SSE signals measured as a function of magnetic field at different temperatures. The initial rise of SSE response with magnetic field is due to the increase of magnetization of GGG until almost saturation. However, we observe an appreciable downturn in the SSE response at lower temperatures in the high field range, as can be seen in the $T=$ 2 K data. This downturn is presumably caused by the opening of a Zeeman gap in the magnon spectrum, similar to the observation in ferrimagnetic insulator YIG [@Kikkawa2015; @Ritzmann2015; @Guo2016]. To confirm this, we performed the SSE measurement down to 200 mK, where the SSE signal is suppressed to zero for $H>90$ kOe (see Supplementary Fig. 1).
As described above, GGG is not simply a paramagnet. It possesses strong geometric frustration due to antiferromagnetic and dipolar interactions on the hyperkagome lattice. If one considers only the nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic exchange interaction $J$, it has been shown that for a hyperkagome lattice a magnetic field with energy scale equal to 6 $J$ or about 17 kOe is required to align those spins in GGG even at $T=0$ K [@Zhitomirsky2000]. Our SSE experiment exhibits this behaviors in that the maximum signal (around saturation) occurs at fields much higher than the value inferred by a Brillouin function for a non-interacting paramagnet at the same low temperature (2). We note that (and will be discussed later) because of the large dipolar interactions, the magnetic moments in GGG are not fully aligned even at fields beyond 17 kOe.
Upon closer examination, the SSE signals shown in Fig. 2(a) are found not to be smooth functions of magnetic field, but contain considerable field-dependent modulations on top of the S-shaped curve. Inset of Fig. 2(a) shows the derivative of the SSE signal with respect to magnetic field, in which we can clearly see the modulation in the SSE response as a function of field. In Fig. 2(b), the modulation in SSE voltage is plotted directly after subtracting a linear background (indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 2(a)) from the SSE signal in the field range - 35 kOe $<H<$ 35 kOe. When the same experiment is performed on a single crystal YIG sample in the same temperature and magnetic field range, the modulation is absent (Supplementary Fig. 3). We also rule out the possibility of magnetic-field-induced thermal conductivity or heat capacity changes as a possible source for this effect by independently measuring these quantities as a function of applied magnetic field (Supplementary Fig. 4).
![Anisotropic behavior of the modulation in SSE response. (a) SSE signals measured with magnetic field applied along different directions in the (001) plane, with $\phi=0\protect\textdegree$ being along [\[]{}100[\]]{} crystal axis. (b) Magnitude of slope of the linear part of the SSE signal satisfies cosine angular dependence. Inset shows the corresponding measurement geometry. $H$ is the applied in-plane magnetic field. (c) to (f) Modulations in SSE voltage from T = 2 to 5 K. Data in red and blue corresponds to field applied along [\[]{}100[\]]{} and [\[]{}110[\]]{} directions, respectively. In these measurement, the SSE devices were fabricated on the (001) surface of GGG signal crystals.](Figure_3)
In neutron scattering studies on GGG, it has been found that different magnetic orders rise and fall with increasing magnetic field at low temperature (< 400 mK) [@Schiffer1994; @Petrenko1999; @Petrenko2002; @Petrenko2009; @Deen2015]. At higher temperatures ($T\sim3$ K, as is in our measurement range), short-range correlations are known to persist [@Petrenko1998; @Petrenko2000], though little is known about their properties under a magnetic field. The dynamics of thermally excited magnons in this temperature range depends on these short-range correlations, which in turn can influence the SSE signal. It is also known from neutron scattering and bulk magnetometry measurements that the field-induced magnetic orderings in GGG have distinct anisotropies. For instance, the critical field at which the AFM phase emerges [@Petrenko2002; @Petrenko2009; @Deen2015] depends on the direction of the field relative to the GGG crystal axis, being different for field aligned along [\[]{}100[\]]{} versus along [\[]{}110[\]]{} crystal axis [@Deen2015; @Rousseau2017]. Such anisotropy is presumably caused by dipolar interactions among Gd ions [@2015]. The $\mathrm{Gd}^{3+}$ ion in GGG carries a relatively large magnetic moment of 7 $\mu_{B}$ leading to the dipolar interactions with an energy scale comparable to the nearest-neighbor exchange interaction.
To find out whether the modulations in the SSE signal are associated with a field-induced magnetic ordering, we performed the SSE measurements with magnetic field applied along several different GGG crystal axes. The measured SSE signals from the same device are shown in Fig. 3(a), with 0 and 45 degree corresponding to [\[]{}100[\]]{} and [\[]{}110[\]]{} crystal axes, respectively. Figure 3(b) shows the overall magnitude of the SSE signal, represented by the slope of the linear background at low fields, as a function of the in-plane angle of the magnetic field. In these plots, red and blue data correspond to field applied along [\[]{}100[\]]{} and [\[]{}110[\]]{} GGG crystal axes, respectively. For clarity, only data for the positive field range is plotted. The magnitude of these modulations becomes smaller as temperature increases. At each temperature, the magnetic-field dependences of the modulation are clearly different between the two field orientations. For instance, in Fig. 3(c), when the field is applied along [\[]{}100[\]]{} direction, the modulation initially decreases with magnetic field and reaches a minimum at $H\sim8$ kOe, while the minimum for field parallel to [\[]{}110[\]]{} direction occurs at $H\sim17$ kOe. This same trend is observed at higher temperatures up to 5 K. At $T=2$ K, however, there is a second minimum at higher field $H\sim24.5$ kOe for field along [\[]{}100[\]]{} direction, which is suppressed at $T>3$ K suggesting that this may have a different origin than the modulations at lower fields.
![Comparison between the SSE response and the intensity of [\[]{}002[\]]{} AFM order, and theoretical calculation of spin configurations. (a) and (b) Magnetic field dependencies of the modulation in SSE signal and the intensity of [\[]{}002[\]]{} AFM order measured by neutron diffraction with corresponding field applied along [\[]{}100[\]]{} and [\[]{}110[\]]{} crystal axes, respectively. Vertical dashed lines in both (a) and (b) indicate the same peak positions in the SSE data and neutron diffraction results. (c) and (d) Calculated spin configurations in one GGG primitive cell at an applied field $H=17$ kOe aligned along [\[]{}100[\]]{} and [\[]{}110[\]]{} crystal axes, respectively. The magnetic field points out of the page, and the spin orientation of $\mathrm{Gd^{3+}}$ ions is represented by an small arrow at each Gd site. Notice that most spins are canted away from the applied field. In (c) the net spin components in horizontal direction are zero, while the total horizontal components in (d), indicated by large arrows on the right, form an alternating AFM pattern. ](Figure_4)
Magnetic ordering in GGG has been extensively studied over the last two decades, and a summary of these results is presented in the Supplementary Material. Upon application of a magnetic field at low temperatures there are FM, AFM and incommensurate AFM LRO that emerge in GGG. Most of the AFM orderings, including all incommensurate ones, have a strong temperature dependence, and they are suppressed at $T>400$ mK [@Deen2015]. However, of particular interest is the [\[]{}002[\]]{} AFM order, whose intensity is observable up to 900 mK [@Petrenko2002; @Petrenko2009], above which there is no published experimental data, though LRO is completely suppressed by 1.3 K (see Supplementary Fig. 5). Shown in Fig. 4(a) ( reproduced from Ref. [@Petrenko2002]) are the integrated intensity of the [\[]{}002[\]]{} AFM peak as a function of magnetic field with the field applied along [\[]{}100[\]]{} direction. We see that the maximum position of the neutron scattering data matches the field, indicated by the vertical dashed line, where the modulation in SSE voltage shows a minimum. Crucially, for field applied along [\[]{}110[\]]{} direction, the [\[]{}002[\]]{} AFM order reaches its maximum at $H\sim16.7$ kOe as shown in Fig. 4(b) (reproduced from Ref. [@Petrenko2009]) which is also in good agreement with corresponding SSE measurement results. Additionally, a small inflection in the SSE data for $H\parallel[110]$ can be seen at $H\sim7.7$ kOe, that is also present in the neutron diffraction result. Over the entire temperature range available, the peak positions in neutron scattering data and the minima of our SSE modulations show little temperature dependence. Any remaining discrepancies may be due to non-uniform crystal shape in the neutron diffraction experiments where the demagnetization field is not considered. These comparisons provide strong evidence that the modulation observed in the SSE measurement is associated with the [\[]{}002[\]]{} AFM order. The temperatures used in the SSE measurement are much higher than that for the disappearance of LRO peaks as measured in neutron scattering experiments [@Deen2015] (see also Supplementary Fig. 5) implying that this magnetic order is short range in character.
In order to understand the anisotropic behaviors observed in the SSE experiment, we have computed the spin order in GGG in the presence of a magnetic field using a Hamiltonian including exchange ($J$) and dipolar ($D$) interactions (see also Supplementary Note): $$\begin{aligned}H & =\underset{j\alpha,l\beta}{\sum}J_{j\alpha,l\beta}\mathbf{S}_{j\alpha}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{l\beta}-g\mu_{B}H\underset{j\alpha}{\sum}S_{j\alpha}^{z}\\
& +D\underset{j\alpha,l\beta}{\sum}(\frac{\mathbf{S}_{j\alpha}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{l\beta}-3(\mathbf{S}_{j\alpha}\cdot\hat{r}_{j\alpha l\beta})(\mathbf{S}_{l\beta}\cdot\hat{r}_{j\alpha l\beta})}{r_{j\alpha l\beta}^{3}}),
\end{aligned}$$ where vectors $\mathbf{S}$ represent the spins at each Gd site with indices $j$, $l$ identifying the unit cell, and $\alpha$, $\beta$ indicating the twelve Gd ions in the primitive cell, respectively. The second term in the Hamiltonian comes from the applied magnetic field $H$, with $g$ and $\mu_{B}$ being the g-factor of Gd ions and Bohr magneton, respectively. The vectors $\hat{r}$ denote unit vectors along the direction from site $j\alpha$ to site $l\beta.$ An example of the calculated spin configurations are shown in Fig. 4(c) and (d), with $H=$ 17 kOe applied along [\[]{}100[\]]{} and [\[]{}110[\]]{} GGG crystal axes, respectively. In each graph, the perspective is chosen such that the magnetic field points out of the page. In both cases, spins at most of the Gd sites are canted away (showing transverse components) from the applied field as a result of the exchange and dipolar interactions. At $H\sim17$ kOe, the modulation in SSE signal is almost zero for field along [\[]{}100[\]]{} ( Fig. 4(a)), while its magnitude becomes largest for field along [\[]{}110[\]]{} (Fig. 4(b)),. Correspondingly, our calculation of the spin configuration shows that the magnetic ordering is different between the two cases. For field along [\[]{}110[\]]{}, we find that the canting of spins leads to a net magnetization within each layer (Fig. 4(d)), with AFM ordering between layers at the [\[]{}002[\]]{} wavevector, as is also observed in neutron scattering measurement. In contrast, when the same field is applied along [\[]{}100[\]]{} (Fig. 4(c)), no AFM order develops.
In general, the SSE is associated with two effects, the magnetization carried by thermally excited magnons and their diffusivity. According to our calculation, the total magnetization of GGG at $H=17$ kOe, taking into account the canting of spins, is very similar for the two field directions. This suggests that the large isotropic background SSE signal may originate from excitations derived from the total magnetization. In contrast, the magnetic order due to the canting of spins is different for the two field directions. This suggests that the modulations in the SSE signal, which decreases as AFM order increases, could be due to a decrease in the number of magnons excited since AFM ordering may lead to a gap in the spin-wave excitation spectrum [@Quilliam2007]. The decrease in SSE could also be due to changes in the spin-wave dispersion with the onset of AFM order that lower the diffusivity of magnons.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the spin Seebeck effect, in addition to serving as a generator of spin current for spintronics applications, can also be used as a more general technique to probe magnetic order in a larger class of condensed matter systems, such as geometrically frustrated magnets studied in this work. For gadolinium gallium garnet, our SSE measurements have revealed a field-induced, anisotropic short-range order that persists to high temperatures (up to 5 K), which was not known previously. This new approach, where we use SSE to probe magnetic structures in the absence of long-range order, opens the door to exploring frustrated quantum magnetic systems, particularly for samples with limited volume such as exfoliated materials and thin films. This would allow us to probe collective excitations that are *only* short-ranged in nature, and thus entirely hidden to the community, and serve as a guide for large-scale neutron or x-ray scattering experiments.
We acknowledge very valuable discussions with Oleg Petrenko and thank him for sharing neutron data on GGG. All work at Argonne was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division. The use of facilities at the Center for Nanoscale Materials, an Office of Science user facility, was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences under contract No. DEAC02-06CH11357.
[38]{}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 [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat3301) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3507386) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.097204) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.266601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.266602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.186602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.180.591) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.7891) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.027207) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.064421) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.127203) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.81.214418) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/76/i=3/a=036501) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2015.07.102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.014425) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.096602) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041023) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.92.174411) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.057201) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3895) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4570) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.91.014419) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.326954) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3504) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.157205) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.aaa5326) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4916188) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.92.064413) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031012) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3269) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.2500) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(98)01490-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s003390201579) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/145/i=1/a=012026) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.024409) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.060411) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.227203) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.097201)
[^1]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
[^2]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive sum rules for a uniform, isotropic superfluid quark-gluon plasma with massless quarks, first laying out the phenomenological equations obeyed by a color superconductor in terms of macroscopic observables such as the superfluid mass and baryon densities, and the electric and magnetic gluon masses, and then expressing these quantities in terms of equilibrium correlation functions. From the transverse part of the long wavelength baryon current-momentum correlation function we derive an exact expression for the superfluid baryon density, and from the longitudinal part, an $f$-sum rule. From the transverse part of the long wavelength [*color*]{} current-current correlation function we derive the superfluid Meissner mass, and from the longitudinal part, the Debye mass. These masses constrain integrals of the transverse and longitudinal parts of the gluon propagator over frequencies, and provide self-consistent conditions for a solution to the gap equation beyond weak coupling.'
address:
- '$^{1}$Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801-3080'
- '$^{2}$Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan'
author:
- 'Kei Iida$^{1,2,*}$ and Gordon Baym$^{1}$'
title: 'Superfluid phases of quark matter, II: Phenomenology and sum rules'
---
Dense degenerate quark matter is expected to exhibit color superconductivity in the color-antitriplet channel; the predictions are based on a weak coupling analysis of the gap equation [@barrois; @BL; @son; @hong; @SW; @PR; @dirk; @dirk2], as well as Ginzburg-Landau theory [@BL; @I]. In possible physical realizations in neutron stars and ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, such a superconductor would be in a strongly coupled, color-singlet state. The equilibrium properties of such superconducting matter have yet to be clarified in detail. In the strong coupling regime, Ginzburg-Landau theory delineates the possible phase diagrams near the critical temperature $T_c$, but quantitative predictions for the fundamental parameters of the theory are lacking.
In this paper we derive exact sum rules obeyed by the transverse and longitudinal momentum-momentum and baryon current-momentum correlation functions and the gluon propagator, $D$, in color superconductors. The sum rules, which are related to the linear response of the equilibrated many-body system to a current-inducing perturbation, connect the long wavelength behavior of the correlations with macroscopic observables [@pines; @baym]. Such observables include the superfluid mass density, the superfluid baryon density, and the magnetic mass or inverse penetration depth, in addition to quantities such as the charge conductivity and the Debye screening length that play a role in the normal state. These sum rules act as self-consistency conditions that must be satisfied by approximate theories of thermodynamics and correlations in the superconducting state. To derive the sum rules we first set up the phenomenological equations obeyed in a relativistic superfluid plasma in terms of the macroscopic observables, and then turn to the expressions for these observables in terms of correlation functions. We consider a uniform, isotropic color superconductor of three-flavor massless quarks at finite temperature, $T$, and baryon chemical potential, $\mu_b$, and use units $\hbar=c=1$.
Phenomenology of relativistic superfluids
=========================================
Let us first review the phenomenological equations obeyed by the baryon current and momentum density of a relativistic superfluid plasma in non-dissipative hydrodynamics, linearized about equilibrium with small velocities. Through these equations we derive the relativistic relation of the superfluid mass density, $\rho_s$, and the superfluid baryon density, $n_s$, quantities familiar in the nonrelativistic context [@landau]. Consistency of the hydrodynamic equations dictates as well the form of the superfluid acceleration equation in a relativistic superfluid. The extension of the relativistic superfluid hydrodynamic equations, $(\ref{mom})$–$(\ref{ent})$, $(\ref{ene})$, and $(\ref{accel})$ below, to arbitrary velocities may be found in [@khalat].
The momentum density, $\bf g$ ($g_i=-T_{0i}$, the off-diagonal components of the stress tensor), is given in terms of the (small) velocities ${\bf v}_s$ of the superfluid and ${\bf v}_n$ of the normal components by $${\bf g} = \rho_s {\bf v}_s+ \rho_n {\bf v}_n\ ,
\label{g}$$ where $\rho_s$ is the superfluid mass density, $\rho_n$ is the normal mass density, and $\rho_s + \rho_n = \rho + P$, where $\rho$ is the total mass density in the system at rest (the internal energy) and $P$ is the pressure. That the superfluid velocity is an independent thermodynamic degree of freedom is a fundamental property of the paired state. In non-relativistic superfluids, $\rho + P$ reduces to $mn$, where $m$ is the rest mass of the carriers, of density $n$; relativistically one must retain the contribution of the pressure in the momentum density. Similarly the baryon current is given in terms of the normal and superfluid velocities by $${\bf j}_b = n_s{\bf v}_s + n_n{\bf v}_n,
\label{jb}$$ where $n_s$ is the superfluid baryon density, $n_n$ the normal baryon density, and $n_s+n_n=n_b$, the total baryon density.
The superfluid mass density and superfluid baryon density are closely related. As we derive below, $$\rho_s = \mu_b n_s,
\label{rhos}$$ while the normal density obeys $$\rho_n = \mu_b n_n + Ts,
\label{rhon}$$ where $s$ is the entropy density. The latter follows from Eq. (\[rhos\]) together with the relation for the thermodynamic internal energy density, $\rho = \mu_b n_b + Ts -P$. Thus $${\bf g}= \mu_b {\bf j}_b +Ts{\bf v}_n.
\label{gmu}$$
The basic hydrodynamic equations for the superfluid are the equations of momentum and baryon conservation, and of entropy flow. In linearized hydrodynamics, $\bf g$ is driven by pressure gradients according to $$\frac{\partial \bf g}{\partial t} + \nabla P = 0.
\label{mom}$$ Baryon conservation reads as usual, $$\frac{\partial n_b}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot {\bf j}_b = 0.
\label{bar}$$ Since the entropy in a superfluid system is carried only by the normal fluid, in the absence of dissipation, the entropy density obeys $$\frac{\partial s}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot ({\bf v}_n s) = 0.
\label{ent}$$ Furthermore, to second order in the flow velocities, the conserved energy density, $E = T_{00}$, is given by $$E = \frac{\rho_s}{2}v_s^2 + \frac{\rho_n}{2}v_n^2 + \rho,
\label{e}$$ and the equation for conservation of energy is $$\frac{\partial E}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot {\bf g} = 0.
\label{ene}$$
To derive Eqs. (\[rhos\]) and (\[rhon\]), we explicitly calculate the time derivative of (\[e\]), keeping only terms of second order, and use the above equations, together with the usual first variation, $d\rho = \mu_b dn_b
+ Tds$, and the Gibbs-Duhem relation, $\nabla P = n_b\nabla \mu_b + s \nabla
T$, to find $$\frac{\partial E}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot(\mu_b{\bf j}_b +Ts{\bf v}_n) =
({\bf j}_b - n_b {\bf v}_n)\cdot\nabla\mu_b + \rho_s({\bf v}_s-{\bf v}_n)
\cdot \frac{\partial {\bf v}_s}{\partial t}.
\label{econs}$$ Identifying the energy current with the momentum density, we see that ${\bf g}$ is given by Eq. (\[gmu\]), from which Eqs. (\[rhos\]) and (\[rhon\]) follow.
In addition, the right side of Eq. (\[econs\]) must vanish identically. Eliminating ${\bf j}_b$ there by means of Eq. (\[gmu\]) we find as a necessary condition for this term to vanish that ${\bf v}_s$ obeys the [*superfluid acceleration equation*]{}, $$\mu_b\frac{\partial {\bf v}_s}{\partial t} + \nabla \mu_b = 0.
\label{accel}$$ The superfluid acceleration equation follows directly from the fact that the baryon chemical potential and superfluid velocity are given in terms of the phase $\phi$ of the order parameter by $$\frac23 \mu_b = - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t},
\label{muphi}$$ and $$\frac23 \mu_b {\bf v}_s = \nabla \phi.
\label{ord}$$ The factor 2/3 is the baryon number per pair. We recall that the order parameter takes the form $ \Psi_{abfh}(x) \equiv \langle \psi_{af}(x){\bar
\psi}^C_{bh}(x)\rangle=|\Psi_{abfh}(x)|e^{i\phi(x)}$, where $\psi_{af}$ is the spinor for quarks of color $a$ and flavor $f$, and $\psi^{C}_{af}\equiv C{\bar
\psi}^{T}_{af}$ is the charge-conjugate spinor in the Pauli-Dirac representation. In a non-relativistic system, the first $\mu_b$ in Eq. (\[accel\]) and in Eq. (\[ord\]) become simply the rest mass, $m$, of the carriers.
An important consequence of Eq. (\[ord\]) is that the circulation is quantized according to $$\oint d{\bf \ell}\cdot \frac23 \mu_b {\bf v}_s = 2\pi \nu,$$ where the integral is around any closed path and $\nu$ is an integer.
Momentum and baryon current correlation functions
=================================================
We now derive the phenomenological superfluid densities $\rho_s$ and $n_s$ microscopically in terms of momentum and baryon current correlation functions, which characterize the linear response of the system to external disturbances, in particular here, a Galilean transformation. Consider the situation, following Ref. [@baym], in which an infinitely long cylinder containing a color superconductor moves very slowly with uniform velocity ${\bf v}$ along its axis, which we take to be along $\hat z$. We assume that the normal component is in equilibrium with the walls, so that ${\bf v}$ becomes the normal velocity, and that the superfluid component remains at rest.
The response of the system to this motion of the walls can be described in terms of the [*transverse*]{} response to a static long wavelength perturbation, $\int d^3{\bf r} {\bf g}({\bf r})\cdot {\bf v}$, where the momentum density operator is $$g_i=\sum_{af}\psi_{af}^\dagger(-i\nabla_i\delta_{ab} -\frac g2
\lambda^\alpha_{ab} A^{\alpha i})
\psi_{bf}+\sum_{\alpha}({\bf E}^\alpha \times{\bf B}^\alpha)_i;
\label{bc}$$ the $A_\mu^\alpha$ are the color gauge fields, with field tensors $F^\alpha_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu^\alpha - \partial_\nu A_\mu^\alpha -g
f_{\alpha\beta\gamma} A_\mu^\beta A_\nu^\gamma$ as well as field strengths $E^\alpha_i = F^{i0}_\alpha$ and $B^\alpha_i = -\frac12 \epsilon_{ijk}
F^{jk}_\alpha$, $g$ is the color coupling constant, and the $\lambda_{ab}^\alpha$ are the Gell-Mann matrices.
The induced baryon current is given by $$\langle{\bf j}_b \rangle_{\bf v} = \lim_{{\bf k}\to 0} \chi_T^{[jg]}
({\bf k},0){\bf v},
\label{nbgal}$$ where the baryon current operator is ${\bf j}_b = \frac13\sum_{af}{\bar
\psi}_{af} \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}\psi_{af}$, and $\chi_T^{[jg]}({\bf k},0)$ is the transverse component of the baryon current–momentum density correlation function [@note1], $$\chi_{ij}^{[jg]}({\bf k},z)=
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{\langle [j_{bi}, g_j] \rangle({\bf k},\omega)}{z-\omega}.
\label{jg}$$ We write here, for general operators $a({\bf r},t)$ and $b({\bf r},t)$, $$\langle [a,b] \rangle ({\bf k},\omega)
= -i \int d^3({\bf r}-{\bf r}')\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d(t-t')
e^{-i{\bf k\cdot}({\bf r}-{\bf r}')}e^{i\omega(t-t')}
\langle [a({\bf r},t), b({\bf r}',t')]\rangle,
\label{bcc1}$$ where $\langle\cdots\rangle$ is the ensemble average at given $T$ and $\mu_b$. The retarded commutator is given by taking the limit of $z$ approaching the real axis from above in Eq. (\[jg\]).
Comparing Eqs. (\[nbgal\]) and (\[jb\]) we see then that the normal baryon density is given in terms of the transverse baryon current–momentum density correlation function by $$n_n = \lim_{{\bf k}\to 0} \chi^{[jg]}_T({\bf k},0).
\label{nnjg}$$ This equation is effectively a sum rule obeyed by $\chi^{[jg]}_T$. Similarly, the induced momentum density is given in terms of the transverse momentum density–momentum density correlation function by $$\langle{\bf g} \rangle_{\bf v} = \lim_{{\bf k}\to 0} \chi_T^{[gg]}
({\bf k},0){\bf v},
\label{gggal}$$ where for complex frequency, $z$, $$\chi_{ij}^{[gg]}({\bf k},z)=
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{\langle [g_i, g_j]\rangle(\bf k,\omega)}{z-\omega}.
\label{bcc}$$ Thus, Eq. (\[gggal\]) with (\[g\]) yields the transverse sum rule, $$\lim_{{\bf k}\to 0} \chi^{[gg]}_T({\bf k},0)
= \mu_bn_n + Ts.
\label{nngg}$$
To derive the longitudinal versions of the sum rules (\[nnjg\]) and (\[nngg\]) we suppose instead that the cylinder is still long but finite with closed ends. Then the superfluid component flows together with the normal component, leading to $\langle {\bf j}_b \rangle_{\bf v} = n_b {\bf v}$ instead of $n_n {\bf v}$. In this situation, the linear response analysis yields [@baym] $$\langle {\bf j}_b\rangle_{\bf v} =
\lim_{{\bf k}\to 0} \chi_L^{[jg]}({\bf k},0){\bf v}.
\label{jllr}$$ We thus obtain the $f$-sum rule $$\chi_{L}^{[jg]}({\bf k},0) = n_b,
\label{bls}$$ as $|{\bf k}|\to 0$. Note that the $f$-sum rule (\[bls\]) can be directly derived, for general ${\bf k}$, from the baryon conservation law (\[bar\]) and the equal time commutation relation, $\langle[j_{b0}({\bf r},t), {\bf
g}({\bf r}',t)]\rangle= -i n_b \nabla \delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')$, where $j_{b0}= \frac13\sum_{af} \psi_{af}^\dagger \psi_{af}$. This sum rule can be rewritten in terms of $\chi^{[gg]}_L$ as $$\lim_{{\bf k}\to 0} \chi_{L}^{[gg]}({\bf k},0) = \mu_bn_b+Ts =
\rho + P.
\label{gls}$$ To derive this result we calculate ${\bf g}$ from Eq. (\[gmu\]) to first order in ${\bf v}={\bf v}_n = {\bf v}_s$, using $\langle {\bf j}_b
\rangle_{\bf v} = n_b {\bf v}$ and the fact that the entropy term is explicitly first order in ${\bf v}$.
The four sum rules (\[nnjg\]), (\[bls\]), (\[nngg\]), and (\[gls\]) relate the total and superfluid baryon densities $n_b$ and $n_s$, and the long wavelength behaviors of the correlation functions $\chi_T^{[jg]}$ $\chi_L^{[jg]}$, $\chi_T^{[gg]}$, and $\chi_L^{[gg]}$. At $T=0$, as in ordinary superconductors, longitudinal first sound modes, the only low-lying excitations for colors and flavors involved in the pairing, contribute only to $\chi_L^{[jg]}$ and $\chi_L^{[gg]}$, and hence $n_s >0$ [@baym].
Color phenomenology and color current correlation functions
===========================================================
Color superconductors have the property of screening out color magnetic fields, the color Meissner effect. Following the line of argument of Ref.[@baym], we consider the linear response of the system to an applied static long wavelength transverse color magnetic field, ${\bf A}_{\rm ext}^
\gamma({\bf r})= {\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma({\bf k})e^{i{\bf k \cdot r}}$, where ${\bf k\cdot}{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma({\bf k})=0$. The external field ${\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma$ produces currents of various colors, $\beta$, which in turn induce color fields ${\bf A}_{\rm ind}^\beta({\bf r})$; the total color field is ${\bf A}^\beta = {\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\beta + {\bf
A}_{\rm ind}^\beta$. In the static long wavelength limit, the induced transverse color currents are given in terms of the total transverse color field by the London equation, $$\langle {\bf j}^{\alpha T}({\bf r}) \rangle_{{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma}=
-(m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta} {\bf A}^\beta ({\bf r}),
\label{london}$$ where $m_M$ is the magnetic mass matrix, non-zero in the paired state. The inverses of its eigenvalues are the length scales on which color magnetic fields are screened in the superconductor.
To linear order in ${\bf A}_{\rm ext}$, the long wavelength induced currents are given microscopically by $$\langle {\bf j}^{\beta T} ({\bf r}) \rangle_{{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma}=
-\lim_{{\bf k}\to0}
\chi_T^{\beta\gamma}({\bf k},0){\bf A}^{\gamma}_{\rm ext}({\bf r}),
\label{jclr}$$ where $\chi_T$ is the transverse part of the color current-current correlation function, $$\chi_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},z)=
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{\langle [j_\mu^\alpha, j_\nu^\beta]\rangle(\bf k,\omega)}{z-\omega},
\label{ccc}$$ and the color current operator for gluonic index $\alpha$ is $$j_\mu^\alpha=\frac12 g \sum_{abf}{\bar\psi}_{af} \lambda_{ab}^\alpha
\gamma_\mu \psi_{bf}
-gf_{\alpha\beta\gamma}A^{\beta\nu} F^\gamma_{\mu\nu}.
\label{cc}$$ The linearized field equation for ${\bf A}_{\rm ind}^\beta$, $$\nabla\times(\nabla\times{\bf A}_{\rm ind}^\beta) =
\langle {\bf j}^{\beta T}({\bf r})\rangle_{{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma},
\label{max}$$ implies that the total color field is $${\bf A}^\beta({\bf k}) = [(\varepsilon^T)^{-1}]_{\beta\gamma}
{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma({\bf k}),
\label{abeta}$$ where $\varepsilon^T_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k})$ is the static transverse color dielectric function, defined by $$[(\varepsilon^T)^{-1}]_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k})
= \delta_{\alpha\beta} -
{\chi}_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},0)/|{\bf k}|^2.$$ One can write $\varepsilon^T_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k})$ in terms of the screened correlation function, ${\tilde\chi}_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},0) \equiv
\chi_T^{\alpha\gamma}({\bf k},0)\varepsilon^T_{\gamma\beta}({\bf k})$ (the irreducible bubble), as $$\varepsilon^T_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k})
= \delta_{\alpha\beta} +
{\tilde\chi}_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},0)/|{\bf k}|^2.
\label{screen}$$ The magnetic mass matrix is thus given in terms of $\tilde\chi_T$ by $$(m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta} = \lim_{{\bf k}\to0}
{\tilde\chi}_T^{\alpha\beta} ({\bf k},0).$$
The transverse screening lengths are closely related to the superfluid baryon density $n_s$. We may see the explicit relation near $T_c$, where we derived the equilibrium properties utilizing general Ginzburg-Landau theory [@I; @II]. Within color and flavor antisymmetric pairing channels having zero total angular momentum, even parity, and aligned chirality, which include the two-flavor and color-flavor locked condensates as optimal states, we obtain the London equation for the induced current densities (\[jclr\]) as (see Appendix and [@II]) $$\langle {\bf j}^{\alpha T} ({\bf r})\rangle_{{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma}
= - K_T \left(\frac g2\right)^2 {\rm Re}\left\{{\rm Tr}\left[
\left((\lambda^\alpha)^* \phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\alpha\right)
\left((\lambda^\beta)^* \phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\beta\right)^\dagger
\right]_F \right\} {\bf A}^\beta({\bf r})
\label{jcgl}$$ with coefficient $$K_T=\frac{9n_s}{4\mu_b {\rm Tr}(\phi_+^\dagger \phi_+)_F}.
\label{k}$$ Here $(\phi_+)_{abfh}$ is the pairing gap of the quark of color $a$ and flavor $f$ with that of color $b$ and flavor $h$, and the subscript $F$ denotes the gap calculated for the paired quarks lying on the Fermi surfaces; for a color neutral system, the Fermi energies reduce to a single value $\mu_b/3$ as $T$ approaches $T_c$. The relation (\[k\]) is basically that obtained by Josephson [@josephson], $\rho_s =A_{\bot}(m/\hbar)^2|\Psi|^2$, for superfluid He II. Equations (\[london\]) and (\[jcgl\]) then yield the relation between the magnetic mass, the superfluid baryon density, and the order parameter near $T_c$: $$(m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta}
= \frac{9 g^2 n_s}{16\mu_b }
\frac{{\rm Re}{\rm Tr}\left[
\left((\lambda^\alpha)^*\phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\alpha\right)
\left((\lambda^\beta)^*\phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\beta \right)
^\dagger \right]_F}{{\rm Tr}(\phi_+^\dagger \phi_+)_F}.
\label{meissner}$$
For the color-flavor locked phase, where $(\phi_+)_{abfh}=
\kappa_A(\delta_{af}\delta_{bh}-\delta_{ah}\delta_{bf})$, we obtain $$K_T = \frac{3 n_s}{16\mu_b|\kappa_A|^2_F},$$ and $$(m_M^2)_{\alpha\alpha} = \frac{3g^2 n_s}{8\mu_b}.$$ Similarly, for the two-flavor channel, where $(\phi_+)_{abfh}=\epsilon_{fhs}
\epsilon_{abc}d_c$ ($s$, the strange flavor), $$K_T = \frac{9 n_s}{16\mu_b|{\bf d}|^2_F},$$ and $$(m_M^2)_{\alpha\alpha} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \quad \mbox{$\alpha=1,2,3,$} \\
9g^2 n_s/16\mu_b, & \quad \mbox{$\alpha=4,5,6,7,$} \\
3g^2 n_s/4\mu_b, & \quad \mbox{$\alpha=8.$}
\end{array}
\right.$$
In contrast to the behavior of transverse color fields, color longitudinal fields are screened in both the normal and superconducting states. Longitudinal color charge correlations act to expel low frequency longitudinal color fields as in the response of nonrelativistic electron systems to an external longitudinal electromagnetic field [@pines]. We can see this behavior by simply replacing the transverse external field ${\bf
A}^{\gamma}_{\rm ext}$ above with a slowly varying longitudinal one, satisfying ${\bf k}\times {\bf A}^{\gamma}_{\rm ext}({\bf
k})=0$, with time dependence $e^{-i(\omega+i\eta)t}$ (here, $\omega \simeq 0$ and $\eta$ is a positive infinitesimal). Then, as in the derivation of Eq.(\[abeta\]), we obtain, for the total color longitudinal fields in a gauge where the scalar fields $A_0^\gamma$ vanish, $${\bf A}^\beta({\bf k},\omega) = [(\varepsilon^L)^{-1}]_{\beta\gamma}
{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\gamma({\bf k},\omega),
\label{abetal}$$ where $\varepsilon^L_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega+i\eta)\equiv
\delta_{\alpha\beta}-{\tilde\chi}_L^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega+i\eta) /|{\bf
k}|^2$, with the screened correlation function ${\tilde\chi}_L^{\alpha
\beta}({\bf k},\omega+i\eta)=\chi_L^{\alpha\gamma}({\bf k},\omega+i\eta)
\varepsilon^L_{\gamma\beta}({\bf k},\omega+i\eta)$, is the longitudinal color dielectric function. \[Here it is more convenient to write $\tilde\chi_L^{\alpha\beta} \equiv \tilde\chi_{00}^{\alpha\beta}$, in constrast to the definition of the longitudinal part in note [@note1].\]
In the static long wavelength limit, the longitudinal correlation function reduces to minus the square of the electric mass tensor, $$\lim_{{\bf k}\to0}
{\tilde\chi}_L^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},0) = - (m_E^2)_{\alpha\beta};$$ then ${\bf A}^\alpha({\bf k},0) \to |{\bf k}|^2 (m_E^{-2})_{\alpha\beta}
{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\beta({\bf k},0),$ so that the total longitudinal field is screened in the long wavelength limit. In the opposite limit of spatially uniformity, with slow variation in time, $$\lim_{\omega\to0}\lim_{{\bf k}\to0} (\omega/|{\bf k}|)^2
{\tilde\chi}_L^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega+i\eta) =
(\omega_p^2)_{\alpha\beta},$$ where $\omega_p^{\alpha\beta}$ is the plasma frequency matrix; in this limit ${\bf A}^\alpha(0,\omega) \to -\omega^2 (\omega_p^{-2})_{\alpha\beta}
{\bf A}_{\rm ext}^\beta(0,\omega)$.
Near $T_c$, the square of the plasma frequency is given by the sum of normal and superconducting contributions, $(\omega_p^2)_{\alpha\beta} =
\delta_{\alpha\beta}\omega_p^2 + (m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta}$ (see Appendix); in weak coupling, $\omega_p^2 = g^2 \mu_b^2/18\pi^2 + g^2 T^2 /2$ [@chin] and $K_T = 7\zeta(3)n_b/16\pi^2 T_c^2 \mu_b$ [@BL; @IH], where $\zeta(3)=1.202
\ldots$ is the Riemann zeta function. The deviation of $\omega_p^{\alpha\beta}$ from $\delta_{\alpha\beta}\omega_p$ below $T_c$ comes from the fact, as clarified by Rischke $et$ $al.$ [@dirk; @RSS] for the two-flavor channel, that the condensate changes the color dielectric properties in such a way that the color superconductor is transparent to the low energy gluons having color charge associated with the two colors carried by a Cooper pair. In weak coupling, $m_E^{\alpha\beta}$ reduces above $T_c$ to the usual Debye mass $\sqrt3\omega_p\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ [@chin]. Below $T_c$, however, $m_E^{\alpha\beta}$ generally deviates from the normal Debye mass, due to the modification of the color dielectric properties by the condensate [@dirk; @RSS]. Just below $T_c$, $(m_E^2)_{\alpha\beta}$ behaves as $3\omega_p^2 \delta_{\alpha\beta} -3(m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta}$ (see Appendix).
The relations of the Meissner and Debye screening masses, $m_M$ and $m_E$, to the color current–current correlation functions can be cast in terms of sum rules obeyed by the gluon propagator, $$D_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf r}t,{\bf r'}t') =
-i\langle T[A_\mu^\alpha({\bf r},t)A_\nu^\beta({\bf r'},t')]\rangle.$$ Since this propagator dominates the infrared structure of the gap equation [@PR], the sum rule constraints on the propagator are important to take into account in constructing a self-consistent solution to the gap equation through inclusion of polarization effects of the superconducting medium.
The transverse propagator $D_T$, with spectral representation, $$D_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},z) =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{B_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega)}{z-\omega},
\label{DTB}$$ is related to the transverse part, ${\tilde\chi}_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf
k},z)$, of the irreducible current-current correlation function by $$(D_T^{-1})_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},z) \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta}(z^2-|{\bf
k}|^2)- {\tilde\chi}_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},z).
\label{dysont}$$ Thus taking $z=0$ and the limit of small $|{\bf k}|$, we derive the transverse sum rule, $$\lim_{{\bf k}\to0}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{B_T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega)}{\omega} =
(m_M^{-2})_{\alpha\beta}.
\label{dtsum}$$
Similarly, the longitudinal propagator, $D_L=D_{00}$ in the radiation gauge, has the spectral representation, $$D_L^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},z) = \frac{1}{|{\bf k}|^2}\delta_{\alpha\beta}
+ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{B_L^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega)}{z-\omega},
\label{DLB}$$ and is given in terms of the longitudinal part of the irreducible current-current correlation function by $$(D_L^{-1})_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},z)
=\delta_{\alpha\beta}|{\bf k}|^2-{\tilde\chi}_L^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},z).
\label{dysonl}$$ Again in the static long wavelength limit, we find the longitudinal sum rule: $$\lim_{{\bf k}\to0}\left(
\frac{1}{|{\bf k}|^2}\delta_{\alpha\beta}
-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{B_L^{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega)}{\omega}\right)
= (m_E^{-2})_{\alpha\beta}.
\label{dlsum}$$
In the normal state the sum rules (\[dtsum\]) and (\[dlsum\]) reproduce the results analyzed by Pisarski and Rischke [@PR] in terms of the spectral representation up to one-loop order. The Meissner masses vanish in the transverse sector; Landau diamagnetism leads only to $|{\bf k}|^2$ corrections, and not a nonzero screening mass in the limit ${\bf k}\to0$. The right side of Eq. (\[dtsum\]) is replaced by $\delta_{\alpha\beta}
\lim_{{\bf k}\to 0}|{\bf k}|^{-2}$ to leading order in $g$, as in Ref. [@PR]. The longitudinal sector contains the usual Debye screening, which is characterized by $(m_E^2)_{\alpha\beta} = 3\omega_p^2\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ to leading order in $g$.
Rischke [@dirk] explicitly calculated the zero temperature, low frequency, long wavelength limit of the color current-current correlation function for the two-flavor and color-flavor locked condensates to leading order in $g$. Repeating his calculations for three flavors, we find the screening masses (with no sum over $\alpha$), $$(m_E^2)_{\alpha\alpha}=3(m_M^2)_{\alpha\alpha}=
\frac{21-8\ln 2}{18}\omega_p^2 ,~~ \alpha=1,\ldots,8
\label{cfl}$$ for color-flavor locking, and $$\begin{array}{lll}
(m_E^2)_{\alpha\alpha}=\omega_p^2, & (m_M^2)_{\alpha\alpha} = 0, &
\alpha =1,2,3 \\
(m_E^2)_{\alpha\alpha}=2\omega_p^2,& (m_M^2)_{\alpha\alpha}=\omega_p^2/3, &
\alpha=4,5,6,7 \\
(m_E^2)_{88}= 3\omega_p^2, & (m_M^2)_{88} = 2\omega_p^2/9 &
\end{array}
\label{is}$$ for the two-flavor channel in which only quarks of color $R$ and $G$, which couple to gluons of $\alpha=1,2,3$, undergo BCS pairing. (The choice of the two colors involved in the pairing is arbitrary under the constraint of overall color neutrality.) The screening masses depend on color charge only in the two flavor condensate, because there the order parameter is [*anisotropic*]{} in color space in contrast to that in the color-flavor locked condensate. How static transverse screening influences the pairing gap compared with Landau damping of color magnetic gluons [@BMPR] depends sensitively on the gluon energies and momenta controlling the pairing gap [@dirk].
Weak coupling calculations ignoring the effects of the superconducting medium yield the logarithm of the gap [@hong; @SW; @PR], $$\ln(\Delta/\mu_b)= - 3\pi^2 /\sqrt2 g- 5\ln g + \ldots.
\label{wcs}$$ The weak coupling solution is not self-consistent in the sense that it satisfies the sum rules (\[dtsum\]) and (\[dlsum\]) with the masses $m_E^{\alpha\beta}=\sqrt3\omega_p\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $m_M^{\alpha\beta}=0$, corresponding to the thermodynamics of the weakly interacting normal gas [@PR]. As Rischke [@dirk2] showed to one loop order, the superconducting medium significantly modifies the gluon self-energy from the normal medium value only in the energy range $|\omega| \lesssim
\Delta$, which is not sufficient to change the logarithm of the gap from Eq. (\[wcs\]) up to subleading order in $g$. On the other hand, a self-consistent solution that satisfies the sum rules (\[dtsum\]) and (\[dlsum\]) with masses given by Eqs. (\[cfl\]) and (\[is\]) would include contributions in all orders. The sum rules thus provide a check on approximate theories for the pairing gap beyond weak coupling.
In summary, we have derived the transverse and longitudinal sum rules for a color superconductor that is uniform and isotropic in ordinary space. In doing so we have brought out the relation of the long wavelength behaviors of the momentum-momentum, baryon current-momentum, and color current correlation functions to macroscopic quantities such as the superfluid density and the Meissner and Debye masses, as well as the relevance of the sum rules for the gluon propagator to the self-consistent solution to the gap equation. The sum rules hold for any number of flavors and quark masses. It is straightforward to extend the present analysis for color current-current correlations to the case in which the electric currents coexist with the color currents; in this situation the electric currents modify the supercurrents through a mixing of color and electric charge (see, e.g., Refs. [@II; @gorbar]).
We thank Dirk Rischke for helpful comments. This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research provided by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Japan through Grant No. 10-03687, and in part by National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY98-00978 and PHY00-98353.
Appendix: The Ginzburg-Landau region {#appendix-the-ginzburg-landau-region .unnumbered}
====================================
In this Appendix, we summarize the derivation of the London equation (\[jcgl\]) near $T_c$, for color and flavor antisymmetric pairing channels having zero total angular momentum, even parity, and aligned chirality; full details will be given in Ref. [@II]. In the presence of applied weak color fields, $A_{\rm ext}^{\alpha\mu}(x)$, of very long wavelength and low frequency, the resultant gradient of the order parameter adds a small correction to the homogeneous part of the Ginzburg-Landau free energy derived in Ref. [@I]. Up to second order in the gap, this energy correction is $$\Omega_{g}= \frac12 K_T {\rm Tr}[(D_i \phi_+)^{\dagger}D_i \phi_{+}]_F
+\frac12 K_L {\rm Tr}[(D_0 \phi_+)^{\dagger}D_0 \phi_{+}]_F,
\label{omegag1}$$ where the covariant derivative is $D_\mu \phi_+ \equiv \partial_\mu \phi_+
- \frac 12 ig[(\lambda^\alpha)^* \phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\alpha] A_\mu^\alpha$ with the total color fields $A_\mu^\alpha$. The time dependence of the gap is, by definition, measured with respect to that in the equilibrium phase, i.e., with respect to the phase factor $e^{-2i\mu_b t/3}$ arising in the order parameter from Eq. (\[muphi\]) (see Ref. [@I]). As we show here, the coefficient $K_T$ is given by Eq. (\[k\]). The coefficient $K_L$ is not necessarily equal to $K_T$ since Lorentz invariance is broken in a many particle system. In weak coupling, $K_L$ reduces to $3K_T$ [@dirk]. As required, $\Omega_{g}$ is invariant under global $U(1)$ gauge transformations and flavor rotations, as well as under local color $SU(3)$ gauge transformations.
To derive the dependence of the coefficient $K_T$ on the superfluid baryon density $n_s$, Eq. (\[k\]), we consider the situation in the absence of color fields, in which the pairs move uniformly with small constant velocity ${\bf v}_s$ and the normal fluid remains at rest. The phase factor of the gap in the fixed frame transforms by $\phi_+ \to e^{i{\bf P\cdot r}}\phi_+$, where ${\bf P}$ is the total pair momentum. The total momentum of the superfluid is then $$3n_s {\bf P}/2 = \rho_s{\bf v}_s.
\label{pvs}$$ In this situation, $$\Omega_{g}= \frac12 K_T {\bf P}^2 {\rm Tr}(\phi_{+}\phi_+^{\dagger})_F.
\label{omegag2}$$ Following de Gennes [@dG2] and W[" o]{}lfle [@wolfle], we then obtain the baryon current density from the usual canonical equation for the gradient energy density (\[omegag2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf j}_s = \frac 23 \frac{\delta \Omega_g}{\delta {\bf P}}
= \frac 23 K_T {\rm Tr}(\phi_+^\dagger \phi_+)_F{\bf P}.
\label{js}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (\[pvs\]) to eliminate ${\bf P}$, and Eqs. (\[jb\]) and (\[rhos\]), we derive Eq. (\[k\]). Note that the extra time variation of the gap leads to terms in $\Omega_{g}$ of order ${\bf P}^4$, which play no role here.
The color current densities induced by the applied weak color fields near $T_c$ are composed of the superfluid and normal contributions, $j^{\alpha\mu}_s$ and $j^{\alpha\mu}_n$. The superfluid color currents can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
j_s^{\alpha\mu} &=& \frac{\delta \Omega_g}{\delta A_\mu^\alpha}
\nonumber \\
&=& -[K_T+\delta_{\mu0}(K_L-K_T)]
\frac g2 {\rm Im}\left\{{\rm Tr}\left[\left((\lambda^\alpha)^*
\phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\alpha \right)^\dagger
\partial_\mu \phi_+\right]_F \right\}
\nonumber \\
& & + [K_T+\delta_{\mu0}(K_L-K_T)]
\left(\frac g2\right)^2 A^\beta_\mu {\rm Re}\left\{{\rm Tr}\left[
\left((\lambda^\alpha)^* \phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\alpha\right)
\left((\lambda^\beta)^* \phi_+ + \phi_+ \lambda^\beta\right)^\dagger
\right]_F \right\}.
\label{cmax}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[cmax\]) reduces to the London equation (\[jcgl\]) for applied static transverse color fields when the spatial variation is of sufficiently long wavelength that we can ignore the term containing $\partial_\mu \phi_+$.
We conclude this Appendix by considering the linear response to applied longitudinal color fields near $T_c$. For static color fields of very long wavelength the induced color density $j_s^{\alpha0}$ can be obtained from Eq.(\[cmax\]) as $j_s^{\alpha0}= (K_L/K_T)(m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta}A^{\beta0}$ where $m_M^2$ is given by Eq. (\[meissner\]). In weak coupling, this color density, together with the normal contribution $-3\omega_p^2 A^{\alpha0}$, leads to the square of the Debye screening mass matrix, $(m_E^2)_{\alpha\beta}=3\omega_p^2 \delta_{\alpha\beta}
-3(m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta}$. For uniform color fields varying very slowly in time, we calculate the induced supercurrent from Eq. (\[cmax\]) as ${\bf
j}_s^{\alpha}=-(m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta} {\bf A}^\beta$, where $m_M^2$ is again given by Eq. (\[meissner\]). Combining this supercurrent with the induced normal current $-\omega_p^2{\bf A}^\alpha$, we obtain the square of the plasma frequency matrix, $(\omega_p^2)_{\alpha\beta} = \delta_{\alpha\beta}\omega_p^2
+ (m_M^2)_{\alpha\beta}$.
B.C. Barrois, Nucl. Phys. [**B129**]{}, 390 (1977).
D. Bailin and A. Love, Phys. Rep. [**107**]{}, 325 (1984).
D.T. Son, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 094019 (1999).
D.K. Hong, Phys. Lett. B [**473**]{}, 118 (2000); Nucl. Phys. [**B582**]{}, 451 (2000).
T. Sch[" a]{}fer and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 114033 (1999).
R.D. Pisarski and D.H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 074017 (2000).
D.H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 034007 (2000); [**62**]{}, 054017 (2000).
D.H. Rischke, nucl-th/0103050.
K. Iida and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 074018 (2001).
D. Pines and P. Nozi[\` e]{}res, [*The Theory of Quantum Liquids, V. I*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1989).
G. Baym, in [*Mathematical Methods in Solid State and Superfluid Theory*]{}, R.C. Clark and G.H. Derrick, eds. (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1969), p. 121.
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, [*Fluid Mechanics*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1987).
I.M. Khalatnikov and V.V. Lebedev, Phys. Lett. [**91A**]{}, 70 (1982); V.V. Lebedev and I.M. Khalatnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 1601 (1982) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**56**]{}, 923 (1982)\].
The decomposition of a tensor $\chi_{ij}({\bf k},z)$ into its longitudinal and transverse parts is defined as usual by $\chi_{ij}=
(\delta_{ij}-k_i k_j/|{\bf k}|^2) \chi_T +(k_i k_j/|{\bf k}|^2) \chi_L$. The transverse response is realized here by taking ${\bf k}$ orthogonal to $\hat z$, e.g., along $\hat x$.
K. Iida and G. Baym (to be published).
B.D. Josephson, Phys. Lett. [**21**]{}, 608 (1966).
G. Baym and S.A. Chin, Nucl. Phys. [**A262**]{}, 527 (1976); M.B. Kislinger and P.D. Morley, Phys. Rev. D [**13**]{}, 2765 (1976); D.J. Gross, R.D. Pisarski, and L.G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**53**]{}, 43 (1981).
I. Giannakis and H.-C. Ren, hep-ph/0108256.
D.H. Rischke, D.T. Son, and M.A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**87**]{}, 062001 (2001).
G. Baym, H. Monien, C.J. Pethick, and D.G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1867 (1990).
E.V. Gorbar, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 014007 (2000).
P.G. de Gennes, Phys. Lett. [**44A**]{}, 271 (1973).
P. W[" o]{}lfle, Phys. Lett. [**47A**]{}, 224 (1974).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Between the new physics candidates proposed to explain the $t \bar t$ asymmetry measured in the Tevatron, there are some scalar diquarks with electric charge +4/3. This kind of diquark is also needed to classify all the scalars of the supersymmetric standard model, with three generations, under a global flavour symmetry.'
author:
- 'A. Rivero [^1] [^2]'
title: 'A possible origin of the q=4/3 diquark'
---
Introduction
============
One of the measurements that have caused some stir during the last run of the Tevatron has been the forward-backward asymmetry[@Aaltonen:2011kc] of top quark processes. Between the different New Physics candidates that have been proposed (see [@AguilarSaavedra:2011ug] for a short review), some scalar “diquarks” in diverse multiplets are favoured, and particularly [@arXiv:0912.0972] some isosinglets with charge 4/3.
While the hint is generically towards flavour models, here we want to show that when flavour is imposed not in the standard model fermions but in the scalar sector (squarks and sleptons) of the supersymmetric SM, the candidate particles appear inside a very unique construction, that exhausts exactly for three generations with five light quarks. We explain this fact in the first section of the paper and then we proceed to speculate on other uses of a flavour symmetry inspired in composites.
Flavour in susy scalars
=======================
Independently of its physical interpretation, it is possible to use a flavour $SU(5)$ to classify the 24 sleptons contained in the SSM -when extended with right neutrinos-. This is done by taking this representation from $5 \otimes \bar 5 = 24 \oplus 1$ and then branching it down to $SU(3) \times SU(2)$.
$$24=(1,1)+(3,1)+(2,3)+(2, \bar 3)+(1,8)$$
Giving an electric charge $+2/3$ to the $SU(3)$ piece and $-1/3$ to $SU(2)$, it can be seen that we have got a sextet of charge $+1$, another opposite sextet of charge $-1$, and another twelve states of zero charge. The construction can be done for any odd number of generations, but it becomes specially elegant -and unique in some terms- when done for three.
Now, we produce all the squarks from the same flavour group by taking the $15$ of $\bar 5 \otimes \bar 5 = 15 \oplus 10$. With the same branching, it decomposes as $$15=(3,1)+(2,3)+(1,6)$$ so that we get one sextet of charge -1/3 and another sextet of charge +2/3. We call this reproduction of the original charges a “supersymmetric Bootstrap”, or [*sBootstrap*]{} for short, because it is possible to interpret the $SU(3)$ piece as coming from three particles similar to quarks $d,s,b$ and the $SU(2)$ piece similar to quarks $u,c$. If we pursue this interpretation, the uniqueness is more appealing: with more of three generations, not all of them are used in the flavour symmetry, and the number of extra particles makes the scheme a lot uglier, adding more exotic squarks and sleptons to the bag. Note that also the same interpretation, with the same “quarks”, applies to the 24 decomposition on sleptons above.
This symmetry was found some years ago in [@Rivero:2005if] and the uniqueness is discussed with more detail there, but even with three generations it had a severe handicap: the $15$ multiplet has three extra scalars not in the standard model. Fortunately, they were different from the other scalars in the sense that, being a odd number, it was not possible to arrange them in Dirac supermultiplets; then this chirality was expected to be an advantage allowing either to eliminate them from the game board or to force them into the gauge sector (more on this later). But an acceptable, fully developed solution has not been found yet.
What is important for this brief letter is to notice what this $(3,1)$ triplet is: the three scalars have charge +4/3 and can be assigned interactions as a scalar diquark. It is then the same kind of particle expected to solve the Tevatron asymmetry.
We can read this in two ways: on one direction, it could be said that an extra flavour symmetry for the scalar sector of SUSY predicts the need of 4/3 diquarks. On the reverse direction, it is possible that most of the models proposed to explain the asymmetry will exhibit explicitly a scalar flavour symmetry when super-symmetrized. On the side of model builders, it may mean some extra work, because besides a colour triplet we also have a flavour triplet (naively, $uu$, $uc+cu$ and $cc$ like states). The degeneracy could be removed in some flavour-colour locking scheme, or it could be really there.
The initial idea in [@Rivero:2005if] was to interpret all those scalars as the well known spectrum of mesons, plus a diquark spectrum hidden inside baryons. That implied some complications: besides being composites, the supersymmetry needed to work between particles with different baryon and lepton number. Probably this is still the case here, but with a revenge: if the +4/3 particles are real states on their own, and no just QCD diquarks, the argument to keep insisting in the original idea becomes even weaker[^3]; the next resort is to consider all the scalar states as formed by condensation via some technicolor force, beyond QCD but very similar to it.
A mass spectrum.
================
Having stated the main point, lets allow for an [*Intermezzo*]{}: If SUSY has a flavour symmetry of its own, based on composites, is a mass formula possible?
It could be, and it could be that remnants of the mass formulae are still visible in the fermion sector even after SUSY breaking. This idea was part of the motivation for this research, back in 2005, when some attention was dedicated to Koide equation [@koide; @koide2; @Koide:1983qe] and its repercussions in neutrino spectrum (e.g. [@Brannen:2010zza]. This equation is an evolution of the formulae for masses and Cabibbo angle that were justified in the late seventies using textures [@Fritzsch:2002fg], democratic matrices, or permutation symmetry in $SU(2)_R \otimes SU(2)_L$ models[@Harari:1978yi].
Recent empirical work [@Rodejohann:2011jj; @arXiv:1111.7232] has extended Koide formula from leptons to quarks then bringing the equation back to its birthplace. The $m_e=m_u=0$ spectrum, see [@arXiv:1111.7232] could be an interesting starting point for the search of a supersymmetrical spectrum. Remember that the LR models for Cabibbo angle used to permute the $R$ sector in a way that the bottom R quark was related to the up L quark; if we can not put the superpartners of a $m_u=0$ quark at zero -say, if we do not want the lowest energy state to be degenerated- then we can still put them at the energy of the $b$ quark.
Towards technicolor
===================
Finally, we wonder if, besides to explain the $t \bar t$ asymmetry, is it possible to exploit these diquarks in some Higgs-like scenario. The peculiar charge of these particles seems an impediment, but there is an interesting possibility: that some of this charge comes from $B-L$ in a non-chiral way. This is a typical feature of GUT models using a left-right symmetry.
From this perspective, the $(3,1)$ diquarks should be seen as having some non-chiral interactions, providing colour and a piece of $Q_v= \frac 12 (B-L)=\frac 12 . \frac 23 = \frac 13$ of electric charge, plus a chiral interaction providing the extant $Q_{ch}=+1$. If the condensation mechanism can get rid of the vector part of the interaction, our diquarks seem more alike the scalars of the gauge supermultiplets: color neutral and with integer electric charge. Looking B-L in a different foot that the rest of the symmetries is interesting because it also imply that we increase our disbelief in R-symmetry. You could have noticed that the scalars we are producing have a B-L value different in one unit respect to the fermions they are supposed to partner with.
Furthermore, color neutrality causes a degeneration, and the number of different states is now only three particles and the corresponding antiparticles. Under SUSY, the massless gauge supermultiplet needs to eat one chiral supermultiplet (with a fermion and two scalars) to get mass; one of the scalars becomes the extra degree of freedom of the W or Z, and the other surfaces as a Higgs scalar. Thus it is interesting that under color neutrality, and barring the degeneration -or controlling it with some flavour-colour locking, appropriate also to the discussion in the first section-, we get the number of scalars needed to make three chiral supermultiplets. Some work is being done to try to introduce these ingredients in an EWSB mechanism, but it is still in very early stages.
Acknowedgements.
================
I must thank updated information about the status of the top asymmetry research, as well clarifications in the conventions, to Manuel Perez Victoria, Nejc Kosnic and Ilja Doršner. Encouragement about the divulgation of the sBootstrap idea has been provided, direct or indirectly, by Tommaso Dorigo, Mitchell Porter and the mentors of [PhysicsForums.com]{}, who allowed for almost single handed development of some threads.
[10]{}
T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], “Evidence for a Mass Dependent Forward-Backward Asymmetry in Top Quark Pair Production,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{} (2011) 112003 \[arXiv:1101.0034 \[hep-ex\]\]. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and M. Perez-Victoria, “Simple models for the top asymmetry: constraints and predictions,” JHEP [**1109**]{} (2011) 097 \[arXiv:1107.0841 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. A. Brannen, “Spin path integrals and generations,” Found. Phys. [**40**]{}, 1681 (2010) \[arXiv:1006.3114 \[physics.gen-ph\]\]. I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik and N. Kosnik, “Light colored scalars from grand unification and the forward-backward asymmetry in t t-bar production,” Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 055009 \[arXiv:0912.0972 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Kartavtsev, “A remark on the Koide relation for quarks,” arXiv:1111.0480 \[hep-ph\]. Y. Koide, “A New Formula For The Cabibbo Angle And Composite Quarks And Leptons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{} (1981) 1241. Y. Koide, “Quark And Lepton Masses Speculated From A Subquark Model,” (1981) Y. Koide, “A New View Of Quark And Lepton Mass Hierarchy,” Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{} (1983) 252. N. Kosnik, I. Dorsner, J. Drobnak, S. Fajfer and J. F. Kamenik, “Scalar diquark in $t \bar{t}$ production and constraints on Yukawa sector of grand unified theories,” arXiv:1111.0477 \[hep-ph\]. H. Fritzsch, “Mesons, quarks and leptons,” arXiv:hep-ph/0207279. H. Harari, H. Haut and J. Weyers, “Quark Masses And Cabibbo Angles,” Phys. Lett. B [**78**]{} (1978) 459. A. Rivero, “Supersymmetry with composite bosons,” arXiv:hep-ph/0512065. A. Rivero, “A new Koide tuple: strange-charm-bottom,” arXiv:1111.7232 \[hep-ph\]. W. Rodejohann and H. Zhang, “Extended Empirical Fermion Mass Relation,” Phys. Lett. B [**698**]{} (2011) 152 \[arXiv:1101.5525 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: Institute for Biocomputation and Physics of Complex Systems, University of Zaragoza
[^2]: `[email protected]`, `[email protected]`
[^3]: I thank M. Porter by this observation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The structure of topological charge fluctuations in the QCD vacuum is strongly restricted by the spectral negativity of the Euclidean correlator for $x\neq 0$ and the presence of a positive contact term. Some examples are considered which illustrate the physical origin of these properties.'
address:
- 'Dept. of Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904'
- 'Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA'
- 'Center for Nuclear Studies, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA'
- 'Jefferson Lab, 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606, USA'
- 'CSSM and Dept. of Physics and Math. Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia'
author:
- 'H. Thacker, S.J. Dong, T. Draper, I. Horváth, F.X. Lee, K.F. Liu, J.B. Zhang,'
title: ' Topological Charge Correlators, Spectral Bounds, and Contact Terms [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Although topological charge plays a fundamental role in our understanding of low-energy hadron physics, the detailed structure of topological charge fluctuations in the QCD vacuum is not well understood. The construction of a local topological charge density operator for QCD [@hasenfratz] in terms of a Dirac operator with GW symmetry [@neuberger] has made it possible not only to study local $q(x)$ distributions in Monte Carlo generated gauge fields, but to analyze these distributions in terms of an eigenmode expansion for the corresponding Dirac operator. As discussed in [@horvath], the resulting “eigenmode filtered” densities provide a physically meaningful way of removing short-wavelength background fluctuations and focusing on whatever longer range structures might appear. The necessity for some such filtering procedure is made clear by a fundamental property of the two-point correlator in [*Euclidean*]{} 4-space[@seiler], namely, that it must be [*negative*]{} at any nonzero separation, $$\label{eq:bound}
G(x)\equiv \langle q(x)q(0)\rangle \leq 0 \;\;{\rm for}\;\; |x|\neq 0$$ This follows from reflection positivity (because $q(x)$ is reflection odd), or equivalently, from spectral positivity in Minkowski space. In the latter derivation, the negative sign of the Euclidean correlator arises from the fact that [**B**]{} fields remain real under Euclidean rotation but [**E**]{} fields acquire a factor of $i$. The bound (\[eq:bound\]) places important restrictions on any realistic picture of topological charge in the QCD vacuum. For any nonzero separation, the positive contributions to the correlator from coherent, finite-size fluctuations of topological charge (e.g. instantons) must necessarily be overwhelmed by anti-correlated background fluctuations. Moreover, the requirement that the topological susceptibility $\chi_t=\int G(x)d^4x$ be positive implies that G(x) must include a positive contact term $\propto \delta^4(x)$ which makes the largest contribution to the $\chi_t$ integral.
The results of a numerical investigation of the topological charge correlator in QCD [@horvath] indicate that it is very short range and consistent with being dominated, in the continuum limit, by an effective delta-function contact term. The fact that the topological charge correlator in QCD is approximately a delta-function can also be inferred from numerical studies of the quenched pseudoscalar hairpin correlator (i.e. the $\eta'$ mass insertion diagram)[@chlogs]. The measured correlator fits extremely well at all time separations to the dipole form $\propto (1+m_{\pi}\tau)\exp(-m_{\pi}\tau)+(\tau\rightarrow T-\tau)$. This implies that the amputated diagram (which, in quenched QCD, is proportional to the topological charge correlator) has very little $q^2$ dependence and is approximately a delta-function in space-time.
In this talk, we will discuss some examples which illustrate how the negativity property (\[eq:bound\]) is satisfied in practice, and also consider the physical origin of the contact term. As a first example, consider the thermodynamics of a nonrelativistic free particle moving in one compact spatial dimension.[@arnold] Denoting the spatial coordinate by $\phi$, the action is $S = \frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2$. The partition function at inverse temperature $\beta$ is given by the Euclidean path integral over all paths satisfying $$\phi(\beta) = \phi(0) + C\nu$$ where $C$ is the circumference of the compact dimension and $\nu$ is the winding number of the path. The winding number is the integral of a local topological charge density, $\nu = \int_{0}^{\beta}q(\tau)\,d\tau$ where $$q(\tau)=C^{-1}\dot{\phi}(\tau)$$ There are classical n-instanton solutions which satisfy the Euclidean equation of motion, $$\phi_n(\tau) = \frac{Cn}{\beta}\tau$$ with action $$S_n = \frac{C^2n^2}{2\beta^2}$$ We decompose any path into the sum of an n-instanton solution and periodic fluctuations around it, $$\phi(\tau) = \phi_n(\tau) + \delta\phi(\tau)$$ where $\delta\phi(\beta) = \delta\phi(0)$. Then it is easy to show that the topological charge correlator separates into a sum over instantons + oscillators, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:correlator}
G(\tau) \equiv \langle \dot{\phi}(\tau)\dot{\phi}(0)\rangle =\nonumber\\
\frac{C^2}{\beta^2}\sum_n n^2e^{-\beta S_n}/\sum_n e^{-\beta S_n} + &\langle\delta\dot{\phi}(\tau)
\delta\dot{\phi}(0)\rangle\end{aligned}$$ The second term, coming from quantum fluctuations around the classical n-instanton solutions, is obtained by differentiating the free propagator $$\langle\delta\dot{\phi}(\tau)\delta\dot{\phi}(0)\rangle =
-\frac{1}{\beta}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^2} \sum_{q_j}
\frac{e^{-iq_j\tau}}{q_j^2+\lambda^2}$$ where $q_j =\frac{2\pi j}{\beta}$. Here $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ is a small infrared cutoff parameter. Thus, the oscillator contribution is $$\label{eq:oscillator}
\langle\delta\dot{\phi}(\tau)\delta\dot{\phi}(0)\rangle =
\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{j\neq 0}e^{-iq_j\tau}=\delta(\tau)-\frac{1}{\beta}$$ Now let’s consider how the correlator (\[eq:correlator\]) satisfies the bound (\[eq:bound\]). There are two limiting cases of interest:\
(I) Semiclassical or high temperature limit ($\beta\rightarrow 0$ or $C\rightarrow \infty$). In this limit, the instanton expansion converges, but the terms are exponentially suppressed. The bound (\[eq:bound\]) is satisfied because the negative term $-1/\beta$ from the quantum fluctuations (\[eq:oscillator\]) is always larger than the positive instanton contribution. In this case, if we introduce a $\theta$ term, the instanton expansion gives a good description of $\theta$ dependence (e.g. topological susceptibility).\
(II) Ultra-quantum mechanical or low temperature limit ($\beta\rightarrow \infty$ or $C\rightarrow 0$). In this case, the instanton sum diverges. Instead of expanding in winding number, the instanton series may be resummed by a Poisson transformation $$\sum_ne^{-n^2/\alpha} = \sqrt{\pi\alpha}\sum_m e^{-\alpha\pi^2 m^2}$$ Using this formula, we find, in the large $\beta$ limit, the resummed instanton expansion $\rightarrow +1/\beta$ Thus, in this limit, the $-1/\beta$ from quantum fluctuations exactly cancels the instanton contribution, leaving only the contact term, $$G(\tau) \rightarrow \delta(\tau)$$ Note that, in case II, the expansion of the Poisson-resummed instanton series is in no sense an expansion in number of instantons, but is in fact dual to it. It’s convergence corresponds to a breakdown of the usual instanton expansion. In some respects, this case may be viewed as a greatly oversimplified analog of Witten’s picture of the QCD vacuum, in which topological susceptibility is finite, but is not properly described in terms of an instanton expansion.
Note the origin of the contact term in this 0+1 dimensional example. In momentum space, the two factors of $q$ coming from the derivatives in the definition of the topological charge operators exactly cancel the $1/q^2$ pole of the propagator. This is a manifestation of “vacuum seizing”[@kogut], originally discussed in the Schwinger model as a possible mechanism for resolving the U(1) problem in QCD.
As a second example of a Euclidean topological charge correlator, we consider the CP(N-1) sigma model in two space-time dimensions. We have studied the topological charge correlator via (1) the large N expansion, (2) a lattice strong coupling expansion, and (3) numerical Monte Carlo calculations. A complete discussion of this study will be presented elsewhere [@brelidze]. The results all indicate the dominance of the contact term in the TC correlator. First consider the large N expansion. It is well-known that, to leading order in large N, the auxiliary U(1) gauge field develops a kinetic term and becomes dynamical due to scalar loop effects, thereby generating a long range (confining) Coulomb potential. Thus the gauge field correlator behaves like $$\int d^2x e^{iq\cdot x}\langle A_{\mu}(x)A_{\nu}(0)\rangle
\approx \frac{1}{q^2}\left(-g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}\right)$$ The corresponding Euclidean correlator for the topological charge operator $q(x)=\epsilon^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}$ thus produces a contact term, $$\int d^2x e^{iq\cdot x}\langle q(x) q(0)\rangle
\approx const.$$
We have also studied the TC correlator for CP(N-1) in a lattice strong-coupling expansion and by Monte Carlo simulation. For the time-dependent correlator $$G(x_0) = \int dx_1 \langle q(x) q(0) \rangle|_{x_0=\tau} \; ,$$ we find that, for CP(1) in the region $0\leq\beta\leq 2.0$ (correlation length $\leq 35$), $G(\tau)$ is completely dominated by a contact term of the form $G(\tau)= C_0\delta(\tau)
+C_2\delta''(\tau)$, with $C_0\rightarrow \approx 0$ in the weak coupling region. Calculations for larger N models are in progress.
Based on these examples, one might suspect that a short range topological charge correlator dominated by a positive contact term is associated with a strong-coupling vacuum structure for which a description based on classical instanton solutions is inappropriate. In view of the recent QCD results [@horvath] it is interesting to ask whether a theoretical mechanism exists for generating such a contact term in QCD. Using an operator product expansion, it is found that not only does the OPE predict the existence and approximate magnitude of the contact term [@bardeen], but the calculation itself closely resembles the vacuum seizing mechanism encountered in the simpler examples. The key point is that, because $\langle F^2\rangle\neq 0 $ in the QCD vacuum, there is a term in the OPE for the $F\tilde{F}$ correlator where one gluon carries the large momentum $q$, while a pair of soft gluons (one from each source) disappears into the vacuum. Just as in the simpler examples, the $1/q^2$ pole of this gluon propagator is cancelled by the momentum factors which arise from derivatives in the definition of the topological charge operator. A straightforward calculation shows that this effective one-gluon exchange graph gives a contact term $\propto \delta^4(x)$, and also $\propto \langle F^2\rangle$. Using the QCD sum rule estimate of $\langle F^2\rangle$, one finds [@bardeen] that this contact term makes a contribution to the $\eta'$ mass of $m_{\eta'} \approx \sqrt{\alpha_S}\times 400\; MeV$.
[9]{} P. Hasenfratz, V. Laliena, F. Niedermayer, Phys. Lett. B427, 125 (1998). H. Neuberger, Phys. Lett. B417, 141 (1998). I. Horváth et al, [hep-lat/0203027]{}, and I. Horvath, et al, these proceedings. E. Seiler, I.O. Stamatescu, [MPI-PAE/Pth 10/87]{}. W. Bardeen, A. Duncan, E. Eichten, and H. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D62:114505 (2000), and E. Eichten, et al, these proceedings. P. Arnold and L. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D37, 1020 (1988); We thank Peter Arnold for an illuminating discussion of this example. J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D11, 1199 (1975). T. Brelidze and H. Thacker (in preparation). W. Bardeen (private communication).
[^1]: Talk presented by H. Thacker
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We theoretically investigate the role of spin fluctuations in charge transport through a magnetic junction. Motivated by recent experiments that measure a nonlinear dependence of the current on electrical bias, we develop a systematic understanding of the interplay of charge and spin dynamics in nanoscale magnetic junctions. Our model captures two distinct features arising from these fluctuations: magnon-assisted transport and the effect of spin-transfer torque on the magnetoconductance. The latter stems from magnetic misalignment in the junction induced by spin-current fluctuations. As the temperature is lowered, inelastic quantum scattering takes over thermal fluctuations, exhibiting signatures that make it readily distinguishable from magnon-assisted transport.'
author:
- 'Scott A. Bender'
- 'Rembert A. Duine'
- Yaroslav Tserkovnyak
title: 'Quantum-kinetic theory of spin-transfer torque and magnon-assisted transport in nanostructures'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The accurate electrical detection and control of the spin degree of freedom of electrons remains a central goal of spintronics. An early success of the field was the demonstration of magnetoresistance in conducting magnetic multilayers, allowing for the determination of the magnetic state of a heterostructure via its electrical resistance.[@Binasch:1989he; @Baibich:1988ib; @Levy:1990ej] Later shown was the possibility of writing magnetic states by the application of large current densities. [@Mangin:2006ix; @Hayakawa:2005ic; @Huai:2004bd; @Kubota:2005gx; @Albert:2000gv; @Kubota:2007cd; @Stiles:2002dz] An electrical current traversing the structure becomes spin polarized by one magnetic layer and exerts a spin-transfer torque (STT) on another [@Slonczewski:1996vc; @Berger:1996is; @Zhang:2002df]. If the STT is large enough to overcome damping, it can induce switching between magnetic states with different electrical resistance, thereby paving the way for a current-driven “write" complement to the “read" functionality of magnetoresistance. [@Hosomi:2005jv; @Diao:2006gn]
In structures with large macrospins, it typically suffices to characterize charge transport in linear response. However, as devices are scaled down and the spins of the components become smaller, magnetic fluctuations become increasingly important and can give rise to new interplays between magnetic dynamics and electrical transport, which may manifest through nonlinear charge transport features.
One known example of this interplay is magnon-assisted transport (MAT) originating from inelastic electron-magnon scattering. [@Zhang:1997kx] A second effect stems from changes in the magnetoresistance of a heterostructure caused by STT-altered misalignments of the magnetic components. [@Kozub:2007gv] While such misalignments arise from thermal fluctuations at high temperatures, recent work has argued that in nanostructures at low temperatures, such an effect is quantum mechanical in nature. [@Zholud:2017ed]
As both MAT and STT may manifest as zero-bias kinks in the electrical response, a careful theoretical treatment is necessary to distinguish these, as well as to elucidate the nature (classical versus quantum) of the STT in nanoscale junctions.[@Zhang:2017bs] Previous theoretical studies, such as quantum master equation approaches [@Wang:2012cb; @*Wang:2013eq], treat quantum spin fluctuations, but focus on spin dynamics rather than charge transport features. Others, including a quantum Green’s function approach [@Mahfouzi:2014hu], formally integrate spin fluctuations and focus on the ensuing magnetotransport.
In this paper, we develop a self-consistent treatment for spin fluctuations coupled to the electrical response of a magnetic heterostructure, incorporating the relevant inelastic processes and including both thermal and quantum fluctuations on equal footing. Developing a quantum rate equation for magnetic dynamics, in particular, allows for the phenomenological inclusion of dissipation to the environment and the incorporation of pertinent nonlinearities. Our model allows for a parsing and comparison of the contributions of the different effects to overall electrical response. Our approach yields simple, analytic equations that, in addition to laying bare the underlying physics, makes clear the temperature, bias and junction-size regimes in which different effects dominate.
Our model offers two key insights. (1) While our results are compatible with the interpretation of \[\], we go beyond a phenomenological description of magnon emission. The low-temperature STT predicted by our model, which includes quantum fluctuations, results in a zero-bias resistance kink. Our model also describes the crossover from classical (thermal) STT at high temperatures to the quantum behavior at low temperatures, which is marked by a change in the resistance from a monotonic dependence on bias to a local extremum. (2) We show that both types of STT may be readily distinguished from MAT by reversing the relative magnetic orientation in the junction, as well as by the bias scales on which they appear. Additionally, we predict that both MAT and STT give rise to a flat resistance at biases smaller than the magnetic field energy, which may be observed at higher fields.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[hamiltonian\], we start by briefly discussing the physical processes behind MAT and STT, after which we introduce our model Hamiltonian for spin-dependent electron transport, which we generalize to include spin fluctuations. In Sec. \[charge\_trans\], using the Kubo formula, we then compute the charge transport resulting from this generalized Hamiltonian, including both inelastic and elastic electron hopping. The inelastic current is MAT, while the elastic current includes magnetoresistance, which depends on the magnetic state. Next, in Sec \[scsd\] we determine the steady-state magnetic dynamics by computing the spin transfer rate (i.e., the STT) from the same inelastic scattering processes; the resulting expression for the magnetic steady-state is finally reinserted back into the current to give the full, self-consistent charge dynamics. Finally, on the basis of the resulting expression for the current, in Sec \[elec\_respons\] we discuss the contributions of both STT and MAT to the nonlinear $I-V$ curves over different ranges of temperature and bias.
Model {#hamiltonian}
=====
. \[sch\]
Before introducing our model, we briefly discuss the physics of MAT and STT. Consider a conducting magnetic junction, in contact with metallic reservoirs. Under an electrical bias, electrons flow from one energy reservoir, across the junction, to the other. If the bias is large enough, some of the electrons may undergo spin-flip scattering, creating a magnetic excitation, a magnon, of the magnetic components of the junction. The electron correspondingly loses some energy to a magnon, entering a lower energy state in the other energy reservoir (see upper left of Fig. \[sch\]). This inelastic transport, i.e. MAT, has been shown to manifest as a zero-bias kink in the electrical response. [@Zhang:1997kx; @Han:2001er; @Lu:2003hv; @Balashov:2008ih]
Meanwhile, the junction magnetoconductance $G_m$ depends generally on the relative orientations of magnetic layers; because spin-fluctuations of the different layers change, on average, the relative orientations of the layers, the magnetoresistance obtains a correction $\delta G_m$ proportional to the amplitudes of the fluctuations. Under a bias, the STT may enhance or reduce the amplitude of the spin-fluctuations, [@Tsoi:2000jh; @Katine:2000eb; @Kiselev:2003hy; @Madami:2011cx] altering $\delta G_m$ and self-consistently changing the current $I$ flowing across the heterostructure. As a result, the current may demonstrate a nonlinear dependence on bias. At high temperatures, these spin-fluctuations are thermal in nature (coresponding to *classical* STT). However, the dependence of the magnetoconductance on bias has been observed as a zero-bias kink in the differential resistance of a nanopillar spin valve, which is known to persist at low temperatures.[@Sun:2008ik; @Manchon:2009do] In \[\], it was argued that such features may arise from *quantum* STT. Importantly, this STT incorporates spontaneous magnon emission, which gives rise to a dependence of the resistance on the absolute value $|I|$ of the current, thereby manifesting as the zero-bias kink: remarkably, spin fluctuations are enhanced for both directions of current, which stands in contrast to classical predictions. [@Zhang:2017bs]
We now turn to the task of writing a minimal model that captures both effects. To incorporate inelastic spin-flip scattering of electrons naturally, we focus on a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) (oriented in a parallel or antiparallel configuration). While some quantitative differences in charge transport may arise between sequential tunneling and coherent electron transport through a metallic devices such as that in Ref. \[\], we expect our results to be qualitatively generic (barring special features associated with mesoscopic resonances, Coulomb blockade, or any band-structure anomalies).
In our model the role of magnetization of one of the leads is ascribed to the spin of a magnetic nano-island connecting the leads (see right of Fig. \[sch\]), which gives rise to spin-dependent charge transport through the junction barrier. The island spin is allowed to fluctuate, coupling magnetic fluctuations with charge transport. Charge transport occurs between a metallic lead on the right and a magnetic metallic lead on the left, between which electrons map hop. We suppose that both leads are large reservoirs whose properties are unaffected by transport, with the magnetic polarization of the left-lead fixed in the $+z$ direction; in addition we suppose that the spin of the left-lead is sufficiently large that its fluctuations may be neglected. While the right-lead is nonmagnetic, we consider the spins of electrons traversing the junction to be coupled to the spin $\mathbf{S}$ of the magnetic island, which connects the leads but does not hold electrons; the amplitudes for electron hopping from one lead to the other thus depend on the orientation of the electron spin relative to $\mathbf{S}$. For a *fixed*, semiclassical $\mathbf{S}$, the corresponding tunneling Hamiltonian can be written generally: $$\hat{\mathcal{H}}_T=\sum_{\sigma\sigma'}\sum_{\nu\nu'}\gamma_{\nu\nu'}^{(\sigma\sigma')} \hat{b}_{\nu\sigma}^\dagger \hat{a}_{\nu'\sigma'}+H.c.\, ,
\label{genT}$$ where the amplitudes $\gamma_{\nu\nu'}^{(\sigma\sigma')}$ depend on the unit vector $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{S}/S\hbar$ of the island spin, with $S=|\mathbf{S}|/\hbar$ as the island spin. Here $\hat{a}_{\nu'\sigma'}$ and $\hat{b}_{\nu\sigma}$ are annihilation operators for electrons in left-lead eigenstate $\nu'$ and spin $\sigma'$ and right-lead eigenstate $\nu$ and spin $\sigma$, respectively; the indices $\sigma,\sigma'=\uparrow,\downarrow$ denote spin orientations relative to the $z$ direction. Note that we do not include magnetism of the left-lead in the tunneling Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[genT\]), but will subsequently include it through the left-lead density of states. For a model isotropic in spin space, we may expand in powers of $\mathbf{n}\cdot \check{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$, where $\check{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$ is a vector of Pauli matrices, with $\check{\dots}$ denoting $2\times 2$ spin-structure. One obtains the semiclassical expression: $$\check{\gamma}_{\nu\nu'}=A_{\nu\nu'}\check{I}+B_{\nu\nu'} \mathbf{n}\cdot \check{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\, ,
\label{gamma}$$ (with $\check{I}$ as the 2$\times$2 identity) which is general in the absence of magnetism in the leads and constitutes an isotropic Kondo model.
To parametrize thermal and quantum fluctuations of the tunnel island macrospin, we quantize $\mathbf{S}$ via the Holstein-Primakoff transformation: $$\hat{S}_{z}\equiv \hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c}-S,\, \,\, \hat{S}_{-}\equiv \hat{S}_{x}-i\hat{S}_{y}=\sqrt{2S-\hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c}}\hat{c}\approx\sqrt{2S}\hat{c}\, ,
\label{hp}$$ where $\hat{c}$ is a bosonic magnon annihilation operator. We will restrict ourselves to biases below the STT-induced classical instability,[@Berger:1996is] so that the average direction of $\mathbf{n}$ is fixed and fluctuations are incoherent: $\langle \hat{c} \rangle=0$. In writing Eq. (\[hp\]), we have chosen the direction of $\langle \mathbf{S} \rangle$ to be oriented antiparallel (i.e. in the $-z$ direction) to the left-lead spin in equilibrium; thus a magnon, which carries spin opposite to the spin order parameter, is associated with a quantum $+\hbar \mathbf{z}$ of angular momentum. (The other case we will consider, the parallel orientation, may be obtained by changing the sign of the left reservoir polarization $P_L$). For simplicity, we specialize to fluctuations of the macrospin only, with higher energy magnon modes assumed to be energetically inaccessible. In addition, we restrict ourselves to a large spin $S\gg 1$ and small magnon occupation numbers, $N= \langle \delta \hat{S}_z \rangle=\langle \hat{c}^\dagger \hat{c}\rangle \ll S$, allowing for the expansion of the radical in Eq. (\[hp\]).
Writing $\mathbf{n}$ as $\mathbf{S}/S\hbar$ in Eq. (\[gamma\]) and inserting Eq. (\[hp\]), we find the tunneling Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[genT\]), has two physically distinct contributions: $\mathcal{H}_T\approx \mathcal{H}_e+\mathcal{H}_i$. The first term, $$\mathcal{H}_e=\sum_{\sigma =\pm }\sum_{\nu,\nu' }\hat{t}_{\nu\nu'}^{(\sigma)}\hat{b}^\dagger_{\nu \sigma} \hat{a}_{\nu' \sigma}+H.c.\, ,$$ conserves magnon number and gives rise to elastic scattering of electrons through the tunnel junction. Here, $\hat{t}_{\nu \nu'}^{(\pm)}=A_{\nu\nu'}\mp B_{\nu\nu'}+2B_{\nu\nu'}\hat{c}^\dagger\hat{c}/S$ (with $\pm$ denoting spin orientation in the positive (negative) $\mathbf{z}$ direction) capture mixing of the spin-dependent hopping amplitudes by fluctuations of the island spin. The second term, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{S/2}}\sum_{\nu\nu'}B_{\nu\nu'}\left(\hat{c}^{\dagger}b_{\nu\downarrow}^{\dagger}a_{\nu'\uparrow}+\hat{c}b_{\nu \uparrow}^{\dagger}a_{\nu '\downarrow}\right)+H.c.\, ,
\label{ih}\end{aligned}$$ describes inelastic spin-flip processes in which magnons are created or destroyed as electrons traverse the tunnel barrier. These terms, $\mathcal{H}_e$ and $\mathcal{H}_i$, are field-theoretic representations of STT and MAT, respectively.
charge transport {#charge_trans}
================
In this section, we compute the charge current $I=(-e)\sum_{\nu,\sigma}\partial_t \langle \hat{b}_{\nu\sigma}^\dagger\hat{b}_{\nu\sigma}\rangle=-(-e)\sum_{\nu,\sigma}\partial_t \langle \hat{a}_{\nu\sigma}^\dagger\hat{a}_{\nu\sigma}\rangle$ into the right-lead perturbatively to second order in the amplitudes $A_{\nu\nu'}$ and $B_{\nu\nu'}$ (with $e>0$ as the negative of the electron charge), driven by an electrical bias across the MTJ. We take as our unperturbed Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_0=\sum_{\nu}\left(\epsilon_{\sigma \nu} \hat{a}_{\nu\sigma}^\dagger\hat{a}_{\nu\sigma}+\epsilon_\nu \hat{b}_{\nu\sigma}^\dagger\hat{b}_{\nu\sigma}\right)+\hbar \Omega \hat{c}^\dagger \hat{c}$, where $\epsilon_{\sigma \nu}$ and $\epsilon_{\nu }$ are the left and right-lead single particle energies, respectively, and $ \Omega $ is the ferromagnetic resonance frequency of the island spin. To simplify our model, we suppose the leads are good spin reservoirs, so that no spin accumulates there.
To second order in the tunneling amplitudes, we obtain a charge current for both the parallel ($ \langle \mathbf{S}\rangle$ oriented in the $ \mathbf{z}$ direction) and antiparallel ($ \langle \mathbf{S}\rangle$ oriented in the $- \mathbf{z}$ direction) configurations with elastic and inelastic contributions, $$I=I_e+I_i\, ,
\label{ietot}$$ respectively arising from $\mathcal{H}_e$ and $\mathcal{H}_i$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
I_e= G V\,, \,\,\, I_i= (G_\phi/e) \Delta \hbar \Omega S^{-1}\left[ N_{-}-\eta P_{L}\left(N_{+}-N \right)\right]\, ,
\label{ieparts}\end{aligned}$$ where $V=V_L-V_R$ is the voltage bias. In the elastic term, the conductance $G$ depends on the magnon number $N$ and is given by $G=G_0+\eta G_m (1-N/S)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
G_0 \equiv G_\phi\sum_{\nu\nu'}\mathcal{A}^{(+)}_{L\nu' }(\epsilon_F)\mathcal{A}_{R\nu}(\epsilon_F)(|A_{\nu\nu'}|^2+|B_{\nu\nu'}|^2)\, ,\\
G_m \equiv 2 G_\phi\sum_{\nu\nu'}\mathcal{A}^{(-)}_{L\nu' }(\epsilon_F)\mathcal{A}_{R\nu}(\epsilon_F)\mathrm{Re}\left[A_{\nu\nu'}^*B_{\nu\nu'}\right]\, ,
\label{pols}\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed a flat electronic density of states near the Fermi surfaces $\epsilon_F$ of the leads. Here, $G_\phi=2e^2/h$ is the spin-degenerate quantum of conductance, and $\eta=\pm1$ for parallel (antiparallel) transport. Furthermore, $\mathcal{A}_{R\nu }(\epsilon)$ is the right-lead spectral function, while $\mathcal{A}_{L\nu '}^{(\pm)}(\epsilon)=(\mathcal{A}_{L\uparrow \nu '}(\epsilon)\pm \mathcal{A}_{L\downarrow \nu' }(\epsilon))/2$, with $\mathcal{A}_{L\sigma \nu' }(\epsilon)$ as the spin-$\sigma$ left-lead spectral function.
In the inelastic term in Eq. (\[ieparts\]), $\Delta$ is a dimensionless parameter quantifying inelastic charge transport: $$\Delta \equiv 2 \sum_{\nu\nu'}\mathcal{A}^{(+)}_{L\nu' }(\epsilon_F)\mathcal{A}_{R\nu}(\epsilon_F)| B_{\nu\nu'}|^2\, ,$$ which vanishes when the island is nonmagetic, while $P_L$ is an effective left-lead polarization: $$P_L\equiv 2 \sum_{\nu\nu'}\mathcal{A}^{(-)}_{L\nu' }(\epsilon_F)\mathcal{A}_{R\nu}(\epsilon_F)| B_{\nu\nu'}|^2/\Delta\, .$$ When magnetism of the island is turned off ($B_{\nu\nu'}=0$), transport is elastic and the total charge current reduces to $I=G_0 V$. Last, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
N_{\pm}(V)\equiv\frac{1}{2\hbar \Omega}\left\{ n_{B}\left(\hbar \Omega
-eV\right) \left[\hbar \Omega-eV\right] \right. \\
\pm \left. n_{B}\left(\hbar \Omega+eV\right)\left[\hbar \Omega+eV\right] \right\}\,
\label{Npm}\end{aligned}$$ describes electron-hole excitations in the leads, with $n_B[\epsilon]=[e^{\epsilon/T}-1]^{-1}$ as a Bose-Einstein distribution, and $T$ the temperature in units of energy. The dependence of $I_i$ on $V$ through the functions $N_{\pm}(V)$ captures MAT, i.e. the alteration of charge transport caused by the absorption or emission of a magnon energy quantum $\hbar \Omega$ by an electron traversing the tunnel barrier.
The transport coefficients in Eq. (\[ieparts\]) allow for a more transparent parametrization in the simplifying case $A=A_{\nu\nu'}$ and $B=B_{\nu\nu'}$. There, $P_L$ reduces to traditional definition of polarization, $P_L=(D_{L\uparrow}-D_{L\downarrow})/(D_{L\uparrow}+D_{L\downarrow})$, where $D_{L\sigma}=\sum_{\nu'}\mathcal{A}_{L \sigma \nu'}(\epsilon_F)$. Defining a complex island polarization $P\equiv B/A$, one finds that $G_0=G_\phi D_L D_R |A|^2 (1+|P|^2)$, $G_m=2 G_0 \mathrm{Re}[P] P_L/(1+|P|^2)$, and $\Delta =2 (G_0/G_\phi) |P|^2/(1+|P|^2)$, where $D_L=(D_{L\uparrow}+D_{L\downarrow})/2$ and $D_R=\sum_{\nu}\mathcal{A}_{R \sigma \nu}^{(+)}(\epsilon_F)$ are the left-lead spin-averaged and right-lead densities of states.
In the limit of infinite $S$, magnetic fluctuations of island spin do not contribute to the current. Here, the inelastic term in Eq. (\[ietot\]) vanishes, while the elastic term reduces to the classical expression for current traversing an MTJ with fixed orientations of the magnetic leads, $I= (G_0+\eta G_m) V$, i.e. a linear dependence of $I$ on $V$ that depends on the island orientation through $\eta$.
At finite $S$, however, the current depends nonlinearly on the bias $V$ through the electron-hole functions $N_{\pm}$ and the magnon number $N$. The dependence of $G_m$ on $N=S-\langle \hat{S}_z \rangle/\hbar$ can be interpreted as a change in the magnetoconductance $\delta G_m=\left(-N/S\right)G_m$ due to the average misorientation of the fluctuating island spin away from left-lead polarization direction $\mathbf{z}$. At zero bias, the current vanishes if $N=N_+(0)=n_B(\hbar\Omega)\equiv N_0$, i.e. the magnons are in equilibrium with the electron-hole excitations in the leads. At finite bias, however, $N$ is driven out-of-equilibrium and depends on $V$. To obtain the full dependence of $I$ on $V$, then, we turn to spin-transfer and magnon dynamics.
Self-Consistent Spin Dynamics {#scsd}
=============================
In this section, we compute the bias dependence of the magnon occupation number in the steady-state, which is driven from equilibrium by the STT. The same inelastic scattering processes described above drive magnetic dynamics. [@Kozub:2007gv] The corresponding island spin dynamics can be captured by a simple rate equation for the magnon number: $$\hbar \dot{N}=-2\alpha_p \hbar \Omega \left(N-N_0 \right)+I_m\, ,$$ where $I_m$ is the rate of angular momentum transfer to the island spin from the leads. The damping coefficient $\alpha_p$ parametrizes coupling of the spin $\mathbf{S}$ to the lattice, which, in the absence of $I_m$, equilibrates $N$ to $N_0$. The spin current $I_m$ is obtained by calculating the rate of change of the $z$-component of angular momentum of the leads, $I_L^{(s)}=(\hbar/2)\sum_{\nu,\sigma\sigma'} \sigma^{z}_{\sigma\sigma'} \partial_t\langle \hat{a}_{\nu\sigma}^\dagger\hat{a}_{\nu\sigma'}\rangle$ and $I_R^{(s)}=(\hbar/2)\sum_{\nu,\sigma\sigma'}\sigma^{z}_{\sigma\sigma'} \partial_t \langle \hat{b}_{\nu\sigma}^\dagger\hat{b}_{\nu\sigma'}\rangle$, and exploiting conservation of total $z$-spin by $\mathcal{H}_T$, i.e. $I_m=-I_L^{(s)}-I_R^{(s)}$. One obtains again to second order: $$I_m=-2\alpha_e \hbar \Omega \left(N-N_+ \right)+2\alpha_e P_L\left(N_ -\hbar \Omega+N V \right)\, ,
\label{im}$$ where $\alpha_e=\Delta / S\pi$, so that electron fluctuations become increasingly important with decreasing junction size $\sim S$. The first term, $\propto N-N_+=(1+N_+)N-N_+(1+N)$, is the difference between the rate of electron-hole emission/magnon absorption ($\propto 1+N_+$) and the rate of magnon emission/electron-hole absorption ($\propto 1+N$), and is nonzero due to the noncancellation of the spontaneous magnon and electron-hole emission terms. At zero bias, the second term in Eq. (\[im\]) vanishes, leaving $\hbar \dot{N}=-2(\alpha_e+\alpha_p)\hbar\Omega(N-N_0)$; here the rate of change of the magnon occupation number is the difference between the emission rate due to driving by fluctuations of phonons and electron-holes in the leads, and the absorption rate corresponding to dissipation of the magnetic dynamics back into the leads and lattice.
. \[ns\]
In the steady-state ($\dot{N}=0$), the out-of-equilibrium magnon number is given by $N=N_s(V)$, with $$N_s(V)=\gamma N_0+\gamma \tilde{N}\, ,
\label{NsV}$$ which is plotted in Fig. \[ns\]. Here $\gamma =1/(1+V/V_c)$ and $\tilde{N}=(\alpha_e/\alpha_p)(N_+(V)-N_0-P_L N_-(V))/(1+\alpha_e/\alpha_p)$. The quantity $V_c=\eta(1+\alpha_p/\alpha_e)\hbar \Omega /eP_L$ is the voltage threshold for the so-called “swasing" instability;[@Berger:1996is] we restrict ourselves to biases $|V|<V_c$. The deviation of the magnon population away from the equilibrium value $N_0$ may interpreted as STT-induced alteration of the magnetic state of the island. The first term in Eq. (\[NsV\]) represents thermal fluctuations $N_0$ of $\mathbf{S}$, which are enhanced by a factor $\gamma$ by STT; when $P_L=0$, $V_c$ diverges, and this term no longer depends on $V$. The second term in Eq. (\[NsV\]), which vanishes at $V=0$, is an effective STT arising from inelastic electron-magnon scattering. This term survives at $P_L=0$, as impinging out-of-equilibrium electrons are known to depolarize spin even without a polarizing layer,[@Foros:2005fy] acting as an effective heating of the ferromagnetic island spin.[@Nunez:2008cz] In the limit of infinite $S$, one has $\alpha_e$ and therefore $V_c$ diverge, so $N_s(V)$ is fixed at $N_0$, and $\mathbf{S}$ is no longer altered by the STT.
According to Eq. (\[NsV\]), two types of temperature regimes for STT may be distinguished. At high temperatures where $N_0 \gg \tilde{N}$ so $N\approx \gamma N_0$, classical STT dominates, and $N$ depends $monotonically$ on $V/V_c$. Here, the bias dependence of $N$ thus arises from the STT-alteration of $thermal$ fluctuations of $\mathbf{S}$. At low temperatures where $N_0\ll \tilde{N}$, the classical interpretation of STT-enhanced thermal fluctuations of $\mathbf{S}$ no longer holds, and quantum STT dominates. Since $\tilde{N}/N_0\sim (\alpha_e/\alpha_p)/(1+\alpha_e/\alpha_p)\sim 1/(const+S)$, the classical-to-quantum transition occurs at lower temperatures for larger $S$, suggesting that such a quantum effect will manifest only in sufficiently small junctions or sufficiently low temperatures. Even as $T\rightarrow 0$, where $N_0=0$, the junction exhibits a nonlinear electrical response. This zero temperature, quantum STT can be understood as follows. Thermal fluctuations of $\mathbf{S}$ and electron-hole pairs within each lead freeze out. However, electron-hole pairs $across$ the junction, split by $V$, are available for inelastic magnon scattering (see schematic, right side of Fig. \[ns\]): because $n_{B}\left(\hbar \Omega\pm eV\right)=-\Theta \left( \mp e V-\hbar \Omega \right)$ at zero temperature, where $\Theta(x)$ is the step function, the electron-hole functions $N_{\pm}$ are nonzero when $e\left| V \right| >\hbar \Omega$. These pairs drive a nonequilibrium magnon population $\gamma \tilde{N}$, which can be interpreted as the generation of an effective nonzero magnon temperature.[@Nunez:2008cz]
Electrical response of MTJ {#elec_respons}
==========================
Let us summarize our key results: Eqs. (\[ietot\]), (\[ieparts\]) and (\[NsV\]). In order to obtain the full dependence of the current on voltage, we insert $N=N_s(V)$ into Eq. (\[ietot\]). Two effects give rise to a nonlinear relationship between $I$ and $V$: MAT (dependence of $I_i$ on $V$ via $N_\pm(V)$) and STT (dependence of $I$ on $V$ via the magnon distribution $N$). In an experiment, these effects may manifest as nonlinear features in, e.g., the electrical resistance $R=V/I$. In order to parse which effect dominates the nonlinearity in $R$ at a given temperature and bias, it is helpful to write the differential conductance $\mathcal{G}=dI/dV$ as: $$\mathcal{G}=G_0+\eta G_m+\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{MAT}}+\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{STT}}\, ,$$ where $\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{MAT}}\equiv \left. \partial_V I_i\right|_{N=N_s(V)}$ is the differential conductance arising from MAT and $\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{STT}}\equiv \left. \partial_N I \right|_{N=N_s(V)} \partial_V N_s(V) $ is the differential conductance STT. To isolate the *nonlinear* features, we consider the ratio $r\equiv \partial_V\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{STT}}/\partial_V\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{MAT}}$ [^1], which is plotted in Fig. \[nlin\]. The resistance $R$ at various temperatures is shown in Fig. \[resis\].
At low temperatures ($T\ll \hbar \Omega$) and biases ($e|V|\lesssim \hbar\Omega$), $r \ll 1$ (blue regions of Fig. \[nlin\]), and MAT dominates the dependence of the resistance $R=V/I$ on $V$. Here we find that for all orientations of the MTJ, i.e. both signs of $\eta$, MAT manifests as a *plateau* in the resistance[@Zhang:1997kx; @Han:2001er; @Lu:2003hv; @Balashov:2008ih] (see Fig. \[resis\]). Note that generally features of MAT due to macrospin fluctuations manifest on the bias scale $e|V|\sim \hbar \Omega$.
At high temperatures ($T \gtrsim \hbar \Omega$) and/or biases ($e|V| \gg \hbar \Omega$), $r \gg 1$ (red regions of Fig. \[nlin\]), and STT determines the nonlinear of behavior of $R$. The two STT temperature regimes, corresponding to classical STT ($N_0 \gg \tilde{N}$) and quantum STT ($\tilde{N} \gg N_0$), as discussed above, give rise to different behaviors of the resistance. At higher temperatures where $N\approx \gamma N_0$, the resistance depends $monotonically$ on $V$ through $\gamma$ near zero bias; at lower temperatures where $N\approx \gamma \tilde{N}$, the resistance, like $N$, shows an extremum (see inset, Fig. \[resis\]). The transition from a monotonic dependence of $R$ on $V$ reflects the change from classical spin fluctuations $\gamma N_0$, which are enhanced only for one direction of current, to $\gamma \tilde{N}$, which are enhanced for $either$ direction. Such a transition, from monotonically changing $R$ to extremum, is seen clearly in \[\]. For the parameters chosen in Fig. \[resis\], the classical-to-quantum occurs at a temperature near $T\sim\hbar \Omega$. Importantly, unlike the effect of MAT, which is observable in the range $e|V|\sim \hbar \Omega$, the STT extrema persist over an energy range $eV_c$ ($\gg \hbar \Omega$ for $P_L\ll 1$), due to $\gamma$. As with MAT, these features survive at zero-temperature.
It should be noted that the value of $S$, which can be assumed to scale with the junction size, also determines the regions in which classical STT, quantum STT and MAT dominate the nonlinear signal (see upper insets of Fig. \[nlin\]). The quantity $S_c\equiv \Delta/\pi \alpha_p$, defined so that $S/S_c =\alpha_p/\alpha_e$, provides a convenient reference value. For larger values of $S/S_c$, STT-driving of $N$ away from $N_0$ is increasingly suppressed, and MAT dominates over a wider range of biases and temperatures, with our results reducing to those of \[\] in those ranges. In addition, when $|V|$ is sufficiently large that STT dominates over MAT, the temperatures below which quantum STT dominates over classical STT (corresponding to $\tilde{N}<N_0$), decreases with increasing values of $S/S_c$, reflecting the suppression of quantum spin fluctuations. This helps to explain why quantum STT may be expected to play a significant role in the electrical properties of small (in the case of \[\], *nano*scale) MTJs.
The various parameters are readily estimated. Typical ferromagnetic resonance frequencies $\Omega \sim 10 \textrm{ GHz}$ $\sim 10^{-6} \textrm{eV}/\hbar$ corresponds to a crossover temperature of about $0.1 \textrm{ K}$. For external field strengths of $\sim 1\,T$, however, comparable to those used in \[\] and corresponding to resonance frequencies $\sim 100\textrm{ GHz}\sim 10^{-5} \textrm{eV}/\hbar$, the crossover temperature becomes $\sim 1 \textrm{ K}$, which can be further increased by decreasing $S$ (see upper right inset of Fig. \[nlin\]), decreasing $\alpha_p$ (thereby increasing $S_c$), or increasing the bias. Taking $G_0 \sim \Omega^{-1}$ and $P\sim 10^{-1}$, corresponds to $\Delta \sim 10^{6}$; for a conservative value $\alpha_p=10$, this corresponds to a reference spin $S_c \sim 10^5$.
We conclude this section with qualitative predictions for experiments. First, as both quantum STT and MAT depend on the functions $N_{\pm}(V)$, at low temperatures $T\ll \hbar \Omega$ the resistance is flat at biases below the magnon gap, $e|V| \leq \hbar \Omega$, as impinging electrons are not sufficiently energetic to excite magnons. Thus, we expect that at sufficiently large magnetic fields, the low-temperature resistance for biases $e|V|\leq \hbar \Omega$ should be flat for nanoscale junctions wherein the micromagnetic modes are gapped out and our macrospin model is valid. For the parameters in \[\], for example, this corresponds to a current range of $|I|<0.1$mA, which may be beyond the resolution of the experiment. Second, at low temperatures, one may determine whether MAT or STT dominates by changing the orientation of the magnetic junction. The zero-bias extrema in the resistance due to MAT are always plateaus in the resistance, whereas those due to quantum STT are valleys (plateaus) in the parallel (antiparallel) configuration[@Sun:2008ik; @Fuchs:tb; @Sankey:2007fg; @Manchon:2008we; @Zholud:2017ed] (see Fig. \[resis\]). This is to be expected, as inelastic scattering of electrons by magnons does not require a polarizer (scattering by phonons, for example, will show similar behavior), while the magnetoconductance clearly depends on the sign of $\eta$.
Conclusion and Discussion {#disc}
=========================
We have demonstrated how a combination of inelastic charge transport and STT generate a rich dependence of the resistance on voltage. In particular, we have shown how MAT and STT amplification of both equilibrium and nonequilibrium spin fluctuations driven by inelastic scattering can generate a low temperature nonlinear resistance similar to that observed experimentally [@Sun:2008ik; @Zholud:2017ed].
Future work may expand on our model. For simplicity, this model treats only one magnon mode, but in general, at high temperatures a spectrum of modes may contribute, enhancing the nonlinear features; if the spectrum is known, our model can be adapted accordingly by weighing the current, Eq. (\[ietot\]), by a density of states and integrating over magnon energy $\hbar \Omega$. The incorporation of higher energy ($>\hbar \Omega$), micromagnetic excitations extends the temperatures at which MAT can be studied.[@Zhang:1997kx] Joule heating, absent in our model, can generate thermal fluctuations of the spin, even if the ambient temperature is low; while such an effect is dismissed in \[\], it must be generally addressed. Furthermore, our theory is perturbative in the tunneling coefficients $A_{ \nu \nu'}$ and $B_{ \nu \nu'}$, and we neglect higher order terms in the tunneling coefficients,[@Mahfouzi:2014hu] which for small values lead to Kondo correlations at low temperatures. Absent in our model are also nonparabolic electronic band structure features of the normal metals, which can give rise to a nonlinear resistance. In the case when the island is physically separate from right lead, mesoscopic low-bias anomalies in spin-dependent transport [@Useinov:2017eg; @*Esmaeili:er] may result, which could obscure the magnetotransport features studied in this paper.
In addition, when $V$ approaches the swasing threshold, $N$ can become on the order of $S$, so that our expansion of the radical in Eq. (\[hp\]) breaks down, and a more careful treatment is required. While classical current-driven instabilities in MTJs have already been observed,[@Huai:2004bd; @Ralph:2008kj] it remains to be seen how fluctuations of the magnetic order modify charge transport for $V$ greater than $V_c$.
S.A.B. and R.D. are supported by funding from the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) and the European Research Council via Advanced Grant number 669442 “Insulatronics”. Y.T. is supported by NSF under Grant No. DMR-1742928.
[40]{}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 [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [“,” ](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Physics.10.135) () @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
[^1]: The quantity $\partial_V\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{MAT}}$ involves a term $\propto \partial_V N$, corresponding to an interplay of both STT and MAT; however, for small polarizations, $P_L\ll1$, this term is subdominant to other terms.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Nobuyuki KURITA$^{1,2}$[^1], Kentaro KITAGAWA$^{2,3}$, Kazuyuki MATSUBAYASHI$^{2,3}$, Ade KISMARAHARDJA$^{4}$, Eun-Sang CHOI$^4$, James S. BROOKS$^4$, Yoshiya UWATOKO$^{2,3}$, Shinya UJI$^{1,2,5}$, Taichi TERASHIMA$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Determination of the Upper Critical Field of a Single Crystal LiFeAs: The Magnetic Torque Study up to 35 Tesla'
---
Since the discovery of superconductivity in LaFeAs(O,F) with $T_\mathrm{c}$=26K[@Kamihara], a variety of related compounds containing FeAs-layers has been found to exhibit superconductivity[@review]. The parent compounds $R$FeAsO ($R$=rare earth, “1111" system) and $A$Fe$_2$As$_2$ ($A$=alkaline earth or Eu, “122" system) with the ZrCuSiAs- and ThCr$_2$Si$_2$-type structures, respectively, undergo antiferromagnetic and structural transitions. The transitions can be suppressed by several kinds of doping effects[@Kamihara; @Sefat2008; @Rotter2008b; @Sasmal2008; @Jiang_BaFe2AsP2] or application of pressure[@Alireza; @Matsubayashi; @Terashima], and $T_\mathrm{c}$ reaches $\sim$56K in some compounds[@Kito2008; @ZARen2008a; @Wang_56K]. The magnetic long range order usually competes with superconductivity, but the fluctuation likely plays a crucial role in the pairing mechanism of the Fe-based high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ systems. It is also of interest that, around the optimal condition where $T_\mathrm{c}$ shows its maximum, deviation from conventional Fermi-liquid behavior has been observed such as $\rho$$\sim$$T$[@Sm1111_NFL; @SrK122_NFL], anomalous Hall angle[@Sm1111_NFL], an enhancement of effective masses[@Shishido_dHvA] etc. These superconducting and normal-state features bear resemblance with those widely reported for strongly-correlated electron systems including cuprates and heavy fermion compounds.
The title compound LiFeAs, categorized into the “111" system with CeFeSi-type structure, has distinctive characteristics: (i) the stoichiometric superconductivity with $T_\mathrm{c}$ as high as $\sim$17K[@Wang_SSC], (ii) no experimental evidence for the magnetic/structural transitions[@Tapp_poly; @Pratt_muon], and (iii) single crystals with high quality (residual resistivity ratio up to 50).[@Song_APL; @imai;condmat] Therefore, LiFeAs provides a unique opportunity to probe the intrinsic properties of the Fe-based high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconductivity.
Up to now, there are few reports on systematic measurements of the upper critical field $B_\mathrm{c2}$ of Fe-based superconductors to address the issue of the pair-breaking mechanism. This is mainly due to the fact that high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconductors including Fe-based systems generally have extremely high $B_\mathrm{c2}$. In many cases, accordingly, the low-temperature behavior is extrapolated from the high temperature data around $T_\mathrm{c}$, which may lead to misleading conclusions. A precise determination of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ over a whole temperature range could provide important clues to the pair-breaking mechanism of high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconductivity.
Here, we present the first report on the whole temperature dependence of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ and its angular variation of a LiFeAs single crystal, using a magnetic torque technique with a 35T dc resistive magnet.
Single crystals LiFeAs were prepared from high-purity constituent elements in a ratio of Li:Fe:As=2:1:2 by a self-flux method.[@imai;condmat; @Sample]. The residual resistivity ratio is as high as 45, showing the high quality of the crystals. Temperature dependence of the dc magnetic susceptibility of LiFeAs was measured with an applied field $B_\mathrm{a}$ of 1mT for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$, in a Magnetic Property Measurement System (MPMS: Quantum Design) around $T_\mathrm{c}$. As displayed in the main panel of Fig. \[fig1\], the bulk superconductivity was confirmed from the clear diamagnetic transition below $T_\mathrm{c}$$\sim$16K with approximately 16% (97%) of the superconducting Meissner (shielding) volume fraction for (zero-)field-cooled process. A tiny piece taken from the same crystal was mounted on a piezoresistive microcantilever with a small amount of grease (see, inset photo of Fig. \[fig1\]), attached to a rotator probe, and inserted into a $^3$He cryostat (Heliox: Oxford). The angle $\theta$ is the angle between the applied field $B_\mathrm{a}$ and the $c$ axis: $\theta$=0$^{\circ}$ for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$ and $\theta$=90$^\circ$ for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$. The magnetic torque was measured with a water-cooled dc resistive magnet in fields up to 35T and at temperatures down to 0.3 K. Since the magnetic torque, proportional to $M$$\times$$B_\mathrm{a}$, is very small at $\theta$=0$^{\circ}$, the torque is measured at $\theta$=5$^{\circ}$ to improve the signal-noise ratio, which is specified as $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$. We confirmed that the difference of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ between the two angles is negligible from the angular dependence of $B_\mathrm{c2}$.
![(Color online) Magnetization divided by applied magnetic field, $M$/$B_\mathrm{a}$, vs $T$ of a single crystal LiFeAs around the transition temperature, $T_\mathrm{c}$, in a field of $B_\mathrm{a}$=1mT applied parallel to the $ab$ plane. Results measured in zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) processes are displayed. A tiny piece cleaved from the same crystal was mounted on a microcantilever for the magnetic torque measurement as shown in the inset photograph. The field angle $\theta$ is the angle between the $c$ axis and the applied magnetic field $B_\mathrm{a}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](16262Fig1.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig2\] shows the field dependence of the torque signals of LiFeAs up to 35T at fixed temperatures down to 0.3K for (a)$B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and (b)$B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$. One can see highly hysteretic behavior between the field-up and -down sweeps, which is more significant at low temperatures.[@TorqueSignal] The hysteresis of the torque response, the irreversible curve, appears in the superconducting mixed state when the pinning force is strong enough to trap the flux lines. In this study, we define the upper critical field $B_\mathrm{c2}$ as the field where the irreversibility disappears.[@Bc2] To accurately determine $B_\mathrm{c2}$ by minimizing a drift of the torque signals, we made the small-loop measurements around $B_\mathrm{c2}$ at each temperature, as shown by the dashed curves in (a) and (b) for $T$=0.3K, in addition to the large-loop ones between $B_\mathrm{a}$=0 and above $B_\mathrm{c2}$. The definition of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ is illustrated in the inset of Fig. \[fig2\](a), where the vertical axis represents the difference of torque signals between field-up and -down sweeps of a small loop. Note that the shapes of the small loops near $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$ are quite different. It could be possible that the pinning mechanism is different for the two field orientations, although the detail remains to be clarified.
![(Color online) Magnetic torque signals of LiFeAs as a function of $B_\mathrm{a}$ at various temperatures down to 0.3K for (a) $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and (b) $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$ (inset: magnified view). The solid curves represent the data obtained in field-up and -down sweeps between $B_\mathrm{a}$=0 and above $B_\mathrm{c2}$, where the arrows indicate the sweep directions. Small-loop measurements around $B_\mathrm{c2}$, as shown by the dashed curves at $T$=0.3K, were performed at each temperature. In this study, $B_\mathrm{c2}$ was defined as the field where the difference between field-up and -down signals in a small loop becomes zero within experimental error as illustrated in the inset of (a). []{data-label="fig2"}](16262Fig2.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig3\] displays thus determined $B_\mathrm{c2}$ of LiFeAs as a function of $T$ for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$. The $B_\mathrm{c2}$ curves are consistent with the results obtained by specific heat ($C$), ac-susceptibility ($\chi_\mathrm{ac}$), and $^{75}$As nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements using samples of the same batch[@MK], and are qualitatively similar to other results[@Lee_LiFeAs; @Heyer_LiFeAs]. As indicated by the dashed curves, the data can be well fitted using a Werthamer-Helfand-Hohenberg (WHH) formula containing the spin-paramagnetic and orbital pair-breaking effects[@WHH1966]. The fits give the Maki parameter $\alpha$=2.30 and 0.75 for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$, respectively, where $T_\mathrm{c}$=15.5K is fixed[@Tc]. Because the torque signal, $\propto$$M$$\times$$B_\mathrm{a}$, diminishes at low fields, it is difficult to unambiguously determine the initial slope d$B_\mathrm{c2}$/d$T|_{T=T_\mathrm{c}}$. Instead, the values of d$B_\mathrm{c2}$/d$T|_{T=T_\mathrm{c}}$ are estimated to be 4.43 and 1.44T/K for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$, respectively, from the relation $\alpha$=$-$0.52$\mathrm{d}B_\mathrm{c2}/\mathrm{d}T|_{T=T_\mathrm{c}}$. These values are comparable to those obtained from ac-$\chi$.[@MK] The orbital critical fields $B_\mathrm{c2}^*$ at $T$=0 are estimated to be 47.2 and 15.3T for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$, respectively, from a dirty limit formula $B_\mathrm{c2}^*$(0)=0.69$T_\mathrm{c}$$\mathrm{d}H_\mathrm{c2}/\mathrm{d}T|_{T=T_\mathrm{c}}$.[@WHH1966] The Pauli-Clogston paramagnetic limit $B_\mathrm{po}$=1.84$T_\mathrm{c}$[@CClimit1] is 28.5T. The Ginzburg-Landau (GL) coherence length $\xi$ is obtained to be $\xi_{ab}$=4.64nm and $\xi_c$=1.50nm, using $B_\mathrm{c2}^{*\,ab}(0)$=$\mathrm{\Phi}_0$/2$\pi\xi_{ab}(0)\xi_{c}$(0) and $B_\mathrm{c2}^{*\,c}(0)$=$\mathrm{\Phi}_0$/2$\pi\xi_{ab}(0)^2$, where $\mathrm{\Phi}_0$=2$\pi\hbar$/2$e$=2.07$\times$10$^{-15}$Tm$^2$ is the flux quantum. At $T$=$T_\mathrm{c}$, the anisotropy of the effective masses, $m^*_{ab}$/$m^*_{c}$, is about 0.11, using $B_\mathrm{c2}^{*\,ab}$/$B_\mathrm{c2}^{*\,c}$=($m_{c}^*$/$m_{ab}^*$)$^{0.5}$. These superconducting parameters are summarized in the Table I, together with those of a stoichiometric superconductor KFe$_2$As$_2$,[@K122] for comparison.
![(Color online)$B_\mathrm{c2}$ vs $T$ of LiFeAs for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$. The dashed curves indicate fits to the data based on the WHH theory (see text). For comparison, data deduced from $C$, $\chi_\mathrm{ac}$, and $^{75}$As-NMR measurements are shown[@MK]. The inset shows the $T$-dependence of the anisotropy parameter $\Gamma$=$B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$/$B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$. The data at $T_\mathrm{c}$ () is obtained from the WHH fit.[]{data-label="fig3"}](16262Fig3.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
----------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------- -- -------------------- -------------------
$B$$\parallel$$ab$ $B$$\parallel$$c$ $B$$\parallel$$ab$ $B$$\parallel$$c$
$\alpha$ 2.30 0.75 2.30 0.340
$\lambda_\mathrm{so}$ 0.51 $\infty$ 0.36 $\infty$
$T_\mathrm{c}$(K)
$-$$\frac{dB_\mathrm{c2}}{dT}|_{T_\mathrm{c}}$(T/K) 4.43 1.44 3.8 0.71
$B_\mathrm{c2}$$(\mathrm{0.3\,K})$(T) 26.4 15.5 4.40 1.25
$B_\mathrm{c2}^*$(0)(T) 47.2 15.3 8.44 1.25
$B_\mathrm{po}$(T)
$\xi$(nm) 4.64 1.50 16.3 2.45
----------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------- -- -------------------- -------------------
: Superconducting parameters of LiFeAs and KFe$_2$As$_2$[@K122], for comparison, obtained from the WHH fits; $\alpha$: Maki parameter, $\lambda_\mathrm{so}$: Spin-orbit scattering parameter, $B_\mathrm{c2}^*$: Orbital critical field, $B_\mathrm{po}$: Paramagnetic critical field, $\xi$: GL coherence length.[]{data-label="t1"}
It is interesting to note that $B_\mathrm{c2}^{*\,c}(0)$$<$$B_\mathrm{po}$$<$$B_\mathrm{c2}^{*\,ab}(0)$. This relation results in the orbitally limited $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$, as indicated by $\lambda_\mathrm{so}^c$=$\infty$, and strongly spin-paramagnetically limited $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$, as indicated by that $B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$(0.3K)$\ll$$B_\mathrm{c2}^{*\,ab}$(0), and effectively reduces the $B_\mathrm{c2}$ anisotropy at low temperatures. A similar trend, namely the trend that the weaker orbital effect for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ is partly compensated for by the spin-paramagnetic effect to yield a reduced anisotropy, is clearly seen in a stoichiometric superconductor KFe$_2$As$_2$ with low $T_\mathrm{c}$ of 2.8K[@K122] (see, Table I), as well as in the high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ systems including (Ba,K)Fe$_2$As$_2$[@Yuan_BaK122; @Altarawneh_BaK122], Ba(Fe,Co)$_2$As$_2$[@BaFeCo2As2_Yamamoto; @Kano], and “11"-type Fe(Se,Te)[@Fang_FeSe; @Khim_FeSe; @Kida_FeSe; @Klein_FeSe].
![(Color online) (a) Torque signals of LiFeAs as a function of $B_\mathrm{a}$ at 0.3K for several angles $\theta$, where $\theta$=0 and 90$^{\circ}$ correspond to $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$ and $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$, respectively. (b) $\theta$-dependence of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ determined at $T$=0.3K. The solid curve is a fit by a GL formula (see text). []{data-label="fig4"}](16262Fig4.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig4\] shows (a) the torque signals vs $B_\mathrm{a}$ at 0.3K for several angles, $\theta$, and (b) $B_\mathrm{c2}$ vs $\theta$ at 0.3K. The solid curve in Fig. \[fig4\](b) is a fit to the $B_\mathrm{c2}(\theta)$ data using a Ginzburg-Landau (GL) formula,[@Decroux1966] $B_\mathrm{c2}(\theta)$=$B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$/(cos$^2$$\theta$+$\Gamma^{-2}$sin$^2$$\theta$)$^{0.5}$. The fit yields $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$=16.3T and $\Gamma$=1.63. Note that the GL formula is based on the orbital effect whereas the spin-paramagnetic effect is crucial for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ in the present case. The quality of the fit is therefore rather limited as indicated by the deviations of the data points from the fit curve. The inset of Fig. \[fig3\] shows the $T$-dependence of the anisotropy parameter $\Gamma$, defined as $\Gamma$=$B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$/$B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$. As temperature decreases, $\Gamma$ decreases from $\Gamma$=3.1 at $T_\mathrm{c}$ (from the WHH fit). At 0.3K, $B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$=26.4T and $B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$=15.5T, which give $\Gamma$=1.7. The low-temperature variation of $\Gamma$ is similar to those observed in the “122" and “11" systems[@Yuan_BaK122; @Altarawneh_BaK122; @BaFeCo2As2_Yamamoto; @Kano; @Fang_FeSe; @Khim_FeSe; @Kida_FeSe; @Klein_FeSe], but the value of $\Gamma$ in LiFeAs is slightly larger. In the “122" and “11" systems, $\Gamma$=2$\sim$3 at $T_\mathrm{c}$ and $\Gamma$ appears to approach $\sim$1 at 0K[@Yuan_BaK122; @Altarawneh_BaK122; @BaFeCo2As2_Yamamoto; @Kano; @Fang_FeSe; @Khim_FeSe; @Kida_FeSe; @Klein_FeSe]. This is markedly different from the results reported for the “1111" system. In NdFeAs(O,F), for example, $\Gamma$ is 9.2 at $T_\mathrm{c}$[@Jaroszynski_1111] (no report for $\Gamma$ as $T \rightarrow 0$ because of the large $B_\mathrm{c2}$). The larger value of $\Gamma$ in the “1111" system can be ascribed to the more two-dimensional Fermi surface structures than those in the “111", “122" and “11" systems, as expected from band structure calculations[@Singh_LDA]. Similarly, the slightly larger $\Gamma$ of LiFeAs than those of the “122" and “11" systems might be due to the more two-dimensionality of LiFeAs[@Singh_LDA]. In KFe$_2$As$_2$, however, there is an exceptionally large anisotropy ($\Gamma$=6.8 at $T_\mathrm{c}$, see Table I) for the “122" system[@K122], which is, on the other hand, in accord with the large resistivity anisotropy $\rho_{c}/\rho_{ab}$$\sim$40[@K122]. In contrast, $\rho_{c}/\rho_{ab}$ is reported to be as small as 3.3 in LiFeAs, and 2$\sim$5 in Ba(Fe,Co)$_2$As$_2$[@Tanatar_PRB].
To conclude, we have performed high-field magnetic torque measurements of a LiFeAs single crystal up to 35T, and determined the $T$- and $\theta$-dependence of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ down to 0.3K. The anisotropy parameter $\Gamma$=$B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}/B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$ is slightly larger than typical values found in the “122" and “11" systems, but is still small, indicating quasi-isotropic superconductivity. Its temperature dependence is similar to those observed in the “122" and “11" systems. The detailed analyses show that, while $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$c$ is limited by the orbital effect, the weaker orbital effect for $B_\mathrm{a}$$\parallel$$ab$ due to the mass anisotropy is partly compensated for by the spin-paramagnetic effect leading to a reduced anisotropy at low temperatures.
We would like to thank M. Imai for the experimental supports, and M. Takigawa for the useful discussion. The magnetic torque measurements were performed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which is supported by National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-0654118, the State of Florida, and the U.S. Department of Energy. A. K. was supported by NSF-DMR 0602859
[9]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , and : **** () .
For recent reviews, see, K. Ishida, Y. Nakai, and H. Hosono: **** () ; D. C. Johnston, arXiv:1005.4392, and references therein.
, , and : **** () .
K. Sasmal, B. Lv, B. Lorenz, A. M. Guloy, F. Chen, Y.-Y. Xue, and C.-W. Chu: Phys. Rev. Lett. **** (2008) 107007.
A. S. Sefat, R. Jin, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, D. J. Singh, and D. Mandrus: Phys. Rev. Lett. **** (2008) 117004.
S. Jiang, H. Xing, G. Xuan, C. Wang, Z. Ren, C. Feng, J. Dai, Z. Xu, and G. Cao: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **** (2009) 382203.
P. L. Alireza, J. Gillett, Y. T. Chris Ko, S. E. Sebastian, and G. G. Lonzarich: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **** (2008) 012208.
K. Matsubayashi, N. Katayama, K. Ohgushi, A. Yamada, K. Munakata, T. Matsumoto, and Y. Uwatoko: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, (2009) 073706.
T. Terashima, M. Kimata, H. Satsukawa, A. Harada, K. Hazama, S. Uji, H. S. Suzuki, T. Matsumoto, and K. Murata: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, (2009) 083701; T. Terashima, M. Tomita, M. Kimata, H. Satsukawa, A. Harada, K. Hazama, S. Uji, H. S. Suzuki, T. Matsumoto, and K. Murata: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, (2009) 118001.
H. Kito, H. Eisaki, and A. Iyo: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, (2008) 063707.
, , , , , , , , , , and : **** () .
C. Wang, L. Li, S. Chi, Z. Zhu, Z. Ren, Y. Li, Y. Wang, X. Lin, Y. Luo, S. Jiang, X. Xu, G. Cao and Z. Xu: Europhys. Lett. **** (2008) 67006.
R. H. Liu, G. Wu, T. Wu, D. F. Fang, H. Chen, S. Y. Li, K. Liu, Y. L. Xie, X. F. Wang, R. L. Yang, L. Ding, C. He, D. L. Feng, and X. H. Chen: Phys. Rev. Lett. **** (2008) 087001.
M. Gooch, B. Lv, B. Lorenz, A. M. Guloy, and C.-W. Chu: Phys. Rev. B **** (2009) 104504.
H. Shishido, A. F. Bangura, A. I. Coldea, S. Tonegawa, K. Hashimoto, S. Kasahara, P. M. C. Rourke, H. Ikeda, T. Terashima, R. Settai, Y. Ōnuki, D. Vignolles, C. Proust, B. Vignolle, A. McCollam, Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and A. Carrington: Phys. Rev. Lett. **** (1962) 057008.
X. C. Wang, Q. Q. Liu, Y. X. Lv, W. B. Gao, L. X. Yang, R. C. Yu, F. Y. Li, and C. Q. Jin: Solid State Commun. **** (2008) 538.
J. H. Tapp, Z. Tang, B. Lv, K. Sasmal, B. Lorenz, P. C. W. Chu, and A. M. Guloy: Phys. Rev. **** (2008) 060505.
F. L. Pratt, P. J. Baker, S. J. Blundell, T. Lancaster, H. J. Lewtas, P. Adamson, M. J. Pitcher, D. R. Parker, and S. J. Clarke: Phys. Rev. **** (2009) 052508.
Y. J. Song, J. S. Ghim, B. H. Min, Y. S. Kwon, M. H. Jung, and J.-S. Rhyee: Appl. Phys. Lett. **** (2010) 212508.
Y. Imai, H. Takahashi, K. Kitagawa, K. Matsubayashi, N. Nakai, Y. Nagai, Y. Uwatoko, M. Machida, and A. Maeda, arXiv:1009.4628.
All preparative procedures were performed in a glove box filled with purified Ar gas. Until the sample was mounted on the cantilever, it had been kept in argon atmosphere or in a vacuum desiccator. A torque signal of 1 in the units of the vertical axis in Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig4\] corresponds to a 4% change in the piezoresistance. Since the linear response region of the cantilever is limited, typically below a few percentage of the resistance change, the shapes of hysteresis loops with large torque, e.g., one at $\theta$=60$^\circ$ (0.3K) in Fig. \[fig4\](a), may be distorted.
The field defined here is, indeed, the irreversibility field, but we can safely assume that it is practically identical to $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for this compound, which assumption is justified by the fact that thus determined $B_\mathrm{c2}$ values are in good agreement with those determined from heat capacity and NMR measurements (see Fig. \[fig3\]).
K. Matsubayashi and K. Kitagawa, private communications.
B. Lee, S. Khim, J. S. Kim, G. R. Stewart, and K. H. Kim: Europhys. Lett. **** (2010) 67002.
O. Heyer, T. Lorenz, V.B. Zabolotnyy, D.V. Evtushinsky, S.V. Borisenko, I. Morozov, L. Harnagea, S. Wurmehl, C. Hess, and B. Buechner: arXiv:1010.2876.
, , and : **** () .
The WHH fit with $T_\mathrm{c}$ being a parameter yields $T_\mathrm{c}$=15.7 and 15.2K for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$, respectively. In this study, the average value of 15.5K is used as $T_\mathrm{c}$ of LiFeAs.
B. S. Chandrasekhar: Appl. Phys. Lett. **** (1962) 7. A. M. Clogston: Phys. Rev. Lett. **** (1962) 266.
T. Terashima, M. Kimata, H. Satsukawa, A. Harada, K. Hazama, S. Uji, H. Harima, G.-F. Chen, J.-L. Luo, and N.-L. Wang: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **** (2009) 063702.
H. Q. Yuan, J. Singleton, F. F. Balakirev, S. A. Baily, G. F. Chen, J. L. Luo, and N. L. Wang: Nature **** (2009) 565.
M. M. Altarawneh, K. Collar, C. H. Mielke, N. Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, and P. C. Canfield: Phys. Rev. **** (2008) 220505.
M. Kano, Y. Kohama, D. Graf, F. F. Balakirev, A. S. Sefat, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, D. Mandrus, and S. W. Tozer: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **** (2009) 084719.
A. Yamamoto, J. Jaroszynski, C. Tarantini, L. Balicas, J. Jiang, A. Gurevich, D. C. Larbalestier, R. Jin, A. S. Sefat, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, D. K. Christen, and D. Mandrus: Appl. Phys. Lett. **** (2009) 062511
M. Fang, J. Yang, F. F. Balakirev, Y. Kohama, J. Singleton, B. Qian, Z. Q. Mao, H. Wang, and H. Q. Yuan: Phys. Rev. [**B 81**]{} (2010) 020509(R).
S. Khim, J. W. Kim, E. S. Choi, Y. Bang, M. Nohara, H. Takagi, and K. H. Kim: Phys. Rev. [**B 81**]{} (2010) 184511.
T. Kida, M. Kotani, Y. Mizuguchi, Y. Takano, and M. Hagiwara: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**79**]{} (2010) 074706.
T. Klein, D. Braithwaite, A. Demuer, W. Knafo, G. Lapertot, C. Marcenat, P. Rodieere, I. Sheikin, P. Strobel, A. Sulpice, and P. Toulemonde: arXiv:1010.0493.
M. Decroux and $\O$. Fischer: Superconductivity in Ternary Compounds II, ed. M. B. Maple and $\O$. Fischer (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982) Chap. 3.
J. Jaroszynski, F. Hunte, L. Balicas, Y.-J. Jo, I. Raicević, A. Gurevich, D. C. Larbalestier, F. F. Balakirev, L. Fang, P. Cheng, Y. Jia, and H. H. Wen: Phys. Rev. **** (2008) 174523.
D. J. Singh: Phys. Rev. **** (2008) 094511.
M. A. Tanatar, N. Ni, C. Martin, R. T. Gordon, H. Kim, V. G. Kogan, G. D. Samolyuk, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, and R. Prozorov: Phys. Rev. [**B 79**]{} (2009) 094507.
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
epsf
**Mixmaster quantum cosmology**
**in terms of physical dynamics**
Seth Major and Lee Smolin
*Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry*
*The Pennsylvania State University*
*University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802-6360 U.S.A.*
July 5, 1996
**Abstract**
An approach to quantum cosmology, relying on strengths of both canonical and path integral formalisms, is applied to the cosmological model, Bianchi type IX. Physical quantum states are constructed on the maximal slice of the cosmological history. A path integral is derived which evolves observables off the maximal slice. This result is compared a path integral propagator derived earlier with conventional Faddeev-Poppov gauge fixing.
Introduction
============
Previously, we suggested a new approach to the quantum description of cosmology [@SMLS]. Relying on the strengths of both canonical and path integral methods, this “composite approach” to quantization offers a real possibility of calculating physical observables for cosmological models. The idea is to define the physical observables and inner product of the canonical theory and then use them to construct a path integral which evolves these physical observables. In the companion paper, we presented a path integral quantization of the cosmological model Bianchi type IX using Faddeev-Poppov techniques familiar from gauge theory. Here, we carry out this composite approach for the model cosmology Bianchi type IX and compare our result to that found previously [@SMLS].
One of the great difficulties in the canonical quantization of gravity is that, to find the physical quantities in a gauge invariant formalism, it is essentially necessary to solve the theory. However, as pointed out by Vince Moncrief during a discussion three years ago at Santa Barbara, there are cases in which we can identify physical observables and define their algebra. For example, in spatially compact cosmological models, we can define the physical observables to be the metric and extrinsic curvatures of the maximal slice, on which the trace of the extrinsic curvature vanishes. As the metric and extrinsic curvature evaluated there label solutions uniquely, they coordinatize the physical phase space. Moreover, the Poisson brackets are the naive ones, evaluated on that surface.
Alternatively, physical observables can be defined by a complete gauge fixing of the theory. At the classical level, the two procedures must agree. However, in the quantum theory, it is not obvious that either of these procedures must lead to a good quantum theory. Nor is it obvious that they will lead to the same quantum theory. Our main goal in this work is to examine and compare the quantum theories that follow from each of these procedures, for the Bianchi type IX model. In each case we construct the path integral formulation of the quantum theory from the associated canonical theory. We compare the resulting path integrals with each other as well as with the expressions we previously found using the Faddeev-Poppov procedure.
We work with the Bianchi type IX cosmological model because it is the simplest model that is, as far as is known, not solvable in closed form. This means that, although the configuration space is two dimensional, it shares with the real theory the property that we know of no procedure to explicitly construct the solutions of the theory. The model describes a cosmological family with homogeneous but anisotropic spatial slices. These anisotropies are the two dynamical degrees of freedom. The model has been studied extensively, especially since Misner expressed the dynamics as single particle mechanics in a time dependent potential [@MTW; @BK]. A key property, which we shall exploit, is that all of this model’s classical histories recollapse [@LIN]. Recently, quantizations of Bianchi type IX have been proposed by Kodama [@KOD] (see also [@MR]), Grahm [@GRA], and Marolf [@DM].
The paper begins with a quick review of the phase space of this model. Once the maximal slice is determined we present the physical quantization and path integral. The third section offers a comparison with our earlier work. The paper finishes with discussion in Section 4.
We present the derivation in “geometrized units,” in which $G = c = 1$.
Summary of the classical theory
===============================
We consider class A Bianchi type IX models which describe anisotropic, homogeneous solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations.[^1] In Misner’s chart on the phase space of Bianchi type IX the spatial metric is given by [@MTW] $$h_{ij} = e^{2\alpha}\left( e^{2\beta} \right)_{ij}$$ where $\beta^{ij}$ is diagonal and traceless matrix parameterized by diag$\left(\beta^+ + \sqrt{3} \beta^- , \beta^+ - \sqrt{3} \beta^-,
-2 \beta^+ \right)$ and $\alpha$ is the scale factor of the cosmology. As $\beta^{ij}$ is traceless, the scale factor for the cosmology, $\alpha$, is related to the volume through $\sqrt{h} = e^{3\alpha}$. The action for the model Bianchi type IX in this chart is [@MTW] $$I = \int p_+ d\beta^+ + p_- d\beta^- + p_\alpha d\alpha
- \sqrt{ { 3 \pi \over 2}} N e^{-3\alpha} {\cal H} dt
\label{theaction}$$ in which $ {\cal H} = {1 \over 2} \left( - p_\alpha ^2 + p_+ ^2 + p_- ^2
+e^{4\alpha} {\cal U} (\beta^\pm) \right)$.[^2] The triangularly shaped potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal U}(\beta^\pm) &= &{1 \over 3} e^{-8 \beta^+}
- {4 \over 3} e^{-2 \beta^+}
\cosh (2 \sqrt{3} \beta^-)
\nonumber \\
&& +
{2 \over 3} e^{4\beta^+} \left (\cosh (4 \sqrt{3} \beta^-) -1 \right ).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, mixmaster dynamics may be seen as the dynamics of a single particle in a time dependent potential. The action of Eq. (\[theaction\]) can be expressed by fixing the lapse, $N$, so that $ N = \sqrt{ {2 \over 3 \pi}} \exp(3 \alpha)$. This allows us to write [@MTW], $$I = \int p_+ d \beta^+ + p_- d \beta^- + p_\alpha d\alpha - {\cal H} d \lambda.
\label{theaction2}$$ This action must be supplemented with the condition $ {\cal H} = 0$. For a fixed value of this potential, the walls contract as the scale factor increases to the maximum volume slice. After this slice, the walls of the potential, for a fixed value, recede back from the center.
To implement the proposed quantization of the theory, we need to determine the slice with vanishing extrinsic curvature. Since all Bianchi type IX classical histories end in recollapse [@LIN], we can always identify this slice. The physical degrees of freedom are simply the two anisotropies, $\beta^+$ and $\beta^-$. In addition, on this slice the volume is maximal. Since $\sqrt{h} = e^{3\alpha}$, to find this maximum volume slice, we must maximize $\alpha$. From the action of Eq. (\[theaction2\]) we find, $$\dot{\alpha}= \{ \alpha, {\cal H} \} = - p_\alpha;$$ so that the volume is extremized (for finite volume) when $p_\alpha$ vanishes. To find the maximum, note that $$\ddot{\alpha} |_{\dot{\alpha}=0} = 3 \pi N^2 e^{\alpha}
{\cal U} (\beta^\pm)$$ giving the maximum volume, $e^{3 \tilde{\alpha}}$, when the potential is less than zero. This defines an open region $ \cal R $, $ {\cal R} := \{\beta^\pm : {\cal U} (\beta^\pm) < 0 \} $ shown in Fig. 1. This region is finite [@DM].
The kinematical phase space, $\bar{\Gamma}$, is $R^6$ coordinatized by $(\alpha, \beta^+ , \beta^- )$ and conjugate momenta $(p_\alpha, p_+ , p_- )$. The physical phase space $\Gamma$ is a four dimensional submanifold of $\bar{\Gamma}$, which is defined as the quotient of $\bar{\Gamma}$ by the solution space of ${\cal H}=0$. We see that $$\Gamma = T^\ast{\cal R}$$ coordinatized by $\beta^\pm \in {\cal R}$ and $p_\pm$.
The coordinates of $\Gamma$ correspond to the metric and extrinsic curvature of solutions on the unique maximal slice $p_\alpha=0$. The quantities ${\cal O } = \{ \alpha , \beta^\pm , p_\pm \}$ on a slice, say $p_\alpha = \tau$, could be found by integrating the solutions from $p_\alpha =0$ to $p_\alpha =\tau$ using the Hamilton’s equation of motion (See, for example, [@carlo-time]). We will denote this set of physical observables ${\cal O} (\tau )$. As all solutions end in singularities in some finite time, the ${\cal O } (\tau )$ are only defined on a subspace of $\Gamma$ corresponding to data on the surface $p_\alpha =0$ which specifies non-singular solutions.
For example, let us consider the observable for volume of the universe, on the slice where $p_\alpha =\tau $, found by solving the Hamiltonian constraint $$V(\tau ) = e^{3\alpha (\tau )} = \left[
{ p_+(\tau )^2 + p_-(\tau)^2 - \tau^2 \over
-{\cal U}(\beta^\pm (\tau ))}
\right]^{3 \over 4}.$$ As each of the factors is a complicated function on $\Gamma$, the explicit form of this can can only be found by integration of the equation $$\{ V(p_\alpha ) , {\cal H} \} =0$$ on the kinematical phase space $\bar{\Gamma}$ with the initial condition, $$V(0) = \left (
{ p_+^2 + p_-^2 \over
-{\cal U}(\beta^\pm) }
\right )^{3 \over 4},$$ i.e. one must essentially solve the theory. At each $\tau$ the subspace $\bar{\Gamma} (\tau)$ defined by $V(\tau ) >0$ is the domain on which the ${\cal O}(\tau )$ are defined. That the physical observables are only defined on subspaces of $\bar{\Gamma}$ is a new feature of cosmology that raises questions such as whether is the Poisson bracket of these functions always defined. Of great interest is the extent to which this causes problems for the quantum theory, in either a canonical or a path integral formalism.
Maximal slice canonical quantum theory
======================================
We first quantize the physical phase space $\Gamma = T^\ast{\cal R}$. Since the physical configuration variables, $(\beta^+, \beta^-) \in
{\cal R}$, and the conjugate momenta, $(p_+, p_-) \in R^2$, are coordinates on the classical phase space, take $C^\infty_0$ functions as wavefunctions in the Hilbert space. The quantum theory is built from the configuration operators $\hat{\beta}^\pm_0$, which act by multiplication, and the momentum operators $\hat{p}_\pm^0$ which act by differentiation $\hat{p}^0_\pm = -i \hbar \partial_\pm$ on the wavefunctions. These operators correspond to measurements of the corresponding quantities defined on the slice $p_\alpha =0$. Hence the subscript and superscript “$0$.”
We have the inner product, $$\left\langle \chi | \xi \right\rangle = \int\limits_{\cal R} d^2\beta^\pm_0 \;
\overline{\chi(\beta^\pm_0)} \; \xi(\beta^\pm_0).$$ If the wavefunctions vanish on the boundary of ${ \cal R}$ then $\hat{\beta}^\pm_0$ and $\hat{p}_\pm^0$ are Hermitian in this inner product.
Before considering the problem of observables at times other than $p_\alpha =0$, it is interesting to study the operator that measures the volume on maximal slice. As this is a property of solutions, it is a physical observable, but as it is a function of data on the maximal slice it can be exhibited explicitly. It is convenient to consider the $4/3$ power of the volume, which by Eq. (8) is $${V}^{4/3} = { {p}_+^2 + {p}_-^2 \over (- | {\cal U} | )} \equiv q^{ij}
{p}_i {p}_j,$$ written in terms of a metric defined by $q^{++} = q^{--} = 1/ (-|{\cal U }|)$. This is non-singular in the interior but blows up on the boundary of $\cal R$. Quantum mechanically, we want to represent ${V}^{4/3}$ as an hermitian operator. This can be done by representing it as the Laplace-Beltrami operator for the metric $q_{ij}$ on the region $\cal R$. We thus defined the corresponding operator to be $$\hat{V}^{4/3} = q^{-1/4} \hat{p}_i q^{ij} q^{1/2} \hat{p}_j q^{-1/4}.$$ We note that the form of the inner product Eq. (11) may be interpreted to mean that the states are half-densities on ${\cal R}$.
As this is a hermitian operator acting on a finite area, we conjecture that the volume has a discrete spectra with finite degeneracy. [^3] This is a familiar result of one dimensional quantum mechanics.
Evolution in gauge invariant quantization
=========================================
In principle, the entire physical quantum theory is contained in the states and operators on the physical Hilbert space. However, to make predictions we need to find observables ${\cal O}^I (\tau )$ for nonzero $\tau$. If we were able to do so, all the physical information would be contained in $N$-time correlation functions of the form $$\langle \beta^\pm_f |\hat{\cal O}^{1} (\tau_1) \dots
\hat{\cal O}^{N} (\tau_N)
|\beta^\pm_i \rangle.$$ The problem is how to construct these operators given that we have neither their classical counterparts in closed form nor the proper subsets of $\Gamma$. As an example of such an operator, consider an operator $\hat{V}(\tau )$ corresponding to the volume of the universe on the slice where $p_\alpha =\tau $. There are two approaches to this problem:
(1.) In some appropriate approximation procedure, solve Eqs. (9) and (10) (or the appropriate equations for other observables) in the classical theory, and then, term by term in the approximation, define an ordering prescription which realizes the classical expression as a well-defined quantum mechanical operator. (We may note the approximation procedure must be able to keep track consistently of the regions of definition $\Gamma (\tau )$ which satisfy $\Gamma (\tau_1 ) \in \Gamma (\tau_2 )$ for $\tau_2 > \tau_1$.)
(2.) Evolve the operators quantum mechanically. As we have defined the quantum theory only for the physical observables, there is no operator that corresponds to ${\cal H}$; we don’t have the quantum mechanical analogue of Eq. (9). We can associate a non-vanishing Hamiltonian to evolution in a physically meaningful time variable, and then use that to define an evolution operator. In the classical theory, this is straightforward.
In the classical phase space, the Hamiltonian which evolves physical variables in $p_\alpha $ is the conjugate quantity $\alpha$, which is a time ( $p_\alpha = \tau$) dependent functional on $\Gamma$. This is given by $$h (\tau ) \equiv \alpha (\tau ) = {1 \over 4}\ln \left[
p_+(\tau )^2 + p_-(\tau)^2 - \tau^2 \over
-|{\cal U}(\beta^\pm)|
\right].$$ On $\bar{\Gamma}$, this satisfies $\{ h(\tau ) , p_\alpha \} =1$, so that it generates evolution in $p_\alpha$ on the constraint surface. We could construct an evolution operator in the physical Hilbert space if we could find the corresponding quantum operator. However, this is not easy as we do not know the operators $\hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau )$ and $\hat{p}_\pm (\tau )$; these themselves are supposed to be found by evolution. In some operator ordering, we would have to find operator solutions to the coupled operator equations, $$\hat{h} (\tau ) = {1 \over 4}\ln \left[
\hat{p}_+(\tau )^2 + \hat{p}_-(\tau)^2 - \tau^2 \over
-|{\cal U}(\hat{\beta}^\pm)|
\right]$$ and $${d \hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau ) \over d\tau} =
[\hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau ) , \hat{h} (\tau ) ]$$ $${d \hat{p}_\pm (\tau ) \over d\tau} =
[ \hat{p}_\pm (\tau ) , \hat{h} (\tau ) ].$$
Needless to say, as the theory cannot be solved at the classical level, this requires some approximation procedure. There are also other issues associated with operator ordering ambiguities such as whether quantum observables should be hermitian, given that each classical universe has a finite lifetime. For, if we find a hermitian ordering for $\hat{h}(\tau)$ then we ought to be able to evolve an arbitrary quantum state to arbitrarily large times. Given that these practical and conceptual difficulties face any attempt to proceed with this program, we turn to another approach to representing evolution based on the path integral.
Path integral representation of physical evolution
==================================================
Path integration provides a practical resolution for these problems. While the observables ${\cal O} (\tau )$ cannot be written in closed form on the phase space, they could be computed by summing over histories. That is, as a computer averages the effective action over an ensemble of paths generated by some statistical procedure, it can simply go to the points on the path where $p_\alpha =\tau$ and then tabulate the other observables at those events. In this way, averages such as Eq. (14) could be evaluated numerically, with an ensemble of paths with appropriate weights or measure. We study one such procedure in which the path integral measure may be derived from the physical quantum theory. In this way, the complementary strengths of the two approaches may be exploited, for a practical approach to calculating physical observables non-perturbatively in quantum cosmology.
To construct the path integral corresponding to the matrix element $$\langle \beta^\pm_f | {\cal O} (\tau_N ) ...{\cal O} (\tau_1 )
| \beta^\pm_i \rangle$$ where $\tau_f > \tau_I > \tau_i$; $I=1,2,3, \dots, N$, we express the states in terms of physical states, elements of ${\cal L}^2 ({\cal R})$. These are the time evolved kets $$| \beta_f^\pm \, \tau_f \rangle = \hat{U}(\tau_i , \tau_f ) |\beta_i^\pm
\, \tau_i \rangle$$ where $\hat{U}(\tau_i , \tau_f )$ is the operator for evolution $\tau$. We derive a path integral expression for Eq.(19) in terms of a quantum effective action $S=\int_{\tau_{i}}^{\tau_{f}}L$, a measure factor $\mu$, and ranges of integration, $$\langle \beta^\pm_f | {\cal O} (\tau_N ) ...{\cal O} (\tau_1 )
| \beta^\pm_i \rangle =
{1 \over { \cal N}} \int \left[ d^2\beta d^2 p \mu(\beta,p) \right]
{\cal O} (\tau_N ) ...{\cal O} (\tau_1)
e^{(i/ \hbar) S}$$ where the ${\cal O} (\tau_I )$ are the classical expressions, expressed as the value of each observable ${\cal O}$ on the path at the points $p_\alpha =\tau $, and $${ \cal N} =\int \left[ d^2\beta d^2 p \mu(\beta,p) ]
\right]e^{(i/ \hbar) S_q}$$ (The brackets a notational device to indicate a factor of $1/2\pi$ for each differential.) To do this we must first find a path integral expression for $\hat{U}(\tau_f, \tau_i )$. The hamiltonian that corresponds to the choice $\tau = p_\alpha$ \[given in Eq. (16)\], may be expressed as $$\hat{h}(\tau) = {1 \over 4}
\left[\ln \left({ \tau^2 \over -|{\cal U}(\hat{\beta}^\pm)|}
\right )
+ \ln \left( { - \hat{p}_+^2 - \hat{p}_-^2 \over \tau^2} +1 \right) \right].$$ The evolution operator is expressed in terms of the corresponding operator as $$\hat{U}(0,\tau) = T\exp\left[ {-i \over \hbar} \int_0^\tau \hat{h}(\tau')
d\tau' \right].$$ Without the form of $\hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau )$ and $\hat{p}_\pm (\tau )$, we do have the Hamiltonian $\hat{h}(\tau )$ for finite $\tau$ as an operator on the physical Hilbert space. To construct the path integral we make some conjectures about these operators and their spectra. These assumptions cannot be justified directly in the absence of further information about the solutions to Eqs. (16), (17), and (18), but they may be plausible in the light that the resulting path integral agrees with that constructed by the standard method of gauge fixed quantization. We assume that there exist simultaneous operator solutions to Eqs.(16), (17), and (18) such that they are all hermitian operators. As a result time evolution is unitary, so that the $\hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau )$ and $\hat{p}_\pm (\tau )$ satisfy equal time commutation relations, $[\hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau ),\hat{p}_{\pm^\prime } (\tau )]=
\delta_{\pm \pm^\prime}$. In this case, for each $\tau$, there must be a complete basis of states made from eigenstates of $\hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau )$, $$1= \int_{{\cal R}(\tau )} d \beta^\pm \, |\beta^\pm (\tau ) \rangle
\langle \beta^\pm (\tau ) |$$ where the range of the integral, ${\cal R}(\tau )$, is the range of the spectra of the operators $\hat{\beta}^\pm (\tau )$. In the absence of a construction of the operators, we do not know this range, but we would like to argue that it is the whole of $R^2$. In the classical theory we have, from the Hamiltonian constraint, $${\cal U} (\beta^\pm ) < \tau^2 e^{-4 \alpha}.$$ At $\tau=0$, this restricts $\beta^\pm $ to the region $\cal R = {\cal R}(0)$, However, there are initial classical configurations for all values of $p_\alpha$; this means that for small $\tau$, the left hand side can be arbitrarily large, which means that there is no limit on how large the anisotropies $\beta^\pm$ can be at any finite $\tau$. As a result, if the theory is to have a good classical limit it seems likely that the spectra must be unbounded.
Similarly, we assume that there is a complete set of states $$1= \int_{R^2} d^2 \beta \, |p_\pm (\tau ) \rangle \langle p_\pm (\tau ) |.$$ Given all these assumptions we may deduce $$\langle p_\pm (\tau ) |\beta^\pm (\tau ) \rangle =
e^{\imath (\beta^+p_+ + \beta^-p_- )}.$$ We use standard techniques to construct the path integral. Inserting complete sets of states in the usual convenient ways, we evaluate $$h(\tau ) = \langle \beta^\pm (\tau )| \hat{h}(\tau )|p_\pm (\tau ) \rangle
= {1 \over 4} \left [
\ln \left({ \tau^2 \over - |{\cal U}(\beta^\pm )| } \right )
+ \ln \left( { - {p}_+^2 - {p}_-^2 \over \tau^2} +1 \right) \right]$$ to find that, $$\hat{U}(0,\tau) = \int\left[
d^2\beta^\pm d^2p_\pm \right] \exp \left[
{ i \over \hbar} \int\limits_0^\tau
p_+ \dot{\beta^+} + p_- \dot{\beta^-} - h(p_\pm,\beta^\pm, \tau) d\tau
\right].$$ where the ranges of the integrals are, given our assumptions, unbounded. Comparing to Eq. (21), we then see that in these coordinates the measure is trivial, the integration regions are unbounded and the effective lagrangian is given simply by $L = p_+ \dot{\beta^+} + p_- \dot{\beta^-} - h(p_\pm,\beta^\pm, \tau)$.
Scale factor time
=================
To compare this result to the earlier derivation we’ll change from an extrinsic curvature time gauge to a gauge related to the volume ($\tau = \ln \sqrt{h} = \alpha$). Geometrically, the measure transfers from one slice to another along the orbits of the gauge transformation. Unlike $p_\alpha$, $\alpha$ is not monotonic on the whole history of the cosmology. When the gauge transformation is made we will choose which half of the history to consider. Expanding the phase space to include time and the Hamiltonian, so that $$\hat{U}(0,\tau) = \int \left[ d^2\beta^\pm d^2p_\pm d\alpha dp_\alpha
\delta\left( \tau - p_\alpha \right) \delta\left( \alpha - h(\tau) \right)
\right] \exp \left[ {i\over\hbar} \int p_+\dot{\beta^+}
+ p_-\dot{\beta^-} + p_\alpha \dot{\alpha} d\tau \right]. \label{prop1}$$ The new gauge, $\tau=\alpha$, may be introduced as $$1= \Delta_\alpha \int d\lambda \; \delta\left(\tau - \alpha^\lambda \right)$$ where $\alpha^\lambda$ is the gauge transformed $\alpha$. Under small gauge transformations, $$\alpha^\lambda = \alpha + \lambda\{\alpha,{ \cal H}\} + O(\lambda^2).$$ Thus, $\Delta_\alpha = |\{ \alpha, {\cal H} \}| = |p_\alpha|$. Finally, we express the delta function involving $\alpha$ in terms of the Hamiltonian constraint as $\delta\left( \alpha - h(\tau) \right)=
\delta({\cal H}) |\{{\cal H},p_\alpha\}|$. Inserting these identities into the propagator of Eq. (\[prop1\]) gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(0,\tau) &=&
\int \left[ d^2\beta^\pm d^2p_\pm d\alpha dp_\alpha d\lambda
\delta\left( \tau - p_\alpha \right) \delta\left( {\cal H} \right)
\delta\left( \tau - \alpha^\lambda \right)
|\{ \alpha, {\cal H} \}| |\{{\cal H},p_\alpha\}|
\right] \nonumber \\
& & \times \exp \left[ {i\over\hbar} \int p_+\dot{\beta^+} + p_-\dot{\beta^-}
+ p_\alpha \dot{\alpha} d\tau \right].\end{aligned}$$ Observe that, as before with the new time choice, the extrinsic time choice satisfies $$1 = \Delta_{p_\alpha} \int d\lambda \delta \left(\tau - p_\alpha^\lambda
\right).$$ By explicitly changing gauge one can check that $\Delta_{p_\alpha}$ is gauge independent and equals $|\{{\cal H},p_\alpha\}|$ (for small gauge transformations). Performing an inverse gauge transformation to change gauge we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(0,\tau) & = &
\int \left[ d^2\beta^\pm d^2p_\pm d\alpha dp_\alpha d\lambda
\delta\left( \tau - p_\alpha^{\lambda^{-1}} \right)
\delta\left( {\cal H} \right) \delta\left( \tau - \alpha^\lambda \right)
|\{{\cal H},\alpha\}| \Delta_{p_\alpha}
\right] \nonumber \\
& & {} \times \exp \left[ {i\over\hbar}\int p_+\dot{\beta^+}
+ p_-\dot{\beta^-}
+ p_\alpha \dot{\alpha} d\tau \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Performing the integration over the gauge parameter, allowing a delta to eat up the integration over $\alpha$, and exponentiating the Hamiltonian constraint we find, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(0,\tau) & = & \int \left[d^2\beta^\pm d^2p_\pm dp_\alpha |p_\alpha| dN
\right] \nonumber \\
& & \times \exp \left[ {i\over\hbar} \int\limits_0^\tau p_+ \dot{\beta^+}
+ p_- \dot{\beta^-} + p_\alpha - N { \cal H} d\tau \right]
\label{prop2}\end{aligned}$$ the propagator in the physical phase space. This is the path integral for the canonical ADM Hamiltonian under the choice $\tau = \alpha$. With this choice the Hamiltonian is given by $-p_\alpha$ (the last term in Eq. (\[prop2\])) and the lagrange multiplier or lapse is determined so that $\dot{\alpha} =1$. The propagator of Eq. (\[prop2\]) can be integrated to a path integral in the phase space $\bar{\Gamma}$; as in [@SMLS] the integration over $p_\alpha$ may be performed yielding $$\hat{U}(0, \tau) = \int\limits_{\bar{\Gamma}} \left[ d^2\beta^\pm d^2p_\pm
{dN \over N } \right]
\exp \left[ { i \over \hbar } \int\limits_0^\tau p_+ \dot{\beta^+}
+ p_- \dot{\beta^-} - NH d\tau \right]$$ with $H=\left[ p_+^2 + p_-^2 + e^{4\alpha} { \cal U}(\beta^\pm)
\right]^{1/2}$. This can be directly compared with the propagator in Section III of [@SMLS]. These propagators are identical up to a measure factor $\mu(\beta^\pm)$. There is a simple reason for this: in the previous paper [@SMLS] we began with a path integral which included an integration over all the components of the frame fields and connections, where as here we specified the theory in Eqs. (1-4) directly in terms of diagonal gauge. Thus, the path integral in [@SMLS] has an additional factor in the measure that came from the gauge fixing down to diagonal gauge. That factor is non-trivial, as can be seen directly from Eq. (40) of [@SMLS]. Had we begun the treatment of [@SMLS] with the model defined in diagonal gauge, the results would have been identical to those found here. We conclude that the definition of the path integral depends on the point at which the reduced theory is taken to define the quantum theory; reduction does not commute with quantization.
This measure factor is not relevant for the main question of interest here, which is whether this “composite” approach for defining the physical theory leads in the end to the same path integral as did the Faddeev-Poppov ansatz. The answer is that, at least in this case, if one starts from the same model, they are the same.
Conclusions
===========
We have implemented this new approach to quantum cosmology in the restricted, but non-trivial, case of the Bianchi type IX model. By first, identifying the physical degrees of freedom on a slice and then evolving physical observables off this slice by a sum over histories approach, we have shown how it is possible to learn physics without “solving the theory.” We hope that this method will aid calculation of observables in other models and even the full theory. Given the physical theory on one slice, physical observables could be computed numerically.
This work suggests several directions for further study. While the technology appears robust enough to handle the non-linear behavior of Bianchi type IX, it would be interesting if a full quantization could be carried out for one of the more simple Bianchi cosmological models. This composite approach also holds some hope for numerical work in that operators at arbitrary times may be found by computing the propagator for the cosmology. Expressed in terms of a path integral, this could be the basis for a numerical approach to quantum cosmology that has a physical interpretation grounded in the canonical theory.
[99]{}
S. Major and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D [ **51** ]{}, 5475 (1995).
C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. [**186**]{}, 1319 (1969), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**22**]{}, 1071 (1969), or see C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973), pp. 806-814.
V. Belinski, I. Khalatnikov, and E. Lifshitz, Adv. Phys. [**19** ]{} 525-73 (1973).
X. Lin and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 2444 (1990).
H. Kodama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 80, 1024 (1987) and Phys. Rev. D 42, 2548 (1990).
V. Moncrief and M. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{} 2375 (1991).
R. Graham, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1381 (1991).
D. Marolf, Class. Quant. Grav. [ **12**]{}, 1441-1454 (1995).
J. B. Hartle, K. V. Kuchar, Phys. Rev. D [34]{}, 2323 (1986).
C. Rovelli, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 2638 (1991); [**43**]{}, 442 (1991); in [*Conceptual Problems of Quantum Gravity*]{} ed. A. Ashtekar and J. Stachel, (Birkhauser,Boston,1991).
[^1]: The classification of Bianchi models concerns the irreducible parts of the structure constants of the isometry Lie group. Writing the structure constants in terms of these pieces, $C^I_{JK} = \epsilon_{JKL}S^{LI} + \delta^I_{[J} V_{K]}$, class A models are those for which $V_I=0$.
[^2]: Note that in the literature one often finds written $V(\beta_\pm ) := {\cal U} (\beta_\pm) +1$. This is convenient because $V(\beta_\pm)$ is positive definite, however what is important to remember is that the actual potential ${ \cal U} (\beta_\pm$) is bounded from below by $-1$.
[^3]: This is delicate. On the boundaries of the non-compact region the metric factors, $1/ -|{\cal U }|$, diverge. The wavefunctions, interpreted as half-densities, must fall-off faster than the potential.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA02139'
- ' ( 7 October 1997 ) '
-
author:
- 'Jan Brinckmann and Patrick A. Lee'
title: 'Spin susceptibility and the $\pi$-excitation in underdoped cuprates.'
---
\#1[ to 10pt [ ]{} to 7pt [ ]{} ]{} The spin-triplet particle–particle excitation (‘$\pi$-excitation’) $$\displaystyle \widehat{\pi}^\dagger =
\sum_k (\cos(k_x) - \cos(k_y) )
c^\dagger_{-k\uparrow} c^\dagger_{k + q\,\uparrow}$$ at wave vector $q=(\pi,\pi)$ has been introduced in [@dem95] as a possible explanation for the ‘41meV resonance’ observed in neutron scattering on cuprates in the superconducting state (see e.g. [@fon95; @bou96]). It has been argued that $\widehat{\pi}^\dagger$ is an approximate collective eigenmode of the t–J or Hubbard model. The coupling of spin-triplet particle–particle excited states and spin-singlet particle–hole states in the superconducting phase then should lead to a resonance in the susceptibility $\chi_\pi''(\omega)$ at $q=(\pi,\pi)$ at the energy $\omega_0$ of this $\pi$-mode.
We compare the susceptibility and the propagator of the $\pi$-excitation in a slave-boson theory for a wide range of hole concentrations (doping). Both calculated spectra $\chi_\pi''$ and $\pi''$ show a pronounced resonance at the same energy $\omega_0$, which is roughly given by the chemical potential $\mu$ as $\omega_0 \approx
2|\mu|$. The outcome is in qualitative agreement with the aforementioned prediction and with recent numerical [@mei97pre; @eder97pre] and diagrammatic calculations [@zha97private]. However, our interpretation differs from that originally envisioned in [@dem95]: The diagrammatic spin-triplet particle–particle channel does not contribute as a collective mode to $\chi_\pi''$ or $\pi''$. In underdoped systems not far from the transition to the N[é]{}el state, the resonance is solely caused by the ‘RPA channel’, which describes spin fluctuations mediated through spin-singlet particle–hole excitations of fermions.
The ‘$\pi$-propagator’ is given as $$\label{equ-piprop}
\displaystyle \pi(\omega)=
\langle {\cal T}_\tau \,
\widehat{\pi}(\tau)
\widehat{\pi}^\dagger(\tau')
\rangle^\omega \;\,.$$ We start from the t–J-model and consider a Gutzwiller-projected $\pi$-propagator, Eq. (\[equ-piprop\]) with $\widehat{\pi} \to P_G \widehat{\pi} P_G$. The calculations for $\pi(\omega)$ as well as the susceptibility $\chi_\pi(\omega)$ are performed within the standard slave-boson scheme. Diagrammatic expressions are based on a self-consistent perturbation theory with self energies taken at Hartree-Fock (mean-field) level. We consider the superconducting state at very low temperature, i.e., the d-wave pairing phase of fermions and fully condensed bosons. The t-matrix approximation for $\chi_\pi(\omega)$ and $\pi(\omega)$ are indicated in Figs. \[fig-chi\] and \[fig-pipi\] respectively.
The susceptibility is given by the vertex-renormalized mean-field bubbles displayed in Fig.\[fig-chi\]a, which are to be inserted into $$\label{equ-rpa}
\chi_\pi(\omega) =
\widehat{\chi}_\pi(\omega) /
[ 1 - 2J \widehat{\chi}_\pi(\omega) ] \;\,.$$ Eq.(\[equ-rpa\]) represents the particle–hole RPA channel (random phase approximation).
The single and double arrowed lines in Fig. \[fig-chi\] stand for the normal and pairing Green’s functions of auxiliary fermions. The dashed line in Fig.\[fig-chi\]b is the t–J-model’s spin and density interaction for fermions on two nearest neighbor lattice sites $i,j$, $$\label{equ-inter}
J \sum_{<i,j>}[ {\boldmath S}_i {\boldmath S}_j - \frac{1}{4}n_i n_j ]$$ with $n_i = \sum_\sigma f^\dagger_\sigma f_\sigma$.
The vertex corrections entering $\widehat{\chi}_\pi$ consist of the spin-singlet particle-hole ($ph$) ladder diagrams shown in Fig.\[fig-chi\]b. The double arrowed (anomalous) Green’s function introduces the $ph$ channel in both time directions. In general it also allows for a coupling of the spin-triplet particle-particle ($pp$) channel into the singlet $ph$ correlation function $\chi_\pi$ by transforming e.g. a spin-up fermion into a spin-down hole and vice versa. However, the $pp$ channel would appear in $\chi_\pi$ as a vertex-function, involving at least one interaction vertex Eq. (\[equ-inter\]) with equal spin on both sites, which is zero [@basand97pre]. This reflects the fact that Pauli’s principle blocks any exchange process $\sim J=4 t^2 / U$ for particles with equal spin in the Hubbard model. Thus the $pp$ channel contributes no spectral weight to $\chi_\pi$. This also holds if the $pp$ channel is ‘artificially’ switched on by replacing $n_i n_j$ in Eq.(\[equ-inter\]) with $g\,n_i n_j$ and turning $g=1 \to g=0$: Recent numerical cluster calculations for the t–J-model [@eder97pre] show that $\chi''$ is not affected by varying the coefficient of the density–density interaction. In the following we stick to the case $g=1$.
Numerical calculations in the t-matrix approximation are performed with mean-field parameters set to reflect a fermion bandwidth of $4 J$ and a superconducting gap $\Delta_0 = 40\mbox{\,meV} \approx 0.3
J$. As has already been observed in earlier RPA calculations [@fuk95], an instability to the N[é]{}el state occurs at an unphysically high hole concentration (doping) $x_c$. Since the vertex corrections of the t-matrix approximation turn out to have no significant effect, we assume a further renormalization of $J \to \alpha J$ in Eq.(\[equ-rpa\]). We have chosen $\alpha = 0.5$ such that $x_c$ is reduced to $\approx 0.02$.
Results for $\chi_\pi''(\omega)$ are shown in Fig. \[fig-tmat\](top) as continuous curves for several hole densities in the underdoped regime. The dominant feature is apparently a sharp and strongly doping dependent resonance. Its position $\omega_0$ shifts from $\approx 0$ at the magnetic instability ($x= x_c= 0.02$) to higher energies with increased doping, crossing the anticipated value $40\mbox{\,meV} \approx
0.3J$ around $x= x_m = 0.12$. $\omega_0$ is for $x>x_c$ roughly given by the chemical potential $\mu$ as $\approx 2|\mu|$. This shift of the resonance with hole concentration is found in neutron scattering experiments on optimal [@fon95; @bou96] and underdoped YBCO-compounds [@dai96; @fon97]. The ‘optimal’ doping $x_m\approx 0.12$ found here also compares to experimental values. However, the spectral weight $\int d^2q\,\chi''(q,\omega) /
\int d^2q$ comes out too small with respect to the experiment [@bou97pre].
The resonance is caused by the spin-fluctuation RPA channel Eq.(\[equ-rpa\]): For comparison, dashed curves in Fig. \[fig-tmat\] (top) show the results for $\widehat{\chi}_\pi''(\omega)$, i.e., the renormalized bubble diagrams in Fig. \[fig-chi\]a. The position of the doping dependent peak here is bound from below by $\approx 2\Delta_0 = 0.6J$, even for lowest doping. The contribution from the $ph$ vertex corrections is quite small, $\widehat{\chi}_\pi''$ differs only slightly from the well known mean-field susceptibility.
The results for the susceptibility may be compared to the $\pi$-propagator Eq. (\[equ-piprop\]). In slave-particle formulation, with bosons completely condensed at very low temperature, it reads $\displaystyle \pi(\omega) = x^2\, \pi_f(\omega)$. The prefactor $x^2$ is the (mean-field) probability of finding two empty lattice sites when adding a spin-triplet pair of particles. The $\pi$-propagator for fermions $\pi_f(\omega)$ appearing here is formally identical to Eq. (\[equ-piprop\]), its t-matrix approximation is displayed in Fig. \[fig-pipi\]. According to the discussion given above, the triplet $pp$ channel may contribute only as the mean-field bubble (1st diagram). The singlet $ph$ channel appears in vertex renormalizations in the 2nd and 3rd diagram. The 3rd diagram contains the contribution from the RPA channel via $\widetilde{ J}(q,\omega) / 2 =
\frac{1}{2} J(q) + \frac{1}{4}J(q) \chi(q,\omega) J(q)$, indicated as a double dashed line in Fig. \[fig-pipi\].
The resulting spectrum $\pi_f''(\omega)$ in the underdoped regime is shown in Fig. \[fig-tmat\] (bottom) for the same set of parameters and hole densities $x$ as the susceptibility. Continuous lines correspond to the t-matrix approximation, dashed lines are calculated with the 3rd diagram in Fig. \[fig-pipi\] (the coupling to the RPA channel) ignored. Again, the effect of the vertex corrections is negligible, the dashed curves differ only slightly from the mean-field theory (given by the 1st diagram in Fig. \[fig-pipi\]). Apparently $\pi''$ shows a pronounced peak which occurs at exactly the same position as the resonance in $\chi_\pi''$, if the same approximation is used for both quantities. As has been pointed out, the spin-fluctuation (RPA) channel has to be taken into account in the underdoped regime $|\mu| <
\Delta_0$, where the system is not far from the instability to the N[é]{}el state, and the RPA dominates $\chi_\pi''$. In this case the peak in $\pi''$ is entirely caused by the coupling to spin fluctuations through $\widetilde{ J}$. Note that its spectral weight decreases with reduced $x$, and vanishes at the transition to the N[é]{}el state ($x=x_c\approx 0.02$).
The picture changes in a highly overdoped situation $|\mu|\gg\Delta_0$: Fig.\[fig-hdope\] shows curves for a large chemical potential $\mu = -J$ (the breakdown of superconductivity in favor of the fermi-liquid state $\Delta_0=0$ is ignored for the moment). The peaks in $\chi_\pi''$ and $\pi''$ still occur at the same position $\approx 2|\mu|$, but the RPA induces only a slight shift, besides an enhancement of $\chi_\pi''$. In the normal state $\Delta_0=0$ the resonance in $\chi_\pi''$ vanishes, whereas the peak in $\pi''$ remains as a delta function , $ \pi''(\omega) \sim x^2 \delta(\omega + 2\mu)$, as has also been observed in numerical calculations on highly doped clusters (referenced in [@zharesponse]). In contrary to the low doping region, the highly overdoped regime $|\mu|\gg\Delta_0$ is well described by mean-field theory.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} Discussions with W. Hanke and S.C. Zhang are gratefully acknowledged. One of the authors (JB) acknowledges a fellowship from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany.
[10]{}
E. Demler and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4126 (1995).
H. F. Fong [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 316 (1995).
P. Bourges, L. P. Regnault, L. Sidis, and C. Vettier, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 876 (1996).
S. Meixner, W. Hanke, E. Demler, and S. C. Zhang, (1997), preprint (e-print [cond-mat/9701217]{}).
R. Eder, W. Hanke, and S. C. Zhang, (1997), preprint (e-print [ cond-mat/9707233]{}).
S. C. Zhang, (1997), in preparation.
G. Baskaran and P. W. Anderson, (1997), preprint (e-print [ cond-mat/9706076]{}).
H. Fukuyama, H. Kohno, and T. Tanamoto, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**95**]{}, 309 (1995).
P. Dai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 5425 (1996).
H. F. Fong, B. Keimer, D. L. Milius, and I. A. Aksay, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **78**]{}, 713 (1997).
P. Bourges [*et al.*]{}, (1997), preprint (e-print [cond-mat/9704073]{}).
E. Demler, S. C. Zhang, S. Meixner, and W. Hanke, (1997), preprint (e-print [cond-mat/9705191]{}).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper provides sharp lower estimates near the origin for the functional calculus $F(-uA)$ of a generator $A$ of an operator semigroup defined on the (strictly) positive real line; here $F$ is given as the Laplace transform of a measure or distribution. The results are linked to the existence of an identity element or an exhaustive sequence of idempotents in the Banach algebra generated by the semigroup. Both the quasinilpotent and non-quasinilpotent cases are considered, and sharp results are proved extending many in the literature.'
author:
- 'I. Chalendar[^1], J. Esterle[^2] and J.R. Partington[^3]'
title: Lower estimates near the origin for functional calculus on operator semigroups
---
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mathematics Subject Classification</span> (2000): Primary: 47D03, 46J40, 46H30 Secondary: 30A42, 47A60
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Keywords</span>: strongly continuous semigroup, functional calculus, Laplace transform, maximum principle.
Introduction
============
This article is concerned with estimates for $F(-uA)$ where $A$ is the generator of a strongly continuous semigroup $(T(t))_{t>0}$ on a Banach space. Here $F$ is an entire function with $F(0)=0$, given as the Laplace transform of a measure or distribution; the functional calculus defining $F(-uA)$ is given by means of an integral.
This can be seen as providing a wide generalization of results in [@BCEP; @EM; @kalton], for example, where quantities such as $\|T(t)-T(2t)\|$ (or its spectral radius) are estimated near the origin. For example, if $\|T(t)-T(2t)\|<1/4$ on an interval $(0,t_0)$, then, roughly speaking, $(T(t))_{t>0}$ has a bounded infinitesimal generator (see [@BCEP]).
There are two cases to consider, namely, the quasinilpotent and non-quasinilpotent cases, and the techniques used are based on strong maximum principles for analytic functions.\
In Section \[sec:2\], the case of quasinilpotent semigroups is considered. Then in Section \[sec:3\] the non-quasinilpotent case is analysed, providing conditions to obtain either an identity in the closed algebra generated by the semigroup or else an exhaustive sequence $(P_n)_{n \ge 1}$ of idempotents such that $(P_nT(t))_{t}$ has a bounded generator. Here, the sharpness of the estimates is shown in Remark \[rem:sharp\].\
[**Notation:**]{}
We write ${{\mathbb C}}_+= \{z \in {{\mathbb C}}: {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}z > 0\}$, and similarly for ${{\mathbb C}}_-$.
Let $D(a,R)$ denote the complex disc $\{|z-a| < R\}$.
For a Jordan curve $\Gamma \subset {{\mathbb C}}$, we write ${\mathop{\rm int}\nolimits}\Gamma$ (the interior of $\Gamma$) for the open set of points in ${{\mathbb C}}$ about which the winding number of $\Gamma$ is non-zero.
For $S \subset {{\mathbb C}}$ let $M_c(S)$ denote the space of regular Borel measures having compact support contained in $S$.
Quasinilpotent semigroups {#sec:2}
=========================
Suppose that $(T(t))_{t>0}$ is a nontrivial strongly continuous semigroup of quasinilpotent operators acting on a Banach space $({{\mathcal X}},\|.\|)$. Then we write ${{\mathcal X}}_0=\left[ \bigcup_{t>0} T(t){{\mathcal X}}\right]^{-\|.\|}$ (closure in norm), and define a norm $$\|x\|_1 = \sup_{t \ge 0} \|T(t) x\|, \qquad \hbox{where} \quad T(0)x=x,$$ on the subspace $ {{\mathcal X}}_1:= \{ x \in {{\mathcal X}}_0: \|x\|_1 < \infty\}$, which is a Banach space under the norm $\|.\|_1$. Further, we write \[eq:xtilde\] [[X]{}]{}\_1:= \^[-.\_1]{} [[X]{}]{}\_1.
The following result follows immediately from the main result of [@feller53]. It will be used to reduce the case of a quasinilpotent semigroup to that of a contractive quasinilpotent semigroup.
\[thm:feller\] Let $(T(t))_{t>0}$ be a nontrivial strongly continuous semigroup of quasinilpotent operators acting on a Banach space $({{\mathcal X}},\|.\|)$. Then with $(\widetilde {{\mathcal X}}_1,\|.\|_1)$ defined as in (\[eq:xtilde\]) the semigroup $(T(t)_{| \widetilde {{\mathcal X}}_1})_{t>0}$ is a strongly continuous semigroup of quasinilpotent contractions. Moreover for all operators $R$ in the commutant $\{T(t): t>0\}'$ we have $\|R_{| \widetilde {{\mathcal X}}_1}\|_1 \le \|R\|$.
Some complex function theory
----------------------------
\[thm:Jordan\] Let $f: \overline{{{\mathbb C}}_+} \to {{\mathbb C}}$ be a continuous bounded nonconstant function, holomorphic on ${{\mathbb C}}_+$, such that $f([0,\infty)) \subset {{\mathbb R}}$, $f(0)=0$, and with $\lim_{ { x \to \infty},{x \in {{\mathbb R}}}} f(x)=0$.
Suppose that $\alpha > 0$ is such that $f(\alpha) \ge |f(x)| $ for all $x \in [0,\infty)$. Then there exist $a_1,a_2 \in {{\mathbb C}}_+$, $a_0 \in (\alpha,a_1)$ and $a_3 \in i{{\mathbb R}}$ with ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}a_j > 0$ for $j=1,2,3$, and ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}a_2={\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}a_3$, and a simple piecewise linear Jordan curve $\Gamma_1$ joining $a_1$ to $a_2$ in the upper right half-plane $\{z \in {{\mathbb C}}: {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}z>0, {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}z >0\}$ and $\delta > 0$ such that
\(i) $|f(z)| \ge f(\alpha) + \delta |z-\alpha|^m$ for all $z \in [\alpha,a_1]$, where $m$ (even) is the smallest positive integer with $f^{(m)}(\alpha) \ne 0$;
\(ii) $|f(z)| > |f(a_0)|$ for all $z \in \Gamma_1 \cup [a_2,a_3]$.
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}Since $f$ is holomorphic in ${{\mathbb C}}_+$, we have, by Taylor’s theorem, constants $M>0$ and $\eta>0$ such that $$\left | f(z)-f(\alpha)-\frac{(z-\alpha)^m}{m!} f^{(m)}(\alpha) \right | \le M |z-\alpha|^{m+1},$$ whenever $|z-\alpha| < \eta$. By choosing $a_1$ with $|a_1-\alpha|$ sufficiently small and with argument such that $(a_1-\alpha)^m<0$ (e.g. $\arg(a_1-\alpha)=\pi/m$), we have condition (i) and hence $|f(a_1)| > |f(\alpha)|= f(\alpha)$; we may then choose a point $a_0 \in [\alpha,a_1]$ with $$|f(\alpha)| < |f(a_0)| < |f(a_1)|.$$
Let $U= \{z \in {{\mathbb C}}_+: |f(z)| > |f(a_0)| \}$. Since $a_1 \in U$, this is a nonempty open set; we let $V$ denote the connected component of $U$ containing $a_1$.
We claim that $\partial V \cap i{{\mathbb R}}\ne \emptyset$. Indeed, note that if $z \in \partial V \cap {{\mathbb C}}_+$, then $|f(z)| \le |f(a_0)|$, as otherwise if $|f(z)| > |f(a_0)|$, then by the continuity of $|f|$ a neighbourhood of $z$ is contained in $V$. But we cannot have $|f(z)| \le |f(a_0)|$ on the whole of $\partial V$, as then by the strong maximum principle (see, e.g. [@lieb-loss Thm. 9.4]) this inequality would hold for all $z \in V$ including $a_1$.
So there exists $a_3 \in \partial V \cap i{{\mathbb R}}$ with ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}a_3 > 0$ and $|f(a_3)| > |f(a_0)|$. By the continuity of $|f|$, there exists $\beta>0$ such that $|f(z)|> |f(a_0)|$ for all $z \in \overline{{{\mathbb C}}_+}$ with $|z-a_3| < \beta$. It follows that there is a point $a_2 \in {{\mathbb C}}_+$ with ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}a_2={\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}a_3$ and $(a_3,a_2] \subset V$.
Since $V$ is open and connected, it is path-connected, and so we may join $a_1$ to $a_2$ by a polygonal path in $V$. We may also guarantee that it is simple (does not cross itself): the only difficulty arises if it crosses itself on the arc $(a_0,a_1)$, when we may replace $a_1$ by the crossing point closest to $a_0$, or if it crosses itself on the line $(a_2,a_3)$, when we may replace $a_2$ by the crossing point closest to $a_3$.
The curve constructed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:Jordan\] may be seen as the upper part of Figure \[fig:g1\].
(0,0)![The curve constructed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:thmhelp\][]{data-label="fig:g1"}](document1.ps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2157,1545)(83,-723) (2090, 94)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1857,276)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1528,340)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (434,191)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} ( 98,155)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1012,449)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
We shall also require the following easy result.
\[lem:babylem\] Let $f \in H({{\mathbb C}})$ with $f(0)=0$, $f$ nonconstant. Then there is an $r>0$ such that for all $u \in {{\mathbb C}}\setminus \{0\}$, with $|u|<r$, we have $$\sup_{|z| \le \frac{r}{|u|}} |f(zu)| < \sup_{x \ge 0} |f(xu)|.$$
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}Choose $R>0$ such that $f(z) \ne 0$ for all $z$ with $|z|=R$. Let $\delta=\inf \{|f(z)|: |z|=R \}$ so that $\delta>0$. Now take $r>0$ such that $\sup_{|z|\le r} |f(z)| < \delta$, using the continuity of $f$ and the fact that $f(0)=0$.
Then $\sup_{x>0} |f(xu)| \ge \delta$ for all $u \in {{\mathbb C}}\setminus \{0\}$, and the conclusion follows.
The main result
---------------
Recall that if $(T(t))_{t>0}$ is a uniformly bounded strongly continuous semigroup with generator $A$, then $$(A+\lambda I)^{-1}= - \int_0^\infty e^{\lambda t} T(t) \, dt,$$ for all $\lambda \in {{\mathbb C}}$ with ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda < 0$. Here the integral is taken in the sense of Bochner with respect to the strong operator topology.
If, in addition, $(T(t))_{t > 0}$ is quasinilpotent, then $$(A+\lambda I)^{-1}= - \int_0^\infty e^{\lambda t} T(t) \, dt,$$ for all $\lambda \in {{\mathbb C}}$.
Similarly, if $\mu \in M_c(0,\infty)$ with Laplace transform \[eq:Lmu\] F(s):=[[L]{}]{}(s) = \_0\^e\^[-s]{} d(), and $(T(t))_{t>0}$ is a strongly continuous semigroup of bounded operators on ${{\mathcal X}}$, then we have a functional calculus for its generator $A$, defined by $$F(-A)= \int_0^\infty T(\xi) \, d\mu(\xi),$$ in the sense of the strong operator topology; i.e., $$F(-A)x= \int_0^\infty T(\xi)x \, d\mu(\xi), \qquad (x \in {{\mathcal X}}),$$ which exists as a Bochner integral.
\[lem:FAFL\] Let $\mu \in M_c(0,\infty)$ and $(T(t))_{t>0}$ a strongly continuous quasinilpotent semigroup of contractions. Set $F={{\cal L}}\mu$. Then we have for ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda \ge 0$, $$\left\|( F(-A)-F(\lambda)I)(A+\lambda I)^{-1} \right \| \le \int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu| (t).$$
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}We have $$\begin{aligned}
F(-A)(A+\lambda I)^{-1} &=& -\left( \int_0^\infty T(t) \, d\mu(t) \right) \left( \int_0^\infty e^{\lambda s}T(s) \, ds \right)\\
&=& -\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t} \left[ \int_0^\infty e^{\lambda(s+t)}T(s+t) \, ds \right] \, d\mu(t) \\
&=& -\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}\left[ \int_t^\infty e^{\lambda v}T(v) \, dv \right] \, d\mu(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $v=s+t$. This in turn equals $$\begin{aligned}
&& -\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}\left[ \int_0^\infty e^{\lambda v}T(v) \, dv \right] \, d\mu(t)
+\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}\left[ \int_0^t e^{\lambda v}T(v) \, dv \right] \, d\mu(t) \\
&=& F(\lambda)(A+\lambda I)^{-1} + \int_0^\infty \left[ \int_0^t e^{\lambda(v-t)}T(v) \, dv\right] \, d\mu(t).\end{aligned}$$ For ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda \ge 0$, we have $$\left\| \int_0^t e^{\lambda(v-t)} T(v) \, dv \right \| \le t,$$ and so the conclusion follows.
The following theorem applies to several examples studied recently in [@BCEP; @Esterle; @EM; @kalton]; these include $\mu=\delta_1-\delta_2$, the difference of two Dirac measures, where $F(s):={{\cal L}}\mu(s)=e^{-s}-e^{-2s}$ and $F(-sA)=T(s)-T(2s)$. More importantly, the theorem applies to many other examples, such as $d\mu(t)=(\chi_{[1,2]}-\chi_{[2,3]})(t) dt$ and $\mu=\delta_1-3\delta_2+\delta_3+\delta_4$, which are not accessible with the methods of [@BCEP; @Esterle; @EM; @kalton].
\[thm:thmhelp\] Let $\mu \in M_c(0,\infty)$ be a nontrivial real measure such that ${\displaystyle}\int_0^\infty d\mu(t) = 0$, and let $(T(t))_{t > 0}$ be a nontrivial strongly continuous quasinilpotent semigroup of bounded operators on a Banach space ${{\mathcal X}}$. Set $F={{\cal L}}\mu$. Then there is an $\eta > 0$ such that $$\| F(-sA ) \| > \max_{x \ge 0} |F(x)| \qquad \hbox{for} \quad 0 < s \le \eta.$$
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}It follows from Theorem \[thm:feller\] that we may assume without loss of generality that $(T(t))_{t>0}$ is a strongly continuous quasinilpotent semigroup of contractions. Let $\alpha>0$ be such that $|F(x)| \le |F(\alpha)|$ for all $x \ge 0$, and let $s>0$. By considering $-\mu$ instead of $\mu$, if necessary, we may suppose that $F(\alpha) > 0$.
By Lemma \[lem:FAFL\] applied to the semigroup $(T(st))_{t>0}$, for ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda \ge 0$ we obtain $$\left \| F(-sA)(sA+\lambda I)^{-1} \right \| \ge \left\|F(\lambda)(sA+\lambda I)^{-1} \right\| - \int_0^\infty t\, d|\mu|(t).$$ It follows that $$\|F(-sA)\| \ge |F(\lambda)| - \frac{1}{\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}\right\|}\int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t)$$ for $s>0$ and ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda \ge 0$.
Suppose that there exists $s \in (0,1)$ such that $\|F(-sA)\| \le F(\alpha)$, and consider the simple Jordan curve $$\Gamma:=[\alpha,a_1] \cup \Gamma_1 \cup [a_2,a_3] \cup [a_3,\overline{a_3}] \cup [\overline{a_3},\overline{a_2}]
\cup \overline{\Gamma_1} \cup [\overline a_1, \alpha],$$ where $\Gamma_1,a_1,a_2,a_3$ are defined as in Theorem \[thm:Jordan\], taking $f=F$ (see Figure \[fig:g1\]).
We now make various estimates of $\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}\right\|$ for $\lambda$ on three different parts of $\Gamma$.
1\) For $\lambda \in [\alpha,a_1] \cup [\overline{a_1},\alpha]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha) \ge \|F(-sA)\| &\ge& |F(\lambda)| - \frac{1}{\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}\right\|}\int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t) \\
&\ge& F(\alpha) + \delta|\lambda-\alpha|^m - \frac{1}{\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}\right\|}\int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t).\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain \[eq:est1\] (sA+I)\^[-1]{} \_0\^t d||(t).
2\) For $\lambda \in \Gamma_1 \cup [a_2,a_3] \cup [\overline{a_3},\overline{a_2}] \cup \overline{\Gamma_1}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha) \ge \|F(-sA)\| &\ge& |F(\lambda)| - \frac{1}{\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}\right\|}\int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t)\\
&\ge& |F(a_0)| - \frac{1}{\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}\right\|}\int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that \[eq:est2\] (sA+I)\^[-1]{} \_0\^t d||(t).
3\) For $x \in {{\mathbb R}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| (A+ixI)^{-1} \right\| &=& \left\| -\int_0^\infty T(t) e^{ixt} \, dt \right \| \\
&\le& \int_0^\infty \|T(t)\| \, dt < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $(T(t))_{t>0}$ is quasinilpotent and contractive. Therefore \[eq:est3\] (sA+I)\^[-1]{}= (A+I )\^[-1]{} \_0\^T(t) dt for all $\lambda \in [a_3,\overline{a_3}]$.
We can now provide estimates for the quantity $\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1} \right\|$ for $\lambda$ on $\Gamma$. Let $R=\max_{\lambda \in \Gamma}|\lambda-\alpha|$.
By (\[eq:est1\]) $$\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1} \right\| \le \frac{s}{\delta} \int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t)$$ for all $\lambda \in [\alpha,a_1] \cup [\overline{a_1},\alpha]$.
By (\[eq:est2\]) $$\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1} \right\| \le \frac{sR^m}{|F(a_0)|-F(\alpha)} \int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t)$$ for all $\lambda \in \Gamma_1 \cup [a_2,a_3] \cup [\overline{a_3},\overline{a_2}] \cup \overline{\Gamma_1}$.
By (\[eq:est3\]) $$\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1} \right\| \le R^m\int_0^\infty \|T(t)\| \, dt$$ for all $\lambda \in [a_3,\overline{a_3}]$.
Since $0 < s \le 1$, for all $z \in \Gamma \cup {\mathop{\rm int}\nolimits}\Gamma$ we have $$\left\| \left( A+\frac{z}{s}I \right)^{-1} \right\| \le \frac{M}{|z-\alpha|^m},$$ by the maximum modulus principle, where $$M= \max \left(R^m \int_0^\infty \|T(t)\| \, dt,
\frac{R^m}{|F(a_0)|-F(\alpha)}\int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t),
\frac{1}{\delta} \int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu|(t)
\right).$$
Since by hypothesis $F(0)=0$, there is an $r \in (0,\alpha)$ such that $$\sup_{|z| \le r} |F(z)| < F(\alpha).$$ Since $\overline{D(0,r)}\cap \Gamma \cap {{\mathbb C}}_+ = \emptyset$, we have $\overline{D(0,r)} \cap \overline{{{\mathbb C}}_+}
\subset \Gamma \cup {\mathop{\rm int}\nolimits}\Gamma$.
Now if $z \in \overline{D(0,r)}$ with ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}z >0$, we have $|z-\alpha| \ge \alpha-r$, and thus we have $$\left\| \left( A + \frac{z}{s}I \right)^{-1} \right\| \le \frac{M}{|z-\alpha|^m} \le \frac{M}{(\alpha-r)^m}.$$ Also $$\sup_{{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}z \le 0} \left\| \left( A + zI \right)^{-1} \right\| \le \int_0^\infty \|T(t)\| \, dt < \infty.$$ Now, since by Liouville’s theorem the function $z \mapsto \left\| \left( A + zI \right)^{-1} \right\| $ is unbounded on ${{\mathbb C}}$, it follows that for all $u>0$ sufficiently small the inequality $$\left\|\left (A+\frac{z}{u}I \right)^{-1} \right\| \le \frac{M}{(\alpha-r)^m}$$ fails to hold for some $z \in \overline{D(0,r)} \cap {{\mathbb C}}_+$, depending on $u$.
It follows that there is an $\eta>0$ such that $$\|F(-uA)\|> F(\alpha) \qquad \hbox{for all} \quad u \in (0,\eta].$$
If $\mu \in M_c(0,\infty)$ is now a complex measure, then we write $\widetilde F(z)=\overline{F(\overline z)}$, which is also an entire function, indeed, the Laplace transform of $\overline{\mu}$.
\[cor:26z\] Let $\mu \in M_c(0,\infty)$ be a nontrivial complex measure such that ${\displaystyle}\int_0^\infty d\mu(t) = 0$, and let $(T(t))_{t > 0}$ be a nontrivial strongly continuous quasinilpotent semigroup of bounded operators on a Banach space ${{\mathcal X}}$. Set $F={{\cal L}}\mu$. Then there is an $\eta > 0$ such that $$\| F(-sA )\widetilde F(-sA) \| > \max_{x \ge 0} |F(x)|^2 \qquad \hbox{for} \quad 0 < s \le \eta.$$
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}The result follows on applying Theorem \[thm:thmhelp\] to the real measure $\nu:= \mu * \overline \mu$, whose Laplace transform satisfies $${{\cal L}}\nu (s) = F(s)\widetilde F(s).$$
We now give similar results for smoother semigroups: let $p>0$ be an integer, and write ${\mathcal{U}^{(p)}}$ for the class of semigroups $(T(t))_{t>0}$ such that the mapping $t \mapsto T(t)$ is $p$ times continuous differentiable with respect to the norm topology. Let ${\mathcal{E}^{(p)}}$ denote the class of distributions of order $p$ with compact support in $(0,\infty)$. For ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{E}^{(p)}}$ its action on a $C^p$ function $f$ may be specified in terms of measures $\mu_0,\ldots.\mu_p$, namely, $$\langle f, {\varphi}\rangle = \sum_{j=0}^p \int_0^\infty f^{(j)}(t) \, d\mu_j(t).$$ The Laplace transform of ${\varphi}$ is given by $$F(z): = {{\cal L}}{\varphi}(z)= \sum_{j=0}^p \int_0^\infty (-z)^j e^{-zt} \, d\mu_j(t).$$ We write $G_j = {{\cal L}}\mu_j$ and $F_j(z)=(-z)^j G_j(z)$ for each $j$. Likewise \[eq:gmeq\] F(-A)= \_[j=0]{}\^p A\^j G\_j(-A) = \_[j=0]{}\^p \_0\^A\^j T(t) d\_j(t).
We begin with the counterpart of Lemma \[lem:FAFL\].
\[lem:FAFL2\] Let $p \ge 1$ and ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{E}^{(p)}}$, and let $(T(t))_{t>0}$ be a quasinilpotent ${\mathcal{U}^{(p)}}$ semigroup of contractions. Set $F={{\cal L}}{\varphi}$. Then we have for ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda \ge 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|( F(-A)-F(\lambda)I)A^{-p}(A+\lambda I)^{-1} \right \| &\le&\\
\sum_{m=0}^p c_m\|A^{m-p}\| &+& \sum_{m=0}^p d_m
\left( \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} |\lambda|^k\|A^{m-1-k-p}\| \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$c_m=\int_0^\infty t \, d|\mu_m|(t) \qquad \hbox{and} \quad d_m=\int_0^\infty d|\mu_m|(t)$$ for $m=0,1,\ldots,p$.
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}Write $B:=( F(-A)-F(\lambda)I)A^{-p}(A+\lambda I)^{-1} $. Then by (\[eq:gmeq\]) we have $$B=
\sum_{m=0}^p A^{-p}(A^m G_m(-A)-(-\lambda)^m G_m(\lambda)I)
(A+\lambda I)^{-1}.$$ This can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{m=0}^p A^{m-p}(G_m(-A)-G_m(\lambda))(A+\lambda I)^{-1}\\
&&+ \sum_{m=0}^p G_m(\lambda) A^{-p} (A^m-(-\lambda)^mI)(A+\lambda I)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
B= && \sum_{m=0}^p A^{m-p}(G_m(-A)-G_m(\lambda))(A+\lambda I)^{-1} \\
&&+ \sum_{m=0}^p G_m(\lambda) \left[ \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} A^{m-1-k}(-\lambda)^k \right] A^{-p}.\end{aligned}$$ Now the first terms can be estimated using Lemma \[lem:FAFL\], and for the second we use the obvious estimate $|G_m(\lambda)| \le d_m$ for ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda \ge 0$.
\[thm:thmhelp2\] Let $p>1$ and ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{E}^{(p)}}$ be a nontrivial real distribution given by measures $\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_p$ such that $\int_0^\infty d\mu_0(t) = 0$, and let $(T(t))_{t > 0}$ be a nontrivial quasinilpotent ${\mathcal{U}^{(p)}}$ semigroup of bounded operators on a Banach space ${{\mathcal X}}$. Set $F={{\cal L}}{\varphi}$. Then there is an $\eta > 0$ such that $$\| F(-sA ) \| > \max_{x \ge 0} |F(x)| \qquad \hbox{for} \quad 0 < s \le \eta.$$
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}The proof is very similar to the proof of Theorem \[thm:thmhelp\], but using Lemma \[lem:FAFL2\], so we indicate the changes necessary. It will be convenient to take $0 < s \le 1$ and to write $$K=K(s,\lambda)= \sum_{m=0}^p c_m\|(sA)^{m-p}\| + \sum_{m=0}^p d_m
\left( \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} |\lambda|^k\|(sA)^{m-1-k-p}\| \right),$$ noting the dependence on $s$ and $\lambda$. With the notation of the proof of Theorem \[thm:thmhelp\] we have three key estimates:
1\) For $\lambda \in [\alpha,a_1] \cup [\overline{a_1},\alpha]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha) \ge \|F(-sA)\| &\ge& |F(\lambda)| - \frac{K}{\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1} (sA)^{-p}\|} \\
&\ge& F(\alpha) + \delta|\lambda-\alpha|^m - \frac{K}{\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1} (sA)^{-p}\|}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain \[eq:est1b\] (sA+I)\^[-1]{}(sA)\^[-p]{} .
2\) For $\lambda \in \Gamma_1 \cup [a_2,a_3] \cup [\overline{a_3},\overline{a_2}] \cup \overline{\Gamma_1}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha) \ge \|F(-sA)\| &\ge& |F(\lambda)| - \frac{K}{\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}(sA)^{-p}\right\|}\\
&\ge& |F(a_0)| - \frac{K}{\left\|(sA+\lambda I)^{-1}(sA)^{-p}\right\|}.\\\end{aligned}$$ It follows that \[eq:est2b\] (sA+I)\^[-1]{}(sA)\^[-p]{} .
3\) For $x \in {{\mathbb R}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| (A+ixI)^{-1} A^{-p}\right\| &=& \left\| -\int_0^\infty T(t) e^{ixt} \, dt A^{-p}\right \| \\
&\le& \|A^{-1}\|^p \int_0^\infty \|T(t)\| \, dt < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $(T(t))_{t>0}$ is quasinilpotent and contractive. Therefore \[eq:est3b\] (sA+I)\^[-1]{}(sA)\^[-p]{} A\^[-1]{}\^p \_0\^T(t) dt for all $\lambda \in [a_3,\overline{a_3}]$.\
We estimate $\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1}A^{-p} \right\|$ for $\lambda$ on $\Gamma$.
Let $R=\max_{\lambda \in \Gamma}|\lambda-\alpha|$. By (\[eq:est1b\]) $$\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1} A^{-p}\right\| \le \frac{Ks^{p+1}}{\delta}$$ for all $\lambda \in [\alpha,a_1] \cup [\overline{a_1},\alpha]$.
By (\[eq:est2b\]) $$\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1} A^{-p}\right\| \le \frac{Ks^{p+1}R^m}{|F(a_0)|-F(\alpha)}$$ for all $\lambda \in \Gamma_1 \cup [a_2,a_3] \cup [\overline{a_3},\overline{a_2}] \cup \overline{\Gamma_1}$.
By (\[eq:est3b\]) $$\left\| (\lambda-\alpha)^m \left( A+\frac{\lambda}{s}I \right)^{-1}A^{-p}\right\| \le R^m\|A^{-1}\|^p\int_0^\infty \|T(t)\| \, dt$$ for all $\lambda \in [a_3,\overline{a_3}]$.
Since $0 < s \le 1$, for all $z \in \Gamma \cup {\mathop{\rm int}\nolimits}\Gamma$ with $|z|\le r$ we have \[eq:goodfact\] ( A+I )\^[-1]{} A\^[-p]{} , by the maximum modulus principle, where $$M= \sup_{\substack{0<s \le 1\\ z \in \Gamma \cup {\mathop{\rm int}\nolimits}\Gamma}}
\max \left(\frac{K(s,z)s^{p+1}}{\delta},
\frac{K(s,z)s^{p+1}R^m}{|F(a_0)|-F(\alpha)},
R^m \|A^{-1}\|^p \int_0^\infty \|T(t)\| \, dt
\right),$$ which is finite.
With this new choice of $M$, the proof is now concluded as for the proof of Theorem \[thm:thmhelp\], using the observation that $\|(A+zI)^{-1} A^{-p}\|$ is unbounded on ${{\mathbb C}}$, and obtaining a contradiction from (\[eq:goodfact\]).
The non-quasinilpotent case {#sec:3}
===========================
Let $(T(t))_{t>0}$ be a semigroup of non-quasinilpotent operators, and let ${\mathcal A}_T$ denote the closed (commutative) algebra generated by the semigroup. We write $\widehat {\mathcal A}_T$ for the maximal ideal space of ${\mathcal A}_T$. Recall that this is compact if and only if $ {\mathcal A}_T/{\mathop{\rm Rad}\nolimits}( {\mathcal A}_T)$ is unital; otherwise it is locally compact, and the function $\widehat a : \chi \mapsto \chi(a)$ is continuous on $\widehat {\mathcal A}_T$ for every $a \in {\mathcal A}_T$.
Recall that ${\mathcal A}_T$ is said to have an [*exhaustive sequence of idempotents*]{} $(P_n)_{n \ge 1}$ if $P_n^2=P_nP_{n+1} = P_n$ for all $n$ and for every $\chi \in \widehat {\mathcal A}_T$ there is a $p$ such that $\chi(P_n)=1$ for all $n \ge p$.
The following result is part of the folklore of the subject, and it is partly contained in [@EM Lem. 3.1] and [@BCEP Lem. 3.1]. It enables us to regard $A$ itself as an element of $C(\widehat {\mathcal A}_T)$ by defining an appropriate value $\chi(A)=-a_\chi$ for each $\chi \in \widehat {\mathcal A}_T$.
\[lem:em31\] For a strongly continuous and eventually norm-continuous semigroup $(T(t))_{t>0}$ and a nontrivial character $\chi \in \widehat {\mathcal A}_T$ there is a unique $a_\chi \in {{\mathbb C}}$ such that $\chi(T(t))=e^{-ta_\chi}$ for all $t>0$. Moreover, the mapping $\chi \mapsto a_\chi$ is continuous, and $\chi(F(-uA))=F(ua_\chi)$ in the case that $F={{\cal L}}\mu$, as in (\[eq:Lmu\]).
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}The existence of $a_\chi$ is given in [@EM], and its uniqueness is clear since the values of $e^{-ta_\chi}$ for $t>0$ determine $a_\chi$ uniquely.
For the continuity, note that $$\chi(T(1))=e^{-a_\chi}$$ and $$\chi\left( e^\lambda\int_1^\infty T(t) e^{-\lambda t} \, dt \right) = \frac{1}{a_\chi+\lambda}e^{-a_\chi}$$ if $\lambda$ is taken sufficiently large that the integral converges. Thus if we have a net $\chi_\alpha \to \chi$ then $e^{-a_{\chi_\alpha}} \to e^{-a\chi}$ and $ \frac{1}{a_{\chi_\alpha}+\lambda}e^{-a_{\chi_\alpha}} \to \frac{1}{a_\chi+\lambda}e^{-a_\chi}$, which easily implies that $a_{\chi_\alpha} \to a_\chi$.
The final observation follows from an easy argument using Bochner integrals.
The following result will also be required.
\[lem:shilov\] Let $(T(t))_{t>0}$ be a non-quasinilpotent and eventually norm-continuous semigroup in a Banach algebra, with infinitesimal generator $A$; let ${\mathcal A}_T$ be the subalgebra generated by the semigroup and $\Lambda=\{a_\chi: \chi \in \widehat {\mathcal A}_T\}$, as in Lemma \[lem:em31\]. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) ${\mathcal A}_T$ has an exhaustive sequence of idempotents.
(ii) For each integer $m \ge 1$ the set $\Lambda_m: = \{ \lambda \in \Lambda: {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\lambda \le m\}$ is contained in a compact relatively open subset of $\Lambda$.
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}$(i)\Rightarrow (ii):$ Let $\theta: \chi \to a_\chi$ be the homeomorphism given by Lemma \[lem:em31\]. Now $K:=\theta^{-1} (\Lambda_m)$ is a closed subset of the compact space $\widehat {\mathcal A}_T \cup \{0\}$, since ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}a_\chi \le m$ if and only if $|\chi(T(1))| \ge e^{-m}$. Hence $K$ is compact. If (i) holds, then for each $\chi\in \widehat {\mathcal A}_T$, then there is an $n_\chi>0$ be such that $\chi(P_n)=1$ for $n \ge n_\chi$. So $\left( \{ \chi \in \widehat {\mathcal A}_T: \chi(P_n)=1 \} \right)_n$ is an open cover of $K$. By compactness, there is an $N$ such that $\chi(P_N)=1$ for all $\chi \in K$, so $K \subset \{ \chi \in \widehat{\mathcal A}_T: \chi(P_N)=1\}$, and $\theta(K)$ is compact, open in $\Lambda$, and contains $\Lambda_m$.\
$(ii) \Rightarrow (i):$ Conversely, if (ii) holds, then for each $m \ge 1$, the set $\Lambda_m$ is contained in a compact relatively open set $\Omega_m \subset \Lambda$. So $\theta^{-1}(\Omega_m) \subset {\mathcal A}_T$ is compact and open; hence by Shilov’s idempotent theorem [@dales00 Thm. 2.4.33] there is an idempotent $P_m$ in ${\mathcal A}_T$ such that $\chi(P_m)=1$ for $\chi \in \theta^{-1}(\Omega_m)$ and $0$ otherwise. Now $(P_m)_{m \ge 1}$ is an exhaustive sequence of idempotents in ${\mathcal A}_T$.
\[thm:dodgy\] Let $(T(t))_{t>0}$ be a nontrivial strongly continuous and eventually norm-continuous non-quasinilpotent semigroup on a Banach space ${{\mathcal X}}$, with generator $A$. Let $F={{\cal L}}\mu$, where $\mu \in M_c(0,\infty)$ is a real measure such that $\int_0^\infty d\mu=0$. If there exists $(u_k)_k \subset (0,\infty)$ with $u_k \to 0$ such that \[eq:Fsharp\] (F(-u\_k A)) < \_[x >0]{} |F(x)|, then the algebra $ {\mathcal A}_T$ possesses an exhaustive sequence of idempotents $(P_n)_{n \ge 1}$ such that each semigroup $(P_n T(t))_{t>0}$ has a bounded generator.
If, further, $\|F(-u_k A)\| < \sup_{x>0} |F(x)|$, then $\bigcup_{n \ge 1} P_n {\mathcal A}_T$ is dense in ${\mathcal A}_T$.
[[**Proof:**]{} ]{}For $m \ge 1$ let $\Lambda_m= \{ a_\chi: {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}a_\chi \le m\}$, where $\chi(T(t))=e^{-a_\chi t}$ as in Lemma \[lem:em31\].
Let $K:=\theta^{-1} (\Lambda_m)$, which is a compact set, as seen in the proof of Lemma \[lem:shilov\]. Hence, $\Lambda_m = \theta(K)$ is compact, since $\theta: \chi \mapsto a_\chi$ is continuous by Lemma \[lem:em31\].
Therefore, there is an $R_m>0$ such that $\Lambda_m \subset D(0,R_m)$. Note that, by the definition of $\Lambda_m$, we have $$\Lambda \cap {{\mathbb C}}_- = \Lambda \cap {{\mathbb C}}_- \subset D(0,R_m).$$ By hypothesis there exists a $u_k > 0$ such that $$|u_k| < \frac{r}{R_m},$$ where $r>0$ is given by Lemma \[lem:babylem\] and $$\rho(F(-u_k A)) < \sup_{x > 0} |F(xu_k)|.$$ It follows that $\Lambda_m \subset D(0,R_m) \subset D(0,r/|u_k|)$ and $$|F(u_k a_\chi)| < \sup_{x>0} |F(u_k x)|$$ for all $a_\chi \in \Lambda_m$. Let $\alpha_k$ be such that $\sup_{x>0} |F(xu_k)|=|F(\alpha_k u_k)|$.
By Theorem \[thm:Jordan\] there exists a curve $\Gamma_{k,0}$ in $\{z: {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}z \ge 0, {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}z > 0\}$ joining $\alpha_k \in {{\mathbb R}}_+$ to $v_k \in i{{\mathbb R}}_+$ with $|v_k|>R_m$ on which $|F(u_k z)| \ge |F(\alpha_k u_k)|$.
Let $\Gamma_k= \Gamma_{k,0} \cup \{z \in {{\mathbb C}}: {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}z<0, \ |z|=|v_k| \} \cup \overline{\Gamma_{k,0}}$ (see Figure \[fig:g2\]).
(0,0)![Diagram for the proof of Theorem \[thm:dodgy\][]{data-label="fig:g2"}](document2.ps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2485,1534)(439,-730) (2865,111)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1805,488)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (934,203)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1158, 70)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Then $\Lambda \cap \Gamma_k = \emptyset$ since $|F(u_k a_\chi)|=|\chi (F(-u_k A))| < |F(u_k \alpha_k)|$ for $a_\chi \in \Lambda$ and $|F(u_k z)| > |F(u_k \alpha_k)|$ for $z \in \Gamma_{k,0} \cup \overline{\Gamma_{k,0}}$, so $\Lambda \cap(\Gamma_{k,0} \cup \overline{\Gamma_{k,0}})=\emptyset$. Also $\Lambda \cap {{\mathbb C}}_- = \Lambda_m \cap {{\mathbb C}}_-$ so $\Lambda \cap \{z \in {{\mathbb C}}_-: |z|=|v_k| \}=\emptyset$.
Now $\Lambda_m = \Lambda \cap {\mathop{\rm int}\nolimits}\Gamma_k$, which is compact (since $\Lambda \cap \Gamma_k = \emptyset$) and relatively open in $\Lambda$, so we may now apply Lemma \[lem:shilov\] to deduce that ${\mathcal A}_T$ has an exhaustive sequence of idempotents.\
If $P$ is an idempotent of ${\mathcal A}_T$, then $\bigcup_{t>0} PT(t) {\mathcal A}_T$ is dense in the unital Banach algebra $P {\mathcal A}_T$. Hence $P {\mathcal A}_T = \bigcup_{t>0} PT(t) {\mathcal A}_T$; also $PT(t)$ is invertible in $P {\mathcal A}_T$ for some, and hence for all, $t>0$, and then $\lim_{t \to 0+} \|P-PT(t)\|=0$, since the semigroup is eventually continuous.
For the last observation, it follows from Theorem \[thm:thmhelp\] that $\pi (T(t))=0$ for every $t>0$, where $\pi: {\mathcal A}_T \to {\mathcal A}_T/\bigcup_{n \ge 1}P_n {\mathcal A}_T$ denotes the canonical surjection.
A similar result holds for complex measures $\mu \in M_c(0,\infty)$; namely, we replace $$\rho(F(-u_k A)) < \sup_{x >0} |F(x)|,$$ by the symmetrised version $$\rho(F(-u_k A)\widetilde F(-u_k A)) < \sup_{x >0} |F(x)|^2,$$ as in Corollary \[cor:26z\].
\[rem:sharp\] The following example is given in [@BCEP], and shows that Theorem \[thm:dodgy\] is sharp. Indeed, consider $C_0[0,1]$, the Banach algebra of all continuous complex-valued functions on $[0,1]$ that vanish at $0$, equipped with the supremum norm, and the semigroup $(S(t))_{t>0}$ defined by $x \mapsto x^t$ for $x \in [0,1]$.
We see that $$F(-uA)= \int_0^\infty S(u\xi)\, d\mu(\xi)= \int_0^\infty x^{u\xi} \, d\mu(\xi),$$ and for $s>0$ we have $$F(s)=\int_0^\infty e^{-s\xi} \, d\mu(\xi).$$ Thus we obtain equality in , choosing $x^u=e^{-s_0}$, where $s_0$ is defined by $|F(s_0)|=\sup_{s>0}| F(s)|$. Note that the norm and spectral radius are equal in $C_0[0,1]$ and that the algebra does not possess any non-trivial idempotents.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was partially supported by the ANR project ANR-09-BLAN-0058-01, the London Mathematical Society (Scheme 2), and the Institut Camille Jordan. The authors are grateful to the referee for a careful reading of the paper and some valuable comments.
[1]{}
Z. Bendaoud, I. Chalendar, J. Esterle, and J. R. Partington. Distances between elements of a semigroup and estimates for derivatives. , 26(12):2239–2254, 2010.
H. G. Dales. , volume 24 of [ *London Mathematical Society Monographs. New Series*]{}. The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 2000. Oxford Science Publications.
J. Esterle. Distance near the origin between elements of a strongly continuous semigroup. , 43(2):365–382, 2005.
J. Esterle and A. Mokhtari. Distance entre éléments d’un semi-groupe dans une algèbre de [B]{}anach. , 195(1):167–189, 2002.
W. Feller. On the generation of unbounded semi-groups of bounded linear operators. , 58:166–174, 1953.
N. Kalton, S. Montgomery-Smith, K. Oleszkiewicz, and Y. Tomilov. Power-bounded operators and related norm estimates. , 70(2):463–478, 2004.
E. H. Lieb and M. Loss. , volume 14 of [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997.
[^1]: I. C. J., UFR de Mathématiques, Université Lyon 1, 43 bld. du 11/11/1918, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France. .
[^2]: I.M.B., UMR 5251, Université de Bordeaux, 351 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence Cedex, France. .
[^3]: School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K. .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gas-phase NMR spectra demonstrating the effect of weak intermolecular forces on the NMR shielding constants of the interacting species are reported. We analyse the interaction of the molecular hydrogen isotopomers with He, Ne, and Ar, and the interaction in the He–CO$_2$ dimer. The same effects are studied for all these systems in the [*ab initio*]{} calculations. The comparison of the experimental and computed shielding constants is shown to depend strongly on the treatment of the bulk susceptibility effects, which determine in practice the pressure dependence of the experimental values. Best agreement of the results is obtained when the bulk susceptibility correction in rare gas solvents is evaluated from the analysis of the He-rare gas interactions, and when the shielding of deuterium in D$_2$–rare gas systems is considered.'
author:
- 'Piotr Garbacz, Konrad Piszczatowski, Karol Jackowski, Robert Moszynski'
- 'Micha[ł]{} Jaszuński'
bibliography:
- 'artikler.bib'
- 'propert.bib'
- 'mppubl.bib'
- 'mjpubl.bib'
- 'spinrev.bib'
title: 'Weak intermolecular interactions in gas-phase NMR'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
The importance of intermolecular interactions in physics, chemistry, and biology does not need to be stressed. Intermolecular potentials determine the properties of non-ideal gases, (pure) liquids, solutions, molecular solids, and the behavior of complex molecular ensembles encountered in biological systems. They describe the so-called non-bonded contributions, as well as the special hydrogen bonding terms, that are part of the force fields used in simulations of processes such as enzyme-substrate binding, drug-receptor interactions, etc. A few examples showing important applications of intermolecular potentials include the Monte Carlo and molecular dynamics simulations of biological systems, studies of processes in the earth’s atmosphere, or interstellar chemistry.
Also the NMR spectra, in particular the observed chemical shifts, depend not only on the molecular structure but also on the intermolecular forces. The changes due to the environment are difficult to interpret theoretically and make the comparison of the computed and observed spectra unreliable. The role of the intermolecular forces is undoubtedly the largest in the condensed phase, and much smaller in dilute gas-phase solutions. Moreover, it is particularly small if we analyse a system where only weak van der Waals intermolecular forces play a significant role. In this work, we describe gas-phase NMR spectra for such systems, analyse the dependence of the observed shielding constants on the intermolecular forces, and present [*ab initio*]{} calculations which describe this dependence.
Early NMR studies in the gas phase were reviewed by Rummens [@fhar-rev], another review has been written in 1991 by Jameson [@cjjcr91]. However, the role of the intermolecular interactions in the gas phase was almost exclusively interpreted on the basis of binary collision gas model introduced by Raynes, Buckingham, and Bernstein [@wtradbhjbjcp36]. In this RBB model the change in the shielding constant is qualitatively described as a sum of contributions due to the bulk susceptibility, neighbor-molecule magnetic anisotropy, polar effects, and van der Waals effects. At present, by applying state-of-the-art methods of quantum chemistry we should be able to predict accurately the small changes of the shielding constants due to weak intermolecular forces. For the first time this should be possible within an [*ab initio*]{} approach, which is in principle more reliable than the standard methods used to describe for instance the solvent effects in liquids, such as various polarizable continuum models based on classical approximations. Therefore, a study of gas-phase model systems has a specific advantage for the comparison between experiment and theory.
Theoretical studies of the interaction-induced changes in the NMR parameters are scarce, and mostly restricted to supermolecule calculations of the interaction-induced shielding constants and spin-spin coupling constants; see, e.g. Refs. [@abmjthkrcpl250; @mpjscp234; @mpjscp248; @kjmwmpjsjpca104; @mparmp100; @mbmkolmvgmdrsjcc20; @mhplnrjjjvjcp121; @mhplmihjajjvjcp127] for typical applications. To our knowledge only one paper [@abmjthkrcpl250] analysed (comparing the theory with the numerical results) the asymptotic long-range behavior of the shielding constant and its anisotropy in a dimer. Most of the papers reporting [*ab initio*]{} calculations of the NMR parameters that could directly be compared with the gas phase NMR experiment were devoted to studies of atom-atom interactions [@aamjarjcp126; @mparmp100; @mbmkolmvgmdrsjcc20; @mhplnrjjjvjcp121; @mhplmihjajjvjcp127] (this is in sharp contrast with the electric properties of molecular complexes for which a general long-range theory and applications to the optical and dielectric properties of gases are available [@tgahrmpeswavdamp89; @rmtgahavdacpl247; @arscdmjlcbfchmp104]). There are very few [*ab initio*]{} studies of the NMR effects of weak interactions between a molecule and an atom or two molecules. The whole property surface has been computed for the interactions in the C$_{2}$H$_{2}$–He and C$_{2}$H$_{2}$–H$^+$ complexes [@mpjscp248], but no Boltzmann averaging has been performed; NMR properties were also examined [@mpjscp234] for the optimized geometries of other binary complexes of acetylene.
Also on the experimental side not too much has been done. The effects of weak intermolecular interactions on NMR shielding of $^1$H, $^2$H and $^3$He in gases are small and buried in the much larger bulk susceptibility correction, therefore a detailed analysis of such systems is practically impossible and the RBB model has mostly been used. We recall here that for $^3$He the effect of the weak interactions is particularly small and difficult to observe (see for instance the study of gas-to-liquid shifts [@rspdrkmjjjmra101]). For $^{21}$Ne the precision of the NMR measurements is limited because the magnetically active isotope has a large nuclear quadrupole moment; for argon the only magnetically active $^{39}$Ar isotope is radioactive. On the other hand, for $^{129}$Xe the effects are very large. They have been observed in the xenon dimer and nearly quantitative agreement of theory with experiment was reached in state-of-the-art [*ab initio*]{} calculations [@mhplnrjjjvjcp121; @mhplmihjajjvjcp127]. Also density functional theory (DFT) calculations for Xe-rare gas dimers yield satisfactory agreement with experimental data, see Refs. [@cjjakjsmcjcp62; @cjjdnsacdjcp118]. Most recently, the chemical shift of Xe dissolved in liquid benzene was studied in the calculations combining the DFT methods with the classical molecular dynamics [@sspkrmjhpbmstca129]. However, there are no similar studies of atom-molecule systems applying well established state-of-the art wavefunction methods and comparing the results with known experimental data.
In this paper we fill this gap and report a joint experimental and theoretical study of the gas phase shielding constants in the mixtures of atomic and molecular gases. We study the effects resulting from the weak interactions between a molecule and an atom in series of model systems: H$_2$–He, H$_2$–Ne and H$_2$–Ar dimers and their deuterium-substituted isotopomers and in He–CO$_2$. For the selected magnetically active nuclei—$^1$H, $^2$H, $^3$He and $^{13}$C— we observe the dependence of the NMR spectrum on the density of the solvent gas, which enables next a comparison of the [*ab initio*]{} and experimental results. In the analysis of the NMR spectra we take into account the bulk susceptibility correction, dependent on the magnetizability of the medium and on the shape of the NMR sample [@rspdrkmjjjmra101; @japwgshjbbook]. In the case of the weakly interacting systems which we study this correction dominates in the density dependence of the spectrum and its proper description is essential when we extract the information on the role of the intermolecular interactions from the experimental data and compare the experimental and computed quantities.
The plan of this paper is as follows. We start with the virial expansion of the shielding constant in terms of the gas density and discuss all quantities needed on the route from the theory to a direct comparison with the experiment. This is thoroughly discussed in sec. \[sec2\]. The details of the computational procedures adopted in the [*ab initio*]{} calculations, fitting of the interaction potential and shielding surfaces, and some numerical integration procedures will be discussed in sec. \[sec3\]. The experiment is described in detail in sec. \[sec4\]. The results of the measurements and calculations are reported and compared in sec. \[sec5\]. Finally, sec. \[sec6\] concludes our paper.
Shielding constants in the gas-phase solutions {#sec2}
==============================================
For a binary mixture of a gas $A$, containing the nucleus $X$ whose shielding $\sigma^A(X)$ is observed, and gas $B$ as the solvent, $\sigma^A(X)$ can be expressed as [@wtradbhjbjcp36]: $$\sigma^A(X) = \sigma_0^A(X) + \sigma_{1}^{AA}(X) \rho_A + \sigma_{1}^{AB}(X) \rho_B
\label{eq:AB}$$ where $\rho_A$ and $\rho_B$ are the densities of $A$ and $B$, respectively, and $\sigma_0^A(X)$ is the shielding in the zero-density limit. All higher terms in Eq. (\[eq:AB\]), which represents a truncated virial expansion, can safely be neglected if the experimental dependence of the shielding on the density is linear. The coefficients $\sigma_{1}^{AA}(X)$ and $\sigma_{1}^{AB}(X)$ are then the only terms responsible for the medium effects. They contain the bulk susceptibility corrections, $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^A$ and $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$, and the terms directly taking account of the intermolecular interactions during the binary collisions of the $A-A$ and $A-B$ molecules: $\sigma_1^{A-A}(X)$ and $\sigma_1^{A-B}(X)$, respectively. The shielding parameters in Eq. (\[eq:AB\]) are temperature dependent and for this reason all the present measurements are performed at the constant temperature of 300 K. Moreover, in the experiments the density of $A$, $\rho_A$, is always kept very low in order to eliminate the solute-solute molecular interactions and Eq. (\[eq:AB\]) can be simplified to: $$\sigma^A(X) = \sigma_0^A(X) + \sigma_{1}^{AB}(X) \rho_B
\label{eq:B}$$ where $$\sigma_{1}^{AB}(X) = \sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B + \sigma_1^{A-B}(X) .
\label{eq:ABA-B}$$
Fig. \[figd2\] displays, as an example, the dependence of the helium and deuteron magnetic shielding (given with respect to the isolated systems) on the density of the rare gas solvent in gaseous solutions. The plots in Fig. \[figd2\] are linear, which proves that Eq. (\[eq:B\]) is a valid approximation and allows the determination of the $\sigma_0^A(X)$ and $\sigma_1^{AB}(X)$ shielding parameters. The part of the shielding constant $\sigma^A(X)$ which is exclusively due to pair intermolecular interactions between the solute and solvent molecules is given by $\sigma_1^{A-B}(X)$. An inspection of Eqs. (\[eq:B\]) and (\[eq:ABA-B\]) shows that $\sigma_1^{A-B}(X)$ can be extracted from the experimental results once the measured shielding constant becomes linear in the gas density $\rho_B$, and if the bulk susceptibility correction, $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$, is known.
![The observed density-dependent $^3$He shielding of atomic helium and $^2$H shielding of deuterium in gaseous solutions (for comparison, the best estimate of the $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^{{\rm Ar}}\, \rho_{{\rm Ar}}$ contribution is shown).[]{data-label="figd2"}](3he_2h.ps)
In the experiment it is not easy to measure the gas number density $\rho$, but rather the pressure $p$. Therefore, the following form of Eq. (\[eq:B\]) was used: $$\sigma^{A}(X)=\sigma_0^{A}(X)+\sigma_{1p}^{AB}(X)p.
\label{eq:Bp}$$ For an ideal gas Eqs. (\[eq:B\]) and (\[eq:Bp\]) are equivalent, and the coefficients $\sigma_{1p}^{AB}(X)$ and $\sigma_{1}^{AB}(X)$ are inter-related by the following simple expression: $$\sigma_{1p}^{AB}(X)=\sigma_{1}^{AB}(X)/k_BT.
\label{rel}$$ In general Eq. (\[rel\]) is not valid since the pressure depends on the gas number density in a more complicated way: $$p = k_BT\rho + B_2(T)\rho^2 + B_3(T)\rho^3 + \cdots,
\label{pvir}$$ where $B_2(T)$ and $B_3(T)$ are the second and third thermodynamic virial coefficients, respectively. Assuming that the NMR active molecules are infinitely diluted in the bath, $B_2(T)$ exclusively depends on the pair interactions between the molecules in the bath. The third virial coefficient $B_3(T)$ also depends on the non-additive three-body interactions in the bath. We assume that we are dealing with an infinitely diluted solutions. In such a case we can assume that the concentration of the solute is very small and that the contribution of the partial pressure of the solute to the total pressure is negligible. This means that the thermodynamics of the system is described by Eq. (\[pvir\]) with the characteristic coefficients of the solvent used in the experiment, while Eq. (\[eq:B\]) describes the change of the shielding constant due to binary collisions of the NMR active molecule with the bath molecules. It is worth noting at this point that the virial expansions (\[pvir\]) and (\[eq:B\]) follow from the theory, and that in the virial expansions the gas number density appears as the variable of the power series.
A precise evaluation of $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$, the bulk susceptibility correction, is particularly important in the present work, because for all the nuclei the total change of the shielding due to intermolecular interactions in the gas phase is very small. We consider first the determination of $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$ terms from the available $\chi_{\rm M}$ —molar magnetic susceptibilities of gases— and applying the standard formula for a infinitely long cylindrical tube parallel to the external magnetic field [@rspdrkmjjjmra101; @japwgshjbbook; @beckerbook]: $$\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}} = - \frac{4 \pi}{3} \; \chi_{\rm M} \;
\label{eq:4pi}$$ where $\chi_{\rm M}$ is given in ppm cgs and $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}$ in ppm mL/mol. The macroscopic molar magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{\rm M}$ is for closed shell systems proportional to the microscopic molecular magnetizability (1 ppm cgs corresponding to 16.60529 $\times 10^{-30}$ JT$^{-2}$). Equation (\[eq:4pi\]) may be applied for the cylindrical geometry of the sample, and assuming that the molecules of the solvent do not interact. However, this assumption is not always true, the cylinder is not infinite, and in such an approach various additional corrections are undoubtedly necessary to get realistic values of $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$ (see for instance Seydoux [*et al.*]{} [@rspdrkmjjjmra101]). We use a different approach to determine $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$, which will be discussed in detail in section \[sub5\].
Theoretical determination of $\sigma_1^{A-B}(X)$ requires two steps: [*ab initio*]{} calculations of the interaction potential and interaction-induced shielding constant for the binary complex , and the average of the latter quantity with the Boltzmann factor depending on the interaction potential. The interaction potential $V$ is given by the standard expression: $$V=E_{AB}-E_A-E_B,
\label{vint}$$ where $E_{AB}$, $E_A$, and $E_B$ are the energies of the collisional dimer $A-B$, and of the solvent ($A$) and solute ($B$) molecules, respectively. The interaction-induced shielding constant $\sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}(X)$ is given by: $$\sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}(X)=\sigma_0^{A-B}(X)-\sigma_0^A(X),
\label{sint}$$ where $\sigma_0^{A-B}(X)$ and $\sigma_0^A(X)$ are the shielding constants of the nucleus $X$ in the dimer $A-B$ and in the solute molecule $A$, respectively. Finally, $\sigma_{1}^{A-B}(X)$ appearing in Eq. (\[eq:ABA-B\]) is defined as: $$\begin{split}
&\sigma_{1}^{A-B}(X)=\\&\int\int\int\sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}(X)
\exp\left(-\beta V(\omega_A,\omega_B,R)\right)R^2{\rm d}R{\rm d}\omega_A
{\rm d}\omega_B,\
\end{split}
\label{boltz}$$ where $\omega_A$ and $\omega_B$ denote the two sets of the angles specifying the orientations of the monomers $A$ and $B$, $R$ is the distance between the centers of mass of the monomers, $\beta=(k_BT)^{-1}$, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the temperature in Kelvin. We note that in general the calculation of $\sigma_{1}^{A-B}(X)$ is not an easy task. For rigid molecules $A$ and $B$ it requires a six-dimensional integration over five angles and one distance. For systems considered in the present paper the integral of Eq. (\[boltz\]) reduces to a two-dimensional integral that can easily be evaluated. The details of the computational procedures adopted in [*ab initio*]{} calculations, fitting, and numerical integration will be discussed in the next section.
Computational approach {#sec3}
======================
Ab initio calculations {#sub1}
----------------------
In all calculations the bond lengths of the interacting subsystems were kept fixed at their experimental geometries. We report below the results for H$_2$ obtained with the H–H distance fixed at $r$(HH) = 1.449 a$_0$ [@wklwjcp41]. In test calculations we have verified that practically the same results are obtained using noticeably smaller values of $r$(HH). Thus, we can compare the same set of [*ab initio*]{} results with the experimental data for different isotopomers of the hydrogen molecule. For He–CO$_2$, following the previous studies of the potential energy surface [@tkrmftjmlbbhjbpeswjcp115], we have used $r$(CO)= 2.1944 a$_0$, an experimental value deduced from the microwave spectra.
All calculations of the energies and of the shielding constants have been performed with the coupled cluster method restricted to single, double, and noniterative triple excitations, CCSD(T). The NMR shielding constants and the magnetizabilities were obtained by applying the coupled cluster linear response theory [@jgjfsjcp102; @jgjfsjcp104]. Gauge-including atomic orbitals, GIAO’s [@fljpr8; @kwjfhppjacs112], were used in all calculations of the magnetic properties, and we have systematically corrected all the interaction-induced changes in the energies and in the shielding constants by eliminating the basis set superposition error, i.e. all calculations for the monomers were done in the full basis of the dimer. We have used the d-aug-cc-pVXZ basis sets [@rakthdrjhjcp96]; d-aug-cc-pVQZ for the smallest H$_2$–He system, and the d-aug-cc-pVTZ basis set for the larger H$_2$–Ne, H$_2$–Ar, and He–CO$_2$ dimers. The calculations of the energies and shielding constants were performed using the ACES II [@aces2:2006] program, while the magnetizabilities were computed using the more recent CFOUR program [@cfour:09].
Interaction potentials {#sub2}
----------------------
For two systems we used the available fitted interaction potential energy surfaces: for H$_2$–Ar taken from Ref. [@hlwksbjrmsrjcp98] and for He–CO$_2$ taken from Ref. [@tkrmftjmlbbhjbpeswjcp115]. These potentials were obtained from the symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (SAPT) calculations (see Refs. [@bjrmkscr94; @rm:rev] for a review of the SAPT methodology and of the accuracy of the SAPT potentials). These potentials were shown to reproduce the high-resolution infrared spectra of the H$_2$–Ar [@rmbjpeswavdacpl221; @fmrmjcp109] and the He–CO$_2$ [@tkrmftjmlbbhjbpeswjcp115] van der Waals complexes. More importantly, they also reproduce very accurately the thermodynamic (pressure) virial coefficients [@rmtktgahpeswavdabspjch72]. For other systems the interaction potential $V(R,\theta)$ was calculated by the supermolecular method according to Eq. (\[vint\]).
We use spherical coordinates defined with respect to the center of mass of the molecule. Calculations were performed for several angles $\theta$ ranging from 0 to 180$^\circ$ and for several radial distances $R$. For each angle $\theta$ radial dependence of the interaction potential $V$ was fitted with the function: $$\begin{split}
V_\theta(R)&=e^{-\alpha(\theta) R}(A_0(\theta)+A_1(\theta) R+A_2(\theta) R^2)\\
&-\frac{C_6(\theta)}{R^6}-\frac{C_8(\theta)}{R^8}\,,
\end{split}
\label{vfit}$$ where $\alpha$, $A_0$, $A_1$, $A_2$, $C_6$, and $C_8$ were adjusted to fit the computed points at a given angle $\theta$. We note parenthetically that odd powers of $R^{-1}$ do not appear in the long-range asymptotics of Eq. (\[vfit\]) because the H$_2$ and CO$_2$ molecules are centrosymmetric. Next, interpolation was used to obtain the full interaction energy surface. The points calculated for a given radial distance $R$ from each $V_\theta$ fit were interpolated with a third-order polynomial in $\theta$. This procedure leads to a fitted/interpolated interaction energy surface $V(R,\theta)$, which was used in further calculations.
Shielding constants {#sub3}
-------------------
The same technique was applied to obtain the $\sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}(R,\theta)$ surface. For each angle the radial dependence of $\sigma$ was fitted to the following function: $$S_\theta(R)=e^{-\alpha(\theta) R}\sum_{k=0}^NA_k(\theta) R^k-\sum_{m\in M}\frac{C_m(\theta)}{R^m},$$ where all the parameters appearing on the r.h.s. of the expression above were adjusted to fit the computed values.
For the hydrogen atom in H$_2$–He, H$_2$–Ne, and H$_2$–Ar a modification to the procedure described above was introduced. Since the interaction energy surface for these systems is symmetric we were allowed to use symmetrized $\sigma$-surface $\bar\sigma(R,\theta)$ calculated as an arithmetical average of interaction-induced shifts for both H nuclei. This improved the accuracy of the further integration of the $\sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}$ function with the Boltzmann factor.
Final integration {#sub4}
-----------------
To obtain the final result one has to calculate for the temperature of interest the Boltzmann average of $\sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}(R,\theta)$: $$\label{eq:Boltz}
\begin{split}
&\sigma_1^{A-B} =\\
&\int_0^\infty \!\!\!{\rm d}R \int_0^\pi\!\!\! {\rm d}\theta
\int_0^{2\pi}\!\!\!{\rm d}\phi R^2\sin\theta \; \exp\left(-\beta V(R,\theta)\right) \sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}(R,\theta).
\end{split}$$ Due to the axial symmetry of the considered systems the integration over $\phi$ gives 2$\pi$. Integrations over $R$ nad $\theta$ were done numerically with the [Mathematica]{} [@Mathematica7] package. First, for each angle the radial integration was performed. The integration range \[0,$\infty$\[ was substituted by \[$R_{\rm min}$, $R_{\max}$\] with properly defined $R_{\rm min}$ and $R_{\rm max}$. The $R_{\rm min}$ value was chosen to ensure that $V(R_{\rm min},\theta)$ was positive and large enough to make the Boltzmann factor close to zero. The value of $R_{\rm max}$ was chosen in such a way that $\sigma(R_{\rm max},\theta)$ was almost zero at $R_{\rm max}$, independent of the angle $\theta$. This choice leads to $R_{\rm min}$ = 2 a$_0$ and $R_{\rm max}$ = 300 a$_0$ for H$_2$–He, for other systems the required integration range is smaller and within the same limits. The results obtained from the radial integration for each angle were interpolated with third-order function and this function was integrated over $\theta$.
Bulk susceptibilities {#sub5}
---------------------
To estimate the bulk susceptibility correction (BSC) we first used new values of magnetizabilities obtained from CCSD(T) calculations. Using the d-aug-cc-pVQZ basis set we obtain for CO$_2$ at the experimental geometry –22.254 ppm cgs, with the basis set error estimated to be smaller than 0.2 ppm cgs. This value is consistent with the results of Ref. [@krprtmjjpca104] and confirmed by new CCSD(T)/d-aug-cc-pCVQZ-unc calculations for the Ne and Ar atoms, which give –7.601 and –20.610 ppm cgs, also in agreement with Ref. [@krprtmjjpca104]. The values of $\chi_{\rm M}$ and the corresponding bulk susceptibility effects derived from Eq. (\[eq:4pi\]) are given in Table \[tab:magn\]. These values may only be considered as a crude approximation to the real $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$ quantities. First, because the geometric factor is unable to reproduce accurately the susceptibility corrections in nuclear shielding; this problem was frequently discussed in the literature from the early days of NMR [@aabregjcp26; @aabjmsp5]. Secondly, we have used a special high-pressure tube, cf. sec. \[sec4\], which was not spinning and this may induce nonnegligible unknown effects.
[l d d d d r]{} & & & &\
$\chi_{\rm M}$ & -1.8915 & -7.601 & -20.610 & -22.254\
$\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$&7.923 & 31.839 &86.333 & 93.217\
$\sigma^{HeB}_{\rm 1}\, $&8.29(12) & 28.79(6) & 77.36(30) & &\
$\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$&8.62(12) & 29.56(6) & 80.26(30) & &\
Since a precise determination of the BSC value according to Eq. (\[eq:4pi\]) is impossible, we have applied our own experimental approach to estimate the bulk susceptibility corrections. It is well known that molecular interactions between the atoms of rare gases disturb the $^3$He shielding only to very small extent [@rspdrkmjjjmra101]. Moreover, a description of such interactions is available from the theoretical studies of the shielding in these gas mixtures [@aamjarjcp126]. In the present work we have measured the density dependent $^3$He shielding in helium, neon, and argon gases. It gave us the $\sigma_{1}^{HeHe}$, $\sigma_{1}^{HeNe}$ and $\sigma_{1}^{HeAr}$ coefficients of Eq. (\[eq:B\]), which were used next in Eq. (\[eq:ABA-B\]) together with the interatomic interaction coefficients, to obtain $ \sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$ as $\sigma_{1}^{AB}(X) - \sigma_1^{A-B}(X)$. We have used the values of $\sigma_1^{He-He}$, $\sigma_1^{He-Ne}$ and $\sigma_1^{He-Ar}$, based on the theoretical results of Ref. [@aamjarjcp126]: –0.328, –0.776 and –2.901 ppm mL/mol, respectively (another available value of $\sigma_1^{He-He}$, derived from the full configuration interaction calculations, but with a smaller basis set, is equal to –0.353 ppm mL/mol [@mparmp100]). In this way we determined the final values of the bulk susceptibility effects in the present NMR experiments, shown in Table \[tab:magn\]. Finally, we note that the problems related to precise determination of the bulk susceptibility effects are known, they have been recently analysed [@mdpbjctc6; @rehjmr178] and discrepancies of the order of $\approx$10% between the computed and experimental data have been observed [@mdpbjctc6].
Experiment {#sec4}
==========
The $^1$H, $^2$H, $^3$He and $^{13}$C NMR chemical shifts were measured on a Varian INOVA 500 spectrometer at 300 K operated at 500.61, 76.85, 381.36 and 125.88 MHz, respectively. $^2$H and $^{13}$C spectra were acquired with a standard two channel Varian switchable 5 mm probe, while $^3$He and $^1$H spectra in the self reconstructed helium probe [@kjmjbkmwjmr193]. Nitromethane-d$_3$ was used for a lock system when the $^1$H, $^3$He, and $^{13}$C NMR measurements were carried out. The $^2$H experiments required a high-band lock operating on the proton signal of liquid tetramethylsilane (TMS). For this purpose a special set of coaxial glass capillaries was prepared and the same set was also used for the external referencing of all the chemical shifts. The set of capillaries contained nitromethane-d$_3$ in the outer chamber and pure liquid TMS in the inner container. The capillaries were placed in a special non-spinning NMR tube which was used for all our measurements. The tube was made of zirconia and equipped with a metal valve for gas filling at high pressure (Daedalus Innovations, USA).
The described sample setup was complex, the zirconia tube with the capillaries affects the external magnetic field, and therefore we could not apply Eq. (\[eq:4pi\]) in our experimental work (see also the discussion in Ref. [@rspdrkmjjjmra101]). We have bypassed the problem of bulk susceptibility corrections performing analogous measurements of $^3$He shielding in $^4$He, Ne and Ar as gaseous solvents using exactly the same setup of the sample tube with the same set of capillaries. This series of measurements was specially designed for precise determination of the bulk susceptibility effects in our experiments, according to the approach discussed in section \[sub5\].
![A high pressure system for filling the zirconia NMR tube with a gas up to the pressure of 300 bar.[]{data-label="fig:spec"}](HPG.ps)
An efficient high-pressure system built in our laboratory permitted the NMR investigations of the hydrogen and helium gases for a wide range of densities. As indicated in Fig. \[fig:spec\] the measurements in this system can be carried out continuously up to the total pressure of 300 bar. All compartments were degassed when they were connected to the vacuum line, then a small amount of the solute gas was supplied from the same vacuum line and finally gas solvent was added and mechanically compressed. The pressure of gaseous solution was read by the calibrated gauge and converted into the number of moles following the van der Waals equation and appropriate coefficients for real gases [@handbook77]. Gases: H$_2$ (Air Product, 99.9999%), HD (Isotec, 98% D), D$_2$ (Isotec, 99.96%), $^3$He (Isotec, 99.96%), $^4$He (Air Product, 99.9%), Ne (Air Product, 99.999%), Ar (Air Product, 99.9999%) and CO$_2$ (Aldrich, 99.8%) from lecture bottles were used for the preparation of samples without further purification.
We have performed all the measurements of the $^1$H and $^2$H shielding for the hydrogen isotopomers, H$_2$, HD and D$_2$, as a function of the solvent density where helium, neon and argon were used as the solvents. Comparing the $^1$H and $^2$H NMR signals from the H$_2$ and D$_2$ molecules we found that the width at the half maximum of the deuterium signal is over an order of magnitude smaller than the same parameter of protons in H$_2$, e.g. $\Delta\nu_{1/2}$ = 86.9 Hz for H$_2$ in helium at 60 bar while $\Delta\nu_{1/2}$ = 6.0 Hz for D$_2$ in helium at the same pressure. In practice, this means that the deuterium experiments deliver much more precise data for the analysis than can be obtained from the $^1$H NMR observations of the H$_2$ molecule. Consequently, we use next the $^2$H NMR experimental data for comparison of the theoretical and experimental results.
For each discussed system, measurements have been performed for more than 20 different solvent gas densities. In each case, the linear fit represents well the density dependence of the results, with the adjusted coefficient of determination larger than 0.995. The experimental shielding constants were corrected for the gas imperfection, and not only derived from the relations (\[eq:Bp\]) and (\[rel\]).
Results and discussion {#sec5}
======================
We begin the discussion of the effects of intermolecular interactions on the shielding constants with a brief summary of the [*ab initio*]{} results. Three-dimensional plots of $\sigma_{\rm int}^{A-B}(X)$ for the H$_2$–He, $^3$He–CO$_2$, and $^{13}$CO$_2$–He complexes are presented in Fig. \[shieldrt\]. Similar plots for H$_2$–Ne and H$_2$–Ar are not reported since their $R$ and $\theta$ dependence is nearly the same as for H$_2$–He. An inspection of Fig. \[shieldrt\] shows that $\sigma_{\rm int}^{H_2-He}$(H) does not show any strong variations on $R$ and $\theta$. Only at very small intermolecular distances a stronger dependence shows up, but at these geometries the interaction potential is strongly repulsive, so the exponential Boltzmann factor is almost zero and these large variations of $\sigma_{\rm int}^{H_2-He}$(H) do not contribute to $\sigma_{1}^{H_2-He}$(H). Slightly more pronounced is the geometry dependence of the interaction-induced shielding for both $^3$He–CO$_2$ and $^{13}$CO$_2$–He.
$T$ (K) $\sigma_1^{H_2-He}$(H) $\sigma_1^{H_2-Ne}$(H) $\sigma_1^{H_2-Ar}$(H)
--------- -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
150 –0.324 –0.230 –4.071
200 –0.352 –0.281 –4.025
250 –0.381 –0.330 –4.085
280 –0.398 –0.358 –4.144
300 –0.410 –0.377 –4.189
320 –0.422 –0.396 –4.237
350 –0.440 –0.424 –4.314
$\sigma_1^{He-CO_2}$(He) $\sigma_1^{CO_2-He}$(C)
150 –6.579 1.3050
200 –6.514 1.2894
250 –6.548 1.2871
280 –6.590 1.2876
300 –6.622 1.2883
320 –6.658 1.2889
350 –6.714 1.2898
: Calculated [*ab initio*]{} values of $\sigma_1^{A-B}$ (ppm mL/mol)[]{data-label="tab:temp"}
Let us now analyse the temperature dependence of the $\sigma_1^{A-B}$ coefficients calculated from Eq. (\[eq:Boltz\]). The results for all the systems are shown in Table \[tab:temp\]. An inspection of the Table shows that the temperature effects are too small to be reliably determined from the experimental data (thus, in what follows we shall only compare theoretical results with the experiment for $T$=300 K). The dependence of the computed $\sigma_1^{A-B}$ on the temperature $T$ is almost linear. It is interesting to note that for H$_2$–He, H$_2$–Ne, H$_2$–Ar, and $^3$He–CO$_2$ systems $\sigma_1^{A-B}$ decreases with $T$, while for $^{13}$CO$_2$–He the opposite is found. The values at the lowest temperature, 150 K, do not differ considerably from the room temperature data, suggesting that the quantum effects will start to play a noticeable role at still lower temperatures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a) ![Geometry dependence of the interaction-induced shielding constant for the (a) $^3$He–CO$_2$, (b) $^{13}$CO$_2$–He and (c) H$_2$–He complexes.[]{data-label="shieldrt"}](S-He-CO2.eps "fig:")
\(b) ![Geometry dependence of the interaction-induced shielding constant for the (a) $^3$He–CO$_2$, (b) $^{13}$CO$_2$–He and (c) H$_2$–He complexes.[]{data-label="shieldrt"}](S-CO2-He.eps "fig:")
[(c) ![Geometry dependence of the interaction-induced shielding constant for the (a) $^3$He–CO$_2$, (b) $^{13}$CO$_2$–He and (c) H$_2$–He complexes.[]{data-label="shieldrt"}](S-He-H2.eps "fig:")]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The temperature dependence of $\sigma_1^{A-B}$ was studied experimentally in glass samples as described earlier [@kjmjbkmwjmr193], but only for the $^3$He–CO$_2$ system (rare gases like He, Ne and Ar could not in practice be used as solvents in such experiments). Unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve sufficient precision to perform a quantitative analysis of the results. In addition, a most important factor required to determine $\sigma$($^3$He) in $^3$He–CO$_2$ as a function of the temperature—the temperature dependence of CO$_2$ bulk susceptibility—is not known.
Before we consider the comparison of the [*ab initio*]{} and experimental results, we recall that for all the systems the bulk susceptibility corrections are dominant. The observed density dependence of $^2$H and $^3$He shielding in gaseous solutions is shown in Fig. \[figd2\] (the depicted range of densities corresponds to the pressure of the solvent rare gas increasing up to 300 bar). For comparison, we have shown the effect of $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$ for Ar. It is clear that for all the nuclei the total change of the shielding in the gas phase is very small, determined largely by $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}^B$, and the precise evaluation of the bulk susceptibility corrections is crucial for the present study of weak molecular interactions. The BSC effect can be neglected in the analysis of the experimental data in two cases—when a spherical NMR sample is prepared or when the sample is fast spinning at the magic angle. Unfortunately, neither of these methods can provide accurate results for compressed gas at high density.
Our final results, obtained for 300 K, are shown in Table \[tab:sum\]. For each system, the BSC constitutes the essential part of the measured effect, thus a minor error in the evaluation of $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}}$ clearly leads to a very significant error in $\sigma_1^{A-B}$. In particular, the standard approximation, $\sigma_{{\rm 1bulk}} = -({4\pi}/{3})\; \chi_{\rm M}$, is not sufficiently accurate. The error bars shown in Table \[tab:magn\] and Table \[tab:sum\] do not account for any systematic errors in the experiment, they represent only the errors of the linear fits to the observed density dependence of the results. We have considered systematic errors arising from a limited precision of the nominal reading of the absolute frequency, and errors in the control of the stability of the external magnetic field; they limit the precision of the measured shielding constants to $\pm$0.015 ppm. However, let us recall that in many cases the determination of $\sigma_1^{A-B}(X)$ required two NMR experiments, one for the observed $A-B$ binary system and one for the $^3$He$-B$ solvent. Consequently, the error bars are at least doubled, to $\pm$0.030 ppm for the $A-B$ system. Moreover, our experimental setup could slightly disturb the magnetic field as the sample was not spinning during the measurements; observing repeatedly the same samples we noticed deviations of up to ±2 Hz in the measured frequencies. A complete analysis of these systematic errors, following the discussed precision of frequency measurements and possible deviations in the gas density inside the NMR tube, gives $\pm$0.50 ppm mL/mol as an estimate of their contribution to the error bars in the $\sigma_1^{AB}$ values. This estimate does not include the tabulated errors of the linear fitting of the results, and does not take into account the left-over errors in the analysis of the bulk susceptibility effects.
The errors in the [*ab initio*]{} calculations are also difficult to estimate. The point-wise determined shielding surface is presumably accurate for the smallest H$_2$–He system, the correlation and basis set errors becoming larger for the other systems. Although the following stages—fitting the potential and the property surfaces, followed by the Boltzmann average—appear to be straightforward, approximations made in this part of the calculation contribute significantly to the final error bars. As shown in Fig. \[shieldrt\], there are regions of the shielding surface of opposite contributions to the induced shielding constant, and therefore the final result depends heavily on a significant cancellation of positive and negative contributions, which in turn depends on the potential surface. Following various test calculations we estimate that the errors of the computed $\sigma_1^{A-B}$ should not exceed 15-20% of the discussed above final [*ab initio*]{} values.
[l d d d d]{} & & & &\
& & & &\
& 8.07(8) & 8.62(12) & 0.55(20) &0.41\
& 29.83(3)& 29.56(6) & 0.27(9) &0.38\
& 76.44(32) & 80.26(30) & 3.78(62) & 4.19\
& 84.7(24) & 93.22& 8.5(24) & 6.62\
& 11.09(9) & 8.62(12)& 2.47(21) & 1.29\
Conclusions {#sec6}
===========
In this paper, we reported the first measurement of the changes of the NMR shielding constants due to weak intermolecular interactions. It became possible due to a new approach for the determination of bulk susceptibility effects, which are dominant in the studied systems. The interpretation of the results is related to the corresponding [*ab initio*]{} calculations, and we observe qualitative agreement of the [*ab initio*]{} values with those derived from the experimental data. There is a series of approximations that should be analysed to improve this agreement. In particular, it is obvious that one cannot expect quantitative agreement without a better description of the bulk susceptibility effects. We have bypassed this problem transferring the necessary information from one set of the experimental data—for pairs of rare gas atoms systems— to another, that is to the studied molecule–atom systems. Such an approach appears to yield satisfactory results in our case, but in general a better theory, describing accurately the bulk susceptibility corrections, is needed. For larger systems, for instance involving molecule-molecule interactions, the experiment may be easier, but without a proper description of these effects the interpretation of the results is almost impossible. Last but not least, we note that the corresponding theoretical calculations are also demanding, high level of the [*ab initio*]{} theory is required to obtain a reliable description of the small changes of the shielding constants due to weak intermolecular forces. For larger systems it may be difficult to achieve satisfactory accuracy of the results, in particular when the effects due to different parts of the shielding surface partially cancel out.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge support of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education research grant N N204 244134 (2008-2011). This project was partly co-operated within the Foundation for Polish Science MPD Programme co-financed by the EU European Regional Development Fund.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study mathematical models of the collaborative solving of a two-choice discrimination task. We estimate the difference between the shared performance for a group of [*n*]{} observers over a single person performance. Our paper is a theoretical extension of the recent work of @Bahrami2010 from a dyad (a pair) to a group of [*n*]{} interacting minds. We analyze several models of communication, decision-making and hierarchical information-aggregation. The maximal slope of psychometric function (closely related to the percentage of right answers vs. easiness of the task) is a convenient parameter characterizing performance. For every model we investigated, the group performance turns out to be a product of two numbers: a scaling factor depending of the group size and an average performance. The scaling factor is a power function of the group size (with the exponent ranging from $0$ to $1$), whereas the average is arithmetic mean, quadratic mean, or maximum of the individual slopes. Moreover, voting can be almost as efficient as more elaborate communication models, given the participants have similar individual performances.'
address:
- 'Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland'
- 'ICFO–Institut de Ciències Fotòniques, 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain'
- 'Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland'
- 'Department of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland'
- 'Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, University of Warsaw, Pawińskiego 5a, 02-106 Warsaw, Poland'
author:
- 'Piotr Migda[ł]{}'
- 'Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi'
- 'Micha[ł]{} Denkiewicz'
- Dariusz Plewczynski
title: 'Information-sharing and aggregation models for interacting minds'
---
group decision making ,two-alternative forced choice ,decision aggregation ,group information processing ,discriminative judgments ,accuracy ,discrimination difficulty ,bias ,information sharing ,group size ,two-choice decision ,distributive cognitive systems ,communication models ,cognitive process modeling
Introduction
============
Anyone who has ever taken part in group decision making or problem solving has most likely asked themselves at one point or another whether the process actually made any sense. Would it not be better if the most competent person in the group simply made the decision? In other words, it is an open question whether a group can ever outperform its most capable member. There have been many studies that have reported group decisions to be less accurate [@Corfman1995]. Some studies, however, have concluded that groups — even when they merely use simple majority voting — can make better decisions than their individual members [@Grofman1978; @Kerr2004; @Hastie2005]. We ask a more general question: how does the group performance depend upon the individual performances of its participants and the ways in which those participants communicate?
This question is given new light by recent trends in cognitive psychology, which after a half a century of fascination with isolated cognition in the individual, has finally admitted the individual interaction with the social environment. It is increasingly understood that joint actions and joint cognition are not limited to situations of committee/voter decisions, but instead, they pervade everyday life and require the constant coordination and integration of cognitive and physical abilities. This new approach, typically called [*distributed cognition*]{} [@Hutchins1995cognition], or [*extended cognition*]{} within the social domain [@Clark2006], brings the focus of research to the mechanisms of cognitive and physical coordination [@Kirsh2006] that affect this integration. It also brings attention to the comparison of the performance of the group to the performance of the individual. For some tasks that require different types of knowledge and abilities from group participants, groups are likely to outperform individuals [@Hill1982]. For other tasks, such as simple discrimination tasks or estimations, a question arises if a group is indeed better than the best of its members. If there are such situations, it is important to know when they arise.
Group decision making obviously involves members interacting with each other. Casting a vote requires a minimum amount of communication for the individual (only to inform other group members about his or her choice). However, other group decisions allow for extensive communication and negotiations of the decision. Our questions are: 1) which forms of communication are most likely to facilitate an improved outcome, and 2) what is actually being communicated in successful groups? Recent experiments by @Bahrami2010 have shown that cooperation can be beneficial, even in simple task, and that this benefit is best explained by the participants communicating their relative confidences. In their study, dyads (pairs) performed a perceptual two-choice discrimination task. On every trial participants had to decide which of two consecutive stimuli (sets of Gabor patches) contained a patch with higher contrast. First, decisions were collected from both persons; then, if the decisions were different, the participants were allowed to communicate to reach a joint decision.
The decision data obtained from each person was used to fit a psychometric function, i.e., the probability of that person giving a specific answer, as a function of the difference of the contrast between Gabor patches. These functions describe the person’s skill in the task. Similarly, a function describing the skill of the group as a whole can be estimated from the group decisions. As was described by Bahrami: [*“In experiments (...) psychometric functions were constructed for each observer and for the dyad by plotting the proportion of trials in which the oddball was seen in the second interval against the contrast difference at the oddball location”*]{} (@Bahrami2010, Supplementary Materials, p. 3).
Various assumptions about the nature of within-group interactions during the joint decision-making process can be made. From these assumptions, we can derive theoretical relationships between the parameters of members’ functions and the parameters of the group function. These are the models of decision making. The correctness of each joint decision model can then be tested against empirical data.
@Bahrami2010 described and evaluated four such models. One was own, in which group members communicate their confidence in their individual choices. Another model stemmed from signal detection theory [@Sorkin2001]. If members know each other’s relative discriminatory ability (i.e., their psychometric functions), the group can make a statistically optimal choice. Thus, under certain conditions, we have an upper bound on group performance. The third model suggested that the dyad is only as good as its best member. Finally, the last model tested was a control model involving random response selection. The study concluded that, when similarly skilled persons meet, they can both benefit from cooperation. A model in which participants communicate their relative confidences best explains this benefit.
We extend the models from @Bahrami2010 to groups of $n$ participants and compare their predictions. Furthermore, we add a model in which a participant either knows the correct answer, or guesses. Importantly, in the case of larger groups, it may be the case that only small subgroups of participants can communicate simultaneously. Thus, we address this issue by considering hierarchical schemes of decision aggregation, in which decisions are first made by subgroups, and then some of these subgroups interact to reach a shared decision.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[s:discrimination\], we present the @Bahrami2010 approach to integrating individual discrimination functions in pairs of participants. We use it to assess performance in groups. In Section \[s:communication\], we proceed to formulating a series of models of communication, which express the performance of a group of $n$ persons as a function of their individual performances. In Section \[s:aggregation\], we investigate how each model works, assuming several schemes of decision aggregation. Section \[s:comparison\] compares the introduced models and provides insight into further experimental and theoretical work. Section \[s:conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Model of discrimination {#s:discrimination}
=======================
Consider an experiment in which a participant has to make simple discriminatory decisions of varying difficulty. Each trial is assigned a parameter, $c$, that describes the physical distance between stimuli (e.g., in the Bahrami et al. experiment $c$ was the difference in contrast between Gabor patches). Negative $c$ describes a situation in which the right choice is the first of the pair, whereas positive $c$ describes the opposite situation. The absolute value of $c$ reflects the difficulty of a given trial. The lower the value, the more difficult is the resulting trial. From now on, we refer to the parameter describing physical difference as [*stimulus c*]{}. In the case of Bahrami et al. experimental setup, it can be interpreted as the two-interval stimulus with the difference of contrasts equal to $c$.
By knowing the choices of a certain decision-making agent (in our case either a single participant or a group making the decision together) for a range of stimuli, we can construct a mathematical description of the agent’s performance on the task.
For each agent, we can then determine his or her psychometric function: the probability of the agent choosing the second answer as a function of the stimulus, $P(c)$. An ideal responder would be described by the Heaviside step function: $P(c)=0$ for all negative stimuli, and $P(c)=1$ for all positive stimuli (i.e., choosing the second interval if and only if $c>0$).
Because responders make errors, the actual decision rule and probability are different. One way to describe such a response is derived from signal detection theory [@Sorkin2001]. According to it, for a stimulus $c$, a participant perceives stimulus $x$, which is a normally distributed random variable centered around $c+b$ and with variance $\sigma$, and decides basing on the sign of $x$. Two models described in this paper (Weighted Confidence Sharing and Direct Signal Sharing) use this mechanism explicitly. The modified realistic decision rule of an agent states that if the observed stimuli $x$ is negative, an agent decides to select the first patch (therefore interpreting the difference in contrast as negative), in the case of positive value, the second option is selected.
In particular, psychometric curves which are cumulative of the normal distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
P(c)&=H\left(\tfrac{c+b}{\sigma}\right),\qquad\hbox{ where}\label{eq:pdef}\\
H(x) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^{x} \exp\left(-t^2/2\right)dt,\end{aligned}$$ result in a good fit for the experimental data [@Bahrami2010]. The parameter $\sigma$ can be interpreted as the participant’s uncertainty about the decision. The parameter $b$ is the bias (offset); it represents a tendency to choose a particular answer, see Fig. \[fig:psychometric\]. The $P(c)$ function, defined as above, can be viewed as a convolution of the step function (the correct answer) and the Gaussian distribution (the discriminative error).
![Plot of the psychometric function, with shown slope $s$ and positive bias $b$. []{data-label="fig:psychometric"}](psychometric_ns.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
For our purposes, we assume that bias is much smaller than the characteristic width parameter, i.e., $|b|\ll \sigma$.
Consequently, $\sigma$ becomes the main determinant of the effectiveness of discrimination. It is convenient to choose the maximal slope of the psychometric function $$\begin{aligned}
s &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma},\label{eq:slopesigma}\end{aligned}$$ as the primary measure of the responding agent’s effectiveness.
Now, we can proceed to extending the @Bahrami2010 models. We would like to know how the performance of a group of $n$ people depends upon their individual cognitive performances. Therefore, we need to solve the explicit formulas for the propagation of slopes and biases when combining several responders within each of the different models of communication: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{model} &= s_{model}(s_1,b_1,\ldots, s_n,b_n),\label{eq:smodel}\\
b_{model} &= b_{model}(s_1,b_1,\ldots, s_n,b_n).\label{eq:bmodel}\end{aligned}$$ Each model is described by the shared decision function $$\begin{aligned}
P_{model} &= f\left[P_1,\ldots,P_n \right]\label{eq:pmodel},\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is a functional. For all but two models that we investigate, $P_{model}(c) = f\left[P_1(c),\ldots,P_n(c) \right]$, that is, the dependence is pointwise (i.e., result for a given $c$ requires only knowing individual $P_i(c)$ for the same $c$).
We can obtain the effective slope and bias using straightforward formulas that involve taking the derivative of the psychometric function with respect to the stimulus: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{model} &=\left.P_{model}'(c)\right|_{c=-b_{model}} \approx \left.P_{model}'(c)\right|_{c=0} \label{eq:slopediff}\\
b_{model} & = \left[ b \mbox{ for which } P_{model}(-b)=\frac{1}{2} \right] \approx \frac{P_{model}(0)-\frac{1}{2}}{\left.P_{model}'(c)\right|_{c=0}},\label{eq:biasdiff}\end{aligned}$$ where assuming the approximation for the relative error for both $s$ and $b$ is of order $O(s^2 b^2)$ (or equivalently, $O(\frac{b^2}{\sigma^2})$), where $O(\cdot)$ stands for big $O$ notation. The derivation is in \[s:approx\]. Note that if $P_{model}(c)$ is a cumulative Gaussian function (as in ), then the formulas for slope and are equivalent. However, it can be used as a [*definition*]{} of the slope and the bias in the general case of an arbitrary communication strategy $P_{model}(c)$, even if does not hold. Bear in mind that for practical applications, we expect $P_{model}(c)$ to be close enough to the cumulative Gaussian function. Moreover, when there are no biases, for all decision-making considered in this paper, the maximal slope is at $c=0$.
A question arises about the relation between the psychometric curve parameters and the expected rate of errors. To assess the average amount of incorrect answers we could expect from a responder, we introduced the following quantity, $$\begin{aligned}
W(\sigma,b) &= \int_{-\infty}^{0}P(c)dc + \int_{0}^{\infty} \left[ 1-P(c)\right]dc\\
&= \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\sigma \exp\left(-\tfrac{b^2}{2\sigma^2}\right) + b\left[ 2H\left(\tfrac{b}{\sigma}\right)-1 \right]\label{eq:penaltyres},\end{aligned}$$ where we integrated the error function [@AbramowitzStegun1965]. For a uniform distribution and range of stimuli, $(-r,r)$ for $r \gg (\sigma + |b|)$, the rate of the incorrect responses is given by $W(\sigma,b)/(2r)$. The average number of wrong answers is always reduced when lowering either width or bias, regardless of the other parameter’s value. This fact further justifies the choice of the slope as the proper effectiveness measure. When there is no bias, simplifies to $W(\sigma,0)=2/s$; thus, the rate of the incorrect responses is $1/(r s)$.
Information-sharing models {#s:communication}
==========================
In this section, we discuss different models of information sharing for $n$ participants. It is important to underline that the models incorporate the process of perceiving (what the subjects may know), the state of mind (what the subjects know), and the communication and the decision-making process (usually Bayes-optimal). We briefly define the assumptions of each model and justify it in psychological terms. We give results in terms of the effective psychometric function, $P_{model}(c)$, the effective slope, $s_{model}$, and sometimes the effective bias, $b_{model}$ (as for a few models the bias is poorly defined). Whenever calculations of $P_{model}(c)$ are not straightforward, we give some insight into the underlying mathematics.
We investigate the following models:
- \[s:rr\] Random Responder,
- \[s:vot\] Voting,
- \[s:bd\] Best Decides,
- \[s:wcs\] Weighted Confidence Sharing,
- \[s:dss\] Direct Signal Sharing,
- \[s:tw\] Truth Wins.
Random Responder {#s:rr}
----------------
#### Model {#model .unnumbered}
The trial decision of a random group member is taken as the group decision.
#### Motivation {#motivation .unnumbered}
Random Responder serves as one of the reference models, and it is not expected to be fulfilled in most of realistic settings. Random factors determine the collective decision, i.e., communication is seen as ineffective within framework of this model. Sometimes the decision is not based on any evidence and people may have very misleading impressions of their own accuracy. Additionally, their decisions may depend more upon a group member’s charisma or persuasive skills than his or her psychometric skills. In the work of @Bahrami2010, this model is called ’Coin flip’.
#### Results {#results .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{RR}(c) &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} P_i(c)\end{aligned}$$
After the differentiation, one obtains the slope and the bias : $$\begin{aligned}
s_{RR} & \approx \frac{s_1+\ldots+s_n}{n}\\
b_{RR} & \approx \frac{s_1b_1+\ldots+s_n b_n}{s_1+\ldots +s_n} \end{aligned}$$ The relative error both for $s_{RR}$ and $b_{RR}$ is $O(s_1^2 b_1^2) + \ldots + O(s_n^2 b_n^2)$. Note that $P_{RR}(c)$ is not normal .
Voting {#s:vot}
------
#### Model {#model-1 .unnumbered}
Each participant makes her or his own decision. The majority vote determines the decision of the group. In a case of equal votes for two outcomes, a coin is flipped.
#### Motivation {#motivation-1 .unnumbered}
People may have no access to their accuracy (or they cannot communicate it reliably); thus, a good strategy is to take voting as the final consensus result.
#### Results {#results-1 .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
&P_{Vot}(c) = \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor} \sum_{\vec{i}} \left[ 1-P_{i_{1}}(c)\right]\cdots \left[ 1-P_{i_{k}}(c)\right] P_{i_{k+1}}(c)\cdots P_{i_{n}}(c)\\
& +\left[ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\vec{i}} \left[ 1-P_{i_{1}}(c)\right]\cdots \left[ 1-P_{i_{n/2}}(c)\right] P_{i_{n/2+1}}(c)\cdots P_{i_{n}}(c) \right]_{\mbox{if $n$ is even}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where sum over $\vec{i}$ denotes sum over every permutation of participants. We obtain (derivation in \[s:appvot\]) $$\begin{aligned}
s_{Vot} &\approx
\frac{s_1+\ldots+s_n}{n}\times
\left\{
\begin{matrix}
\frac{n}{2^n} {n \choose n/2} & \hbox{if $n$ is even} \\
\frac{n}{2^{n-1}} {(n-1) \choose (n-1)/2} & \hbox{if $n$ is odd}
\end{matrix}
\right.\\
&\approx \sqrt{\tfrac{2}{\pi}} \times \sqrt{n} \times \frac{s_1+\ldots+s_n}{n}\label{eq:svotas}\\
b_{Vot} &\approx \frac{s_1b_1+\ldots+s_n b_n}{s_1+\ldots +s_n}\end{aligned}$$ The $P_{Vot}(c)$ is not normal . The relative error both for $s_{Vot}$ and $b_{Vot}$ is $O(s_1 b_1) + \ldots + O(s_n b_n)$. Note that the addition of an odd member to a group does not increase its average performance. The formula is an asymptotic expression for large $n$, which utilizes the Wallis formula. For $n=2$, the Random Responder and Voting models yield the same results.
Best Decides {#s:bd}
------------
#### Model {#model-2 .unnumbered}
The most accurate member of the group makes the decision. This model is called [*Behavior and Feedback*]{} in @Bahrami2010. In this model, we will focus on the case with no bias, $b=0$. Nonzero bias would make the result difficult to state in explicit form; see for further explanation.
#### Motivation {#motivation-2 .unnumbered}
In some experimental settings, members of the group can determine, who is the most accurate (e.g., when feedback is present). Group members can then let that individual make the final decision. Studies by @Henry1995 suggest that, at least in some types of tasks, participants can identify the most proficient member, so our assumption is plausible. As in the previous models, there is no (effective) communication between the members of the group.
#### Results {#results-2 .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{BD}(c) &= P_{\mbox{member with the highest $s$}}(c)\\
s_{BD} &= \max(s_1,\ldots,s_n)\end{aligned}$$
When biases are large, the group psychometric function is that of the most effective participant (i.e., one with the lowest $W(\sigma_i,b_i)$ ), $P_{BD}(c)=P_i(c)$. This strategy is most beneficial for a group with very diverse individual performances.
Weighted Confidence Sharing {#s:wcs}
---------------------------
#### Model {#model-3 .unnumbered}
Group members share their relative confidences $z_i=x_i/\sigma_i$. The group decision depends on the sign of $\sum_{i=1}^n z_i$, i.e., for the negative they choose the first option and for the positive they choose the second. This model requires each $P_i(c)$ to be normal .
#### Motivation {#motivation-3 .unnumbered}
The value $x_i$ is the stimulus perceived by $i$-th participant and has a distribution with density $P_i'(c)$, as it is in @Sorkin2001. We assume the confidence to be a continuous variable. The true stimulus $c$ is, of course, common for all participants in a given trial. The relative confidence is equivalent to a $z$-score, if the participant is unbiased (i.e., it is related to the probability that the participant is right). Put differently, participants know their $z$-scores on a given trial but are unaware of their own parameters $s$ and $b$. This model was first introduced by @Bahrami2010. It is possible that, in an experimental trial, each participant can estimate and effectively communicate their relative confidences, by using a coarse real-world approximation of one’s $z$-score, e.g., ’I lean towards 1st’, or ’I am almost sure it is the 2nd’ [@Fusaroli2012]. The study by @Bahrami2010 suggests that this model most accurately describes dyad performance.
Given relative confidences $\vec{z}=(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$, the group has to determine whether to choose the first or the second option. If there are only two participants with different opinions, the one with the stronger confidence (for a given trial) decides. This can be written as follows: the group chooses the first option if $z_1+z_2 \leq 0$, the second option otherwise, yielding an optimal strategy [@Bahrami2010]. In the general case of $n$ participants, we use the Bayes optimal reasoning. We calculate the probability that the stimulus is positive (and thus the second answer is correct) given the $z$-scores provided by each participant: $$\begin{aligned}
p(c>0|\vec{z}) = \int_{c=0}^\infty p(c|\vec{z})dc
= \frac{\int_0^\infty p(\vec{z}|c)p(c)dc}{\int_{-\infty}^\infty p(\vec{z}|c)p(c)dc},\label{eq:whenposit}\end{aligned}$$ where $p(c)$ is the probability of a discrimination task with $c$. The probability of observing $z_i$-score, given stimulus $c$, is $P_i'(c- \sigma_i z_i)$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
p(\vec{z}|c) = P_1'(c-x_1)\cdot\ldots\cdot P_n'(c-x_n).\label{eq:pzc}\end{aligned}$$ Let us assume that the displayed stimulus has a uniform distribution, i.e., that $p(c)$ is constant (not going into mathematical nuances). To define the decision function, we need to know when $p(c>0|\vec{z}) \geq 1/2$ or, in other words, when the probability that the second answer is correct is greater than $1/2$. As is a Gaussian function of $c$, finding its maximum leads to the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{x_1}{\sigma_1^2}+\ldots+\frac{x_n}{\sigma_n^2}&\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, using the slope parameter, $$\begin{aligned}
s_1 z_1+\ldots+s_n z_n&\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, when the condition holds, choosing the second option is the Bayes optimal choice. Unfortunately, in this model we only have access to values of $\vec{z}$, not to individual performances. To obtain the precise answer, we need to know the whole distribution of $\sigma_i$ (or $s_i$). Instead, we can use the approximate condition for the choice of the second option, $$\begin{aligned}
z_1+\ldots+z_n&\geq 0\label{eq:zsum},\end{aligned}$$ to obtain a lower bound on the performance. The condition is exact for participants with equal performances (and should be close to the optimal if the values of $\sigma_{i}$ do not vary much). This equation can be seen as a type of a weighted voting, where weights depend on subjective confidences, but not on individual performances. Members do not know their own — or their peers’ — performance scores, so there is no justification for assigning more or less weight to a particular member throughout the experiment. The only thing that matters is each member’s confidence in the present trial.
#### Results {#results-3 .unnumbered}
To calculate $P_{WCS}(c)$, we need to compute, given stimulus $c$, the probability of obtaining set $\vec{z}$ with a positive sum . Thus $$\begin{aligned}
P_{WCS}( c) &= \int_{x_1/\sigma_1 + \ldots + x_n/\sigma_n \geq 0} \exp \left[ - \frac{(c+b_1-x_1)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}+\right.\\
&\left.-\ldots- \frac{(c+b_n-x_n)^2}{2\sigma_n^2}\right]\frac{dx_1\cdots dx_n}{(2 \pi)^{n/2} \sigma_1 \cdots \sigma_n}\nonumber\\
&= H\left[ \sqrt{2\pi} s_{WCS} \left( c + b_{WCS}\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where the integration is based upon the fact that a sum of Gaussian random variables $z_i$ is a Gaussian random variable [@Piau2011]. The resulting parameters are: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{WCS} & = \sqrt{n} \times \frac{s_1+\ldots+s_n}{n}, \\
b_{WCS} & =\frac{s_1 b_1+\ldots+s_n b_n}{s_1+\ldots+s_n}.\end{aligned}$$
Again, note that the above result for $s_{WCS}$ is the lower boundary value for optimal Bayesian reasoning, exact only for $n=2$ (due to symmetry) and a group of participants with the same performance. By knowing the exact distribution of individual performances, we can obtain a better (or at least the same) group performance. Then, instead of the summation of individual $z$-scores , one will get a more complicated formula for the decision.
Direct Signal Sharing {#s:dss}
---------------------
#### Model {#model-4 .unnumbered}
Group members share both their perceived stimuli $x_i$ and their $\sigma_i$. The group decision depends on the sign of $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i/\sigma_i^2$. This model requires each $P_i(c)$ to be normal .
#### Motivation {#motivation-4 .unnumbered}
As for the WCS, we assume that the value $x_i$ is the stimulus perceived by $i$-th participant and has a distribution with the density $P_i'(c)$, as it is in [@Sorkin2001]. The group possesses complete knowledge about the characteristics of its members and their perceptions, so its effectiveness is hindered only by the skill of the participants, not by communication. This model constitutes the upper bound for group performance, provided that the stimuli are fully defined by their stimulus values (and perceived according to the discussed model). In the case of a more complex, non-perceptive task, it is possible for a group to exceed this bound [@Hill1982]. For example, this could occur when participants’ skills complement each other. People know the strength of the stimuli but also their own sensitivity. If the feedback is provided, we can plot $x$ versus $c$ to get $\sigma$.
#### Results {#results-4 .unnumbered}
The final group decision follows the standard derivation of n classifiers collecting independent results with normal distribution (e.g., @Sorkin2001 and @Bahrami2010): $$\begin{aligned}
P_{DSS}(c) &= \frac{1}{\hbox{normalization}}\int_{-\infty}^{c} P_1'(x)\cdot\ldots\cdot P_n'(x) dx\\
s_{DSS} &= \sqrt{s_1^2+\ldots+s_n^2} = \sqrt{n} \times \sqrt{\frac{s_1^2+\ldots+s_n^2}{n}}\\
b_{DSS} &= \frac{s_1^2 b_1+\ldots+s_n^2 b_n}{s_1^2+\ldots+s_n^2}\end{aligned}$$ Note that, regardless of the distribution of the individual performances, the group performance outscores both Best Decides and Weighted Confidence Sharing.
Truth Wins {#s:tw}
----------
#### Model {#model-5 .unnumbered}
We assume that on each trial each member is in one of the two states: either they know the right answer or they are aware of their own ignorance. In the latter case, a random guess is made. It is sufficient to have a single group member perceive the stimuli correctly to get the correct group answer. We assume no bias, as there is no possible way to treat it consistently and it introduces false convictions.
#### Motivation {#motivation-5 .unnumbered}
For so-called Eureka problems, the signal-theoretic limit can be exceeded [@Hill1982]. The key is that the answer to such a problem has the property of demonstrability: it allows a single member who has the correct answer to easily convince the rest of the group of its correctness [@Laughlin1975]. People know if they see the ’right’ stimuli (and all errors are due to guessing, not to false observations). This model has received much attention in group decision theory, e.g., in @Davis1973. It is appropriate in situations when the correctness of a solution can be demonstrated. However, we do not expect this model to be applicable to tasks similar to that of @Bahrami2010. This model serves as a control and an explicit example of a result beyond one provided by the Direct Signal Sharing model. We included it with the aim of generalizing the models to different decision situations.
#### Results {#results-5 .unnumbered}
The probability that the responder knows with certainty the right answer is $$\begin{aligned}
R(c) = \left| 2 P(c) - 1 \right|.\end{aligned}$$ That is, we have a reversed formula saying that, when a responder knows the answer with probability $R(c)$, the responder answers correctly with probability $R(c)+(1-R(c))/2$ (as there is the chance to answer correctly by a random guess). The probability that at least one person knows the correct answer is $$\begin{aligned}
R_{TW}(c) &= 1 - \left[ 1-R_1(c)\right]\cdot\ldots\cdot\left[ 1-R_n(c)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{TW}(c) &= \frac{\mbox{sign}(c)R_{TW}(c) +1}{2}\\
s_{TW} & = n \times \frac{s_1 + \ldots + s_n}{n},\end{aligned}$$ where the slope is a result of straightforward differentiation .
This model yields much better results than other models; note, however, that the absence of false observations is a strong requirement. Other models have to operate without this assumption. Note that the $P_{TW}(c)$ is not normal.
Aggregation of information in hierarchical schemes {#s:aggregation}
==================================================
So far, we have assumed that information from all participants is simultaneously collected and used in the group decision. One may argue that this is unrealistic for human communication in groups of more than a few persons. We, therefore, propose hierarchical models (schemes) in which only small subgroups can communicate at a particular time. Each of these subgroups reaches its own decision, in a manner described by one of the models introduced in the previous section. Hence, the subgroup can be regarded as a decision-making agent, described by a slope and a bias. The subgroup can then communicate with other subgroups or individual members, which results in larger groups being created, until all information is gathered and the final decision is made.
The results of employing a multi-level decision system can significantly deviate from what simultaneous information collection predicts. For instance, in a two-level voting system, which has been widely studied in the context of election results [@Davis1973; @Laughlin1975] the final outcome depends heavily upon the distribution of votes in the subgroups, sometimes allowing minority groups to overcome the majority, sometimes exaggerating the power of the majority. It is thus interesting to study the possible effects of such hierarchical systems.
We propose the following model for communication of $n$ participants:
1. In the beginning there are $n$ agents.
2. Each turn only $g$ (for our purpose: $2$ or $3$) agents (groups or individuals) share their information according to a chosen model. These agents are then merged into one agent (defined by $s_{model}(s_1,\ldots,s_g)$).
In other words, a group of people who shared information, is treated as a single agent in the next turn. There are two free parameters:
- The model used to combine members’ parameters into group parameters.
- How the groups are formed, i.e., the way to determine which agents should interact in given turn.
Let us consider the following ways in which groups can form (see Fig. \[fig:aggregab\] for the diagram of the two first schemes):
- \[s:ha\] Shallow hierarchy: Each turn $g$ agents from the groups with the least number of participants interact.
- \[s:hb\] Deep hierarchy: Each turn $g-1$ agents join to the group with largest number of participants (that is, there is only one group to which each turn $g-1$ agents join).
- \[s:hc\] Random hierarchy: Each turn $g$ random agents interact.
Above, by participants we understand the total number of individuals that were merged into an agent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Diagram of the interaction ordering for aggregation schemes for $g=2$: Shallow Scheme — each turn two agents from the least numerous groups interact, Deep Scheme — each turn a single participant joins the previously formed group.[]{data-label="fig:aggregab"}](aggregation_a.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Diagram of the interaction ordering for aggregation schemes for $g=2$: Shallow Scheme — each turn two agents from the least numerous groups interact, Deep Scheme — each turn a single participant joins the previously formed group.[]{data-label="fig:aggregab"}](aggregation_b.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Shallow Scheme Deep Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some models, the way in which groups are formed is irrelevant for obvious reasons. This is the case for Random Responder, Best Decides, Direct Signal Sharing and Truth Wins. The result is always the same and is equivalent to the simplest situation without any hierarchy. The models, which are affected to some degree, are as follows: Weighted Confidence Sharing and Voting.
Note that, in principle, agents do not know their own slopes, so the order of interactions cannot depend upon the individual (or group) $s_i$. However, as both $s_{WCS}$ and $s_{Vot}$ depend linearly on $s_i$, averaging over every permutation of participants yields a result that is proportional to the arithmetical mean of $s_i$, or $\langle s \rangle$. Consequently, to investigate the influence of the hierarchical information-aggregation, it is sufficient to treat each participant as if his/her performance is equal to $\langle s \rangle$.
For convenience, we consider a more general model with the parameter (the amplification multiplier) depending on $g$ (the group size) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{a_g}(s_1,\ldots ,s_g) = a_g \frac{s_1+\ldots+ s_g}{g}.\label{eq:sag}\end{aligned}$$ This generalization describes both WCS ($a_2=\sqrt{2}$, $a_3=\sqrt{3}$, $\ldots$) and Voting ($a_3 = 3/2$, $\ldots$), and it allows us to give results in an elegant general form.
Shallow hierarchy {#s:ha}
-----------------
Our justification for the Shallow hierarchy is the following: people may locally find their partners and then make a collective decision. Then, iteratively, groups of the same (or similar) size make the collective decision.
The analysis is simple when the number of participants is a power of $g$, i.e., $n=g^k$, where $k$ is a natural number.Then, every several elementary steps the number of agents is reduced by the factor of $g$, and agents’ slopes are multiplied by the factor $a_g$. In the end, we get $$\begin{aligned}
s_{a_g,Shallow,g} = \left(a_g\right)^k \langle s \rangle = n^{\log_g(a_g)} \langle s \rangle.\end{aligned}$$
In particular, for Weighted Confidence Sharing (i.e. $a_g=\sqrt{g}$), we reach the saturation $$\begin{aligned}
s_{WCS,Shallow,g} = \sqrt{n} \langle s \rangle. \label{eq:wcsag}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the aggregation process does not introduce a decrease in the group performance when it is compared to collecting all information at once. The formula holds only for $n$ that is a power of $k$. However, for different $n$s the formula works as a very good approximation. See Fig. \[fig:aggreg\] for the numerical results. The relation (i.e., that for groups of size $n=g^k$ we reach the efficiency of model without aggregation or $s_{a_g,Shallow,g}=s_{a_g,Shallow}$) is true for every model described by with $a_g = g^\alpha$ for any $\alpha$.
In the Voting model we need to consider the aggregation in a group of at least three (i.e., $g=3$ and $a_g=3/2$). Otherwise, it is equivalent to the Random Responder model. For $n$ being the power of three we get, $$\begin{aligned}
s_{Vot,Shallow,g=3} = n^{\log_{3}3/2} \langle s \rangle \approx n^{0.37} \langle s \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which works as a good approximation also for the general odd $n$. For every even $n$, there is at least one process with two parties, which significantly decreases the total performance (as voting for two participants reduces to a coin flip).
Adding one or two at a time {#s:hb}
---------------------------
In this case, there is a single group to which single agents join one after another. The resulting slope is as for the Weighted Confidence Sharing model: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{WCS,Deep,g=2}&=2^{-(n-1)/2} \langle s \rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} 2^{-i/2} \langle s \rangle =\left(1+\sqrt{2}-2^{1-n/2}\right) \langle s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ and for the Voting model for an odd $n$ and aggregation of three $$\begin{aligned}
s_{Vot,Deep,g=3} &= 2^{(n-1)/2} \langle s \rangle +2\sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)/2} 2^{-i} \langle s \rangle =\left(2-2^{-(n-1)/2} \right) \langle s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ We see that the Deep hierarchy is very inefficient. The multiplier of $\langle s \rangle$ converges to a constant. This leads to the conclusion that simultaneous aggregation (i.e., Shallow hierarchy) is not only more natural but also much more efficient.
To obtain the asymptotic value of $s_{a_g,Deep,g} $, we can consider an equilibrium situation wherein $g-1$ individuals join the group, which has already reached the limit $$\begin{aligned}
s_{a_g,Deep,g} &= a_g \left(\frac{g-1}{g} \langle s \rangle + \frac{1}{g}s_{a_g,Deep,g} \right).\end{aligned}$$ This leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{a_g,Deep,g} &= \frac{g-1}{g/a_g -1}\langle s \rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Random hierarchy {#s:hc}
----------------
What happens between the Shallow hierarchy and the Deep hierarchy? If the groups merge at random, is the final $s$ closer to the most efficient aggregation scheme, or to non-scaling (e.g., adding a few members at a time)? The answer, not surprisingly, lies in between these two extremes.
We parameterize time with $t$ starting from $0$. Each turn $g$ agents merge into one of the slope . The current number of agents is described by $n_t=n_0-(g-1)t$. We investigate how the distribution of slopes $\rho_t(s)$ evolves with time, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho_{t+1}(s) - \rho_t(s) =\label{eq:rhoevoldis}\\
&-g\frac{\rho_t(s)}{n_t} + \int \frac{\rho_t(s_1)}{n_t} \cdots \frac{\rho_t(s_g)}{n_t} \delta\left( s_{model}(s_1,\cdots,s_g) - s \right) ds_1\cdots ds_g,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ is the Dirac delta, i.e., a distribution such that $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x) \delta(x-x_0) dx = f(x_0)$. The difference in distributions $\rho_{t+1}(s) - \rho_t(s)$ involves two processes. The first expression means that we take $g$ random agents. These agents interact and are removed from the distribution. The second expression means that, for every possible group of $g$ agents (with slopes $s_1,\ldots,s_n$), a new agent is created with the slope $ s_{model}(s_1,\ldots,s_g)$.
Note that we use integrals, but sum over a finite set will give the same result. The parameter we are most concerned with is the mean slope, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle s \rangle_t = n_t^{-1} \int s \rho_t(s) ds.\end{aligned}$$ We multiply by $s$ and integrate $\int \cdot ds$. In our case, , this gives a relatively simple result: $n_{t+1}\langle s \rangle _{t+1} = n_{t}\langle s \rangle_t - g \langle s \rangle_t + a_g \langle s \rangle_t$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\langle s \rangle _{t} = \frac{n_0 - (g-1)t+a_g-1}{n_0-(g-1)t} \langle s \rangle _{t-1}.\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the final result, we need to calculate $\langle s \rangle _{t_{max}}$ at the point of time when only one agent remains. We consider $t_{max}=(n_0-1)/(g-1)$ to be an integer (e.g., for $g=3$ we need to consider an odd number of participants, for $g=2$ there are no restrictions). Then, remembering that $\langle s \rangle_0 = \langle s \rangle$ and $n_0 = n$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
s_{a_g,Random,g} &= \prod_{t=1}^{t_{max}} \left( \frac{n_0 - (g-1)t+a_g-1}{n_0-(g-1)t} \right) \langle s \rangle\\
&=\frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{1}{g-1}\right)}{\Gamma\left( \frac{a_g}{g-1} \right)}
\frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{n_0}{g-1}+\frac{a_g-1}{g-1} \right)}{\Gamma\left( \frac{n_0}{g-1} \right)} \langle s \rangle\\
&\approx \frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{1}{g-1}\right)}{\Gamma\left( \frac{a_g}{g-1} \right) (g-1)^{(a_g-1)/(g-1)}} \times n^{(a_g-1)/(g-1)} \times \langle s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ is the Euler gamma function, and we applied the Stirling approximation. For $g=2$, we obtain the neat result $$\begin{aligned}
s_{a_g,Random,g=2} \approx \frac{1}{\Gamma(a_2)} n^{a_2-1} \langle s \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ in particular, for the Weighted Confidence Sharing model ($a_2=\sqrt{2}$) we get $$\begin{aligned}
s_{WCS,Random,g=2} \approx 1.13 n^{0.41} \langle s \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ whereas for the Voting model for $g=3$ (and odd number of participants) we get $$\begin{aligned}
s_{Vot,Random,g=3} \approx 1.22 n^{0.25} \langle s \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[fig:aggreg\] , we present plots for Weighted Confidence Sharing in aggregation groups of two, and Voting in groups of three. We use both analytical approximations and numerical results.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Plot of numerically obtained multipliers of $\langle s \rangle$ for models with aggregation of information. Weighted Confidence Sharing with $g=2$ for aggregation hierarchies: Shallow (circles), Deep (diamonds) and Random (squares). Voting with $g=3$, and only for odd number of participants, for aggregation hierarchies: Shallow (circles), Deep (diamonds) and Random (squares). The lines are the respective analytical results from Sec. \[s:aggregation\]. The numerical results for the Random hierarchy are taken from one shot, i.e., they are not averaged.[]{data-label="fig:aggreg"}](accumulation_wcs_g2.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Plot of numerically obtained multipliers of $\langle s \rangle$ for models with aggregation of information. Weighted Confidence Sharing with $g=2$ for aggregation hierarchies: Shallow (circles), Deep (diamonds) and Random (squares). Voting with $g=3$, and only for odd number of participants, for aggregation hierarchies: Shallow (circles), Deep (diamonds) and Random (squares). The lines are the respective analytical results from Sec. \[s:aggregation\]. The numerical results for the Random hierarchy are taken from one shot, i.e., they are not averaged.[]{data-label="fig:aggreg"}](accumulation_voting_g3.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Weighted Confidence Sharing, $g=2$ Voting, $g=3$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion on results and comparison of models {#s:comparison}
==============================================
For each investigated model, we arrived at the formula for the slope of the group as a function of individual slopes, $$\begin{aligned}
s_{model}(s_1,\ldots,s_n) = \hbox{multiplier}_{model}(n) \times \hbox{mean}_{model}(s_1, \ldots, s_n).\end{aligned}$$ Explicit results can be found in Tab. \[tab:cns\] and Fig. \[fig:multi\]. Note that the formula is a product of two quantities — performance as a function of the group size (i.e., the multiplier), and the mean of the individual slopes (if the better-performing contribute more to the outcome). For equally skilled participants, only the multiplier matters, whereas for a group of people with high variance in performance, the type of mean is crucial.
We not only solved the problem for a particular list of models, but we also constructed a general framework for the collaborative solving of a two-choice task, i.e., the group performance can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
s_{model}(s_1,\ldots,s_n) = d \times n^\alpha \times \left( \frac{s_1^p + \ldots + s_n^p}{n} \right)^{1/p},\label{eq:s_model_fit}\end{aligned}$$ where parameters $d$, $\alpha$ and $p$ can be fitted for any experimental data, even data not covered by the models we investigated. Note that for $p=1$ we arrive at the arithmetic mean, for $p=2$ we arrive at the quadratic mean, and $p\rightarrow \infty$ we arrive at the maximum. For the models we investigated, is either an exact solution (RR, WCS, BD, DSS, TH) or a good approximation (Voting, information aggregation schemes). If the result is exact, then $d=1$ (to be consistent with the case of $n=1$).
For a given list of slopes $(s_1,\ldots,s_n)$, it is possible to write relations with the performances (slopes) for different models which read as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{RR} \leq s_{Vot} < s_{WCS} \leq s_{DSS} \leq s_{TW}.\end{aligned}$$ An average-performing participant is expected to benefit from participating in a joint task, unless the responder is chosen at random (in which case there is neither a gain nor a loss). It is somewhat more difficult to compare the Best Decides model to the other models, as it highly depends on the distribution of the participants’ skills. We can write $$\begin{aligned}
s_{RR} < s_{BD} < s_{DSS} \leq s_{TW}.\end{aligned}$$ However, how does the Best Decides model relate to the Voting and the Weighted Confidence Sharing models? The answer lies in the comparison of the most skilled participant with the average performance, i.e., $\hbox{max}(s)/\langle s \rangle$. If this ratio is greater than $\approx 0.8 \sqrt{n}$, the Best Decides model outperforms the Voting. If the ratio is greater that $\sqrt{n}$, Best Decides outperforms the WCS as well. For example, when there is one expert (with $s_{exp}>1$ among $s_{non-exp}=1$) among the total number of $n$ participants, then only when $s_{exp}>\sqrt{n}+1$ it is better for a group to use the Best Decides strategy.
Model $s(s_1,s_2)$ $s(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ Mean Multiplier
------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------ ------------------------
RR $\frac{s_1+s_2}{2}$ $\frac{s_1+s_2+s_3}{3}$ arithmetic 1
Vot $\frac{s_1+s_2}{2}$ $\frac{s_1+s_2+s_3}{2}$ arithmetic $\approx 0.8 \sqrt{n}$
BD $\max(s_1,s_2)$ $\max(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ maximum $1$
WCS $\frac{s_1+s_2}{\sqrt{2}}$ $\frac{s_1+s_2+s_3}{\sqrt{3}}$ arithmetic $\sqrt{n}$
DSS $\sqrt{s_1^2+s_2^2}$ $\sqrt{s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2}$ quadratic $\sqrt{n}$
TW $s_1+s_2$ $s_1+s_2+s_3$ arithmetic $n$
: Models summary for the six considered models of Sec.\[s:communication\]. For each model there is given explicit formula for two and three members. In each model the $s_{model}$ has the general form $\mbox{multiplier}\times\mbox{mean}$.[]{data-label="tab:cns"}
![Plot summarizing multipliers for different models.[]{data-label="fig:multi"}](different_multipliers.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
For schemes of aggregation (Tab. \[tab:cnsaggreg\]), we obtained two interesting results. First, most of the models we investigated are not affected by the gradual aggregation of information. Second, for models that are affected, the optimal solution is to aggregate information in the smallest possible groups, i.e., in $g=2$ for Weighted Confidence Sharing and $g=3$ for Voting.
Model $g$ Shallow hierarchy Random hierarchy Deep hierarchy
------- ----- ------------------- ------------------ ----------------
Vot 3 $n^{0.37} $ $1.22 n^{0.25}$ $2.00$
Vot 4 $n^{0.16} $ $1.15 n^{0.08}$ $1.36$
Vot 5 $n^{0.35} $ $1.38 n^{0.19}$ $2.15$
WCS 2 $n^{0.5}$ $1.13 n^{0.41}$ $2.41$
WCS 3 $n^{0.5}$ $1.25 n^{0.37}$ $2.73$
WCS 4 $n^{0.5}$ $1.37 n^{0.33}$ $3.00$
WCS 5 $n^{0.5}$ $1.48 n^{0.31}$ $3.23$
: Summary of information-aggregation results (see Sec. \[s:aggregation\]) in groups of $g$ agents for affected models, i.e., Voting and Weighted Confidence Sharing. For each model there are provided asymptotic multipliers for three different information-aggregation hierarchies. In each model the $s_{model}$ has the form $\mbox{multiplier}$ times arithmetic mean. Note that for Voting grouping in $g=4$ is very ineffective (as, in fact, it effectively uses the opinions of three out of four participants). Also note that, asymptotically, the most effective approach (i.e., the best for very large groups) for the Shallow and Deep aggregation schemes is to gather information in the smallest possible groups of agents (i.e., in $g=3$ for Voting and $g=2$ for WCS).[]{data-label="tab:cnsaggreg"}
It is possible that participants’ strategies vary from trial to trial. In such situations, the outcome would be a mixture of strategies (with weights $w_{model}$), that is $$\begin{aligned}
P_{eff}(c) &= \sum_{models} w_{model} P_{model}(c),\\
s_{eff} &= \sum_{models} w_{model} s_{model}.\end{aligned}$$ To distinguish between models, the sole analysis of the group performance might not be enough, as (psychologically) different models of problem-solving can yield the same performance. One can test modified schemes that put additional constraints on participants’ interactions to investigate communication directly. For example, contact with other members could be limited to voice or text chat, or no feedback may be provided. In addition, participants might be asked to express their confidence explicitly on a Likert scale. However, further experimental work should be carried out to clarify if and when confidence is subjectively accessible and can be communicated explicitly, and when it can be read from participants’ behaviors. Preliminary results [@Bahrami2012] seem to suggest that the latter is common. Also the amount of feedback could range from full information about the stimulus to simple information about accuracy, to no feedback at all. As a reference, it may serve to examine Social Decision Scheme Theory [@Davis1973], wherein the group decision is considered to be a function of individual choices, regardless of skills, confidences or the difficulty of the task.
In all the models, interaction is beneficial for the overall performance, except for in the Random Responder model (where the performance is the same as the averaged performance of each individual). It is possible that beyond a certain critical size, groups start to perform worse [@Grofman1978]. The models we consider do not predict such a collapse, as they are based on information sharing and do not incorporate phenomena related to motivation and social or technical ability to work in groups.
Conclusion {#s:conclusion}
==========
In the paper, we examined mathematical models for solving a two-choice discriminative task by a group of participants. We were interested in how group performance depended upon the performance of the individuals, their ways of communication and their modes of decision aggregation. As a measure of performance, we used the slope of the psychometric function , which indicates how performance changes with the difficulty of the task. The higher the slope of $s$ is, the better the performance of the individual (or the group).
We analyzed a number of possible models of decision integration in a joint task. As we moved from 2-person to $n$-person groups, we also had to take into account patterns of interaction among members. Obviously, the choice of the way in which aggregate decisions of group members are made is not always unconstrained. Some of the models, it seems, can be adopted in almost all group decision situations (such as the Random Responder model and the Voting model). Regardless of the properties of the stimuli, people can make their own decisions and vote. For the Best Decides model, we need to assume that the group possess information about the members’ performances (e.g., from the feedback). Other models (i.e., the Weighted Confidence Sharing, the Direct Signal Sharing and the Truth Wins models) make direct assumptions about the problem structure or the information that can be shared. Consequently, they can be considered only in particular tasks, in which a certain level of confidence in an individual’s own answer can be reached. Our list of models is by no means exhaustive.
We need to be aware of the fact that the presented models are valid only for our specific situation (collaborative decisions in a two-choice perceptive task wherein difficulty can be smoothly adjusted). Other tasks may be analyzed within the same paradigm, such as integrating information in an individual’s mind. Several exposures to the same stimulus by a single person, perhaps using different senses or with different noise levels, would be another subject for further investigation. Such an approach is presented in experiments on sensory integration, e.g., by @Ernst2002, which serve as one of the motivations for the @Bahrami2010 models. Perhaps collaborative decisions in other two-choice tasks (e.g., verbal or mathematical decisions) could also be treated in a similar fashion. However, for many other settings, more advanced models are needed, e.g., ones that take into account more choices or the dynamic interaction between solving a problem in an individual’s mind and communicating that decision to the other participants. Nevertheless, we believe that the first step should be to experimentally verify the predicted results of this paper (with an emphasis on the scaling of the performance), before proceeding to more advanced theoretical models.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work was supported by EC EuroUnderstanding grant [*DRUST*]{} to JRL, Spanish MINCIN project FIS2008-00784 (TOQATA) and ICFO PhD scholarship to PM, and the Polish Ministry of Education and Science (grants: N301 159735, N518 409238) to DP.
[17]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I. A., 1965. [Handbook of Mathematical Functions: with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables.]{} Dover Publication
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., Aug. 2010. [Optimally Interacting Minds]{}. Science 329 (5995), 1081–1085. [[10.1126/science.1185718](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1185718)]{}.
Clark, A., Aug. 2006. [Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche.]{} Trends in cognitive sciences 10 (8), 370–4. [[10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.012)]{}.
Corfman, K. P., Kahn, B. E., Jan. 1995. [The influence of member heterogeneity on dyad judgment: Are two heads better than one?]{} Marketing Letters 6 (1), 23–32. [[10.1007/bf00994037](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00994037)]{}.
Davis, J. H., 1973. [Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes.]{} Psychological Review 80 (2), 97–125. [[10.1037/h0033951](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033951)]{}.
Ernst, M. O., Banks, M. S., Jan. 2002. [Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion.]{} Nature 415 (6870), 429–33. [[10.1038/415429a](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/415429a)]{}.
Grofman, B., 1978. [Judgmental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation: Is a majority of heads better than one?]{} [[10.1080/0022250x.1978.9989880](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022250x.1978.9989880)]{}.
Hastie, R., Kameda, T., Apr. 2005. [The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions.]{} Psychological review 112 (2), 494–508. [[10.1037/0033-295x.112.2.494](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.2.494)]{}.
Henry, R., May 1995. [Improving Group Judgment Accuracy: Information Sharing and Determining the Best Member]{}. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62 (2), 190–197. [[10.1006/obhd.1995.1042](http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1042)]{}.
Hill, G. W., 1982. [Group versus individual performance: Are N+1 heads better than one?]{} Psychological Bulletin 91 (3), 517–539. [[10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.517](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.517)]{}.
Hutchins, E., Lintern, G., 1995. [Cognition in the Wild]{}. Vol. 262082314. MIT press Cambridge, MA.
Kerr, N. L., Tindale, R. S., Jan. 2004. [Group performance and decision making.]{} Annual review of psychology 55, 623–55. [[10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009)]{}.
Kirsh, D., Jan. 2006. [Distributed cognition: A methodological note]{}. Pragmatics & Cognition 14 (2), 249–262. [[10.1075/pc.14.2.06kir](http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.06kir)]{}
Laughlin, P. R., Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Halff, H. M., Marciniak, K. A., 1975. [Group size, member ability, and social decision schemes on an intellective task.]{} Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (3), 522–535. [[10.1037/h0076474](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076474)]{}.
Piau, D., 2011. A simpler solution of the integral $\int_{x_1+\ldots+x_n \geq
a} \exp\left[ -\pi \left(x_1^2+\ldots+x_n^2 \right)\right] dx_1\cdots dx_n $. Mathematics - Stack Exchange. <http://math.stackexchange.com/q/61215> (version: 2011-09-01)
Sorkin, R. D., Hays, C. J., West, R., 2001. [Signal-detection analysis of group decision making.]{} Psychological Review 108 (1), 183–203. [[10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.183](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.183)]{}.
Approximations {#s:approx}
==============
$P(c)$ can be expanded in Taylor series of $c$ around $c=-b$. $$\begin{aligned}
P(c) &= P\left[ -b + (c+b) \right]\\
&= P(-b) + (c+b) P'(-b) + \tfrac{(c+b)^2}{2} P''(-b) + \tfrac{(c+b)^3}{6} P'''(-b) + \ldots\end{aligned}$$ where $P^{(i)}(-b)$ can be found explicitly using , $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(i)}(c) = \frac{1}{\sigma^i}H^{(i)}(\tfrac{c+b}{\sigma}). \end{aligned}$$ In particular $H(0)=1/2$, $H'(0)=1/\sqrt{2\pi}$, $H''(0)=0$, $H'''(0)=-2/\sqrt{2\pi}$.
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
P(c) = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{(c+b)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} + O\left[ (\tfrac{c+b}{\sigma})^3 \right]\label{eq:pcwitherror},\end{aligned}$$ that is, the approximation error of taking the linear approximation is of the order $(c+b)^3/\sigma^3$ as the quadratic term vanishes. Plugging $c=0$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P(0) &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{b}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} + O\left[ (\tfrac{b}{\sigma})^3 \right]\\
& = \frac{1}{2} + s b + O[ (s b)^3 ] \end{aligned}$$ and similarly, the derivative of in $0$ is $$\begin{aligned}
P'(c)|_{c=0} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} O\left[ (\tfrac{b}{\sigma})^2 \right]\\
& = s \left[ 1 + O(s^2 b^2) \right].\end{aligned}$$ The last equation gives the approximate equation for slope . Another expression $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{P(0)-1/2}{P'(c)|_{c=0}} &= \frac{b + b O[ (s b)^2 ] }{1+ O[ (s b)^2 ]} = b \left[ 1 + O(s^2 b^2) \right]\end{aligned}$$ yields in the approximate equation for bias .
Voting {#s:appvot}
======
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{Vot}(c) &= \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor} \sum_{\vec{i}} \left[ 1-P_{i_{1}}(c)\right]\cdots \left[ 1-P_{i_{k}}(c)\right] P_{i_{k+1}}(c)\cdots P_{i_{n}}(c)\\
& +\left[ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\vec{i}} \left[ 1-P_{i_{1}}(c)\right]\cdots \left[ 1-P_{i_{n/2}}(c)\right] P_{i_{n/2+1}}(c)\cdots P_{i_{n}}(c) \right]_{\mbox{if $n$ is even}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
After plugging the linearization in the above, and using $\mu_i=s_i(b_i+c)$, each part has the form of $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[ \tfrac{1}{2} - \mu_{i_{1}}+ O( \mu_{i_1}^3 ) \right] \cdots \left[ \tfrac{1}{2} - \mu_{i_k} + O( \mu_{i_k}^3 ) \right]\\
&\times \left[ \tfrac{1}{2} + \mu_{i_{k+1}} + O( \mu_{i_{k+1}}^3 ) \right] \cdots \left[ \tfrac{1}{2} + \mu_{i_n} + O( \mu_{i_n}^3 ) \right]\\
= &\tfrac{1}{2^n} - \tfrac{1}{2^{n-1}} \left( \mu_{i_1} + \ldots + \mu_{i_k} \right) + \tfrac{1}{2^{n-1}} \left( \mu_{i_{k+1}} + \ldots + \mu_{i_n} \right)\\
&+ O(\mu_1^2) + \ldots + O(\mu_n^2)\end{aligned}$$ After applying permutations to the main part (i.e., without the error estimation) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2^n}{n \choose k} + \frac{1}{2^{n-1}}{n \choose k}\left[ -k + (n-k) \right]\frac{\mu_1+\ldots+\mu_n}{n} \\
= \frac{1}{2^n}{n \choose k} + \frac{n}{2^{n-1}} \left[ -{n-1 \choose k-1} +{n-1 \choose k} \right] \frac{\mu_1+\ldots+\mu_n}{n},\end{aligned}$$ which is easy to be summed. The first component sums to $1/2$. In the second, binomial coefficients cancel pairwise, except for ${n-1 \choose 0-1}=0$ and ${n-1 \choose \lfloor (n-1)/2 \rfloor}$ leaving only ${n-1 \choose k}$ for $k=\lfloor (n-1)/2 \rfloor$. Consequently, when $n$ is odd, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
P_{Vot,odd}(c) &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{n}{2^{n-1}} {n-1 \choose (n-1)/2} \frac{\mu_1+\ldots+\mu_n}{n} + O(\mu_1^2) + \ldots + O(\mu_n^2)\end{aligned}$$ and for even $n$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_{Vot,even}(c) &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{n}{2^{n-1}} {n-1 \choose (n-2)/2} \frac{\mu_1+\ldots+\mu_n}{n} + O(\mu_1^2) + \ldots + O(\mu_n^2).\end{aligned}$$ After the differentiation one obtains the slope and the bias .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have analysed high-dispersion echelle spectra ($R = 60000$) of red giant members of five open clusters to derive abundances for many elements from Na to Eu. The \[Fe/H\] values are $-0.06\pm0.03$ for Stock 2, $-0.11\pm0.03$ for NGC 2168, $-0.01\pm0.03$ for NGC 6475, $0.00\pm0.03$ for NGC 6991 and $-0.07\pm0.03$ for NGC 7662. Sodium is enriched in the giants relative to the abundance expected of main sequence stars of the same metallicity. This enrichment of \[Na/Fe\] by about $+0.25$ attributed to the first dredge-up is discussed in the light of theoretical predictions and recently published abundance determinations. Abundance ratios \[El/Fe\] for other elements are with very few exceptions equal to those of field giants and dwarfs, i.e., \[El/Fe\] $\simeq 0.00$ for \[Fe/H\] $\sim 0.0$. An exception is the overabundance of La, Ce, Nd and Sm in NGC 6991 but this is consistent with our previous demonstration that the abundances of these $s$-process products vary by about $\pm0.2$ among clusters of the same \[Fe/H\], a variation found also among field giants and dwarfs.'
date: 'Accepted 2019 February 07. Received 2019 February 06; in original form 2019 January 07'
title: 'Comprehensive abundance analysis of red giants in the open clusters Stock 2, NGC 2168, 6475, 6991 and 7762 '
---
\[firstpage\]
Galaxy: abundances – Galaxy: disc – Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics – (Galaxy:) open clusters and associations: general – stars: abundances – open clusters: individual: Stock 2, NGC 2168, NGC 6475, NGC 6991 and NGC 7762
Introduction
============
Observations of stars in Galactic open clusters yield information on two distinct areas of astrophysics: the evolution of stars and the structure of the Galactic disc. In this paper, the fifth in a series on the chemical compositions of red giants in clusters, chemical compositions are provided for giants in five clusters bringing the total number of clusters studied to 33. Compositions of giants across this sample are applied to two investigations – one concerning stellar evolution and a second involving the origin of field stars in the Galactic disc.
In the area of stellar evolution, the focus here is on sodium abundances in giants. Sodium abundance of a giant is predicted to be enhanced over the initial value thanks to sodium brought to the surface by the first dredge-up experienced as the star evolves up the red giant branch. This paper examines if the observed increase in the sodium abundance agrees with that predicted for post first dredge-up giants.
Concerning field stars a key premise is that open clusters dissolve over time with their stars joining the population of field stars in the Galactic disc. Then, one may ask if it is possible to assign field stars to their now-dissolved open clusters. This exercise would be aided greatly if each open cluster had a distinctive chemical compositions, i.e., one or more chemical tags (Freeman & Bland-Hawthorn 2002). In an earlier paper (Lambert & Reddy 2016) based on the compositions of giants in open clusters, it was observed that the abundance of heavy elements (e.g., La and Ce) whose synthesis is attributed to the main $s$-process in AGB stars may have different abundances in clusters with otherwise identical compositions. This observation about abundances of heavy elements is pursued further in this paper as part of the dream of establishing a practical chemical tag.
This is the first paper in our series on open clusters to be completed following the second Gaia data release (Gaia DR2, Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018) which consists of celestial positions, parallaxes, broad-band photometry for sources brighter than G-band magnitude 21. Gaia DR2 also provides radial velocities with typical errors of 0.3$-$1.8 km s$^{-1}$ for stars brighter than G$_{RVS}=$ 12 mag, and high-quality transverse velocities at a precision of 0.07 mas yr$^{-1}$ (G$<$15 mag) to 3 mas yr$^{-1}$ (G$<$21) for an unprecedentedly large number of stars. With Gaia DR2, recent studies have presented revised cluster distances, proper motions, radial velocities, and investigated the distribution of open clusters in the 6D phase space (Cantat-Gaudin et al. 2018; Soubiran et al. 2018). None of the five clusters in this paper, with the exception of NGC 7762, was considered previously with Gaia DR2. The photometric and astrometric parameters of cluster stars collected from Gaia DR2 allow us to confirm the cluster membership of red giants analysed in this paper.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we describe observations, data reduction and radial velocity measurements. Section 3 is devoted to the abundance analysis and Section 4 to discussing revised cluster parameters. We present in Section 5 comparison with abundance determinations in the literature. In Section 6 we discuss the Na abundances in light of predictions for Na enrichment resulting from the first dredge-up. Section 7 discusses the heavy elements and the possible chemical tag they provide. Section 8 provided concluding remarks.
---------- ----------------- ------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------------- ----- ------------ ---------------
Stock 2 43 02 13 28.79 $+$59 11 45.59 7.58 $+$1.24 $+$2.89 $+$0.68 $+$08.8$\pm$0.1 350 17-10-2016 1$\times$1200
1011 02 11 11.63 $+$59 58 51.25 8.17 $+$1.24 $+$2.99 $+$0.70 $+$08.6$\pm$0.1 380 17-10-2016 2$\times$1200
1082 02 15 16.71 $+$59 20 05.82 8.45 $+$1.33 $+$3.40 $+$0.74 $+$04.4$\pm$0.1 240 17-10-2016 2$\times$1800
NGC 2168 81 06 09 00.86 $+$24 15 56.14 8.57 $+$1.38 $+$3.34 $+$0.80 $-$07.6$\pm$0.1 210 18-10-2016 1$\times$1500
310 06 09 15.93 $+$24 25 40.38 7.42 $+$1.13 $+$2.55 $+$0.62 $-$07.5$\pm$0.1 260 18-10-2016 1$\times$960
662 06 08 50.78 $+$24 30 02.48 8.53 $+$1.27 $+$3.29 $+$0.83 $-$08.3$\pm$0.1 235 18-10-2016 1$\times$1800
NGC 6475 HD 162587 17 53 23.47 $-$34 53 42.44 5.60 $+$1.09 $+$2.57 $+$0.73 $-$13.4$\pm$0.1 280 18-10-2016 1$\times$240
HD 162587$^{1}$ 17 53 23.47 $-$34 53 42.44 $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $-$18.5$\pm$0.2 480 14-11-2016 1$\times$600
HD 162587$^{2}$ 17 53 23.47 $-$34 53 42.44 $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $-$03.0$\pm$0.2 480 14-11-2016 1$\times$600
HD 162391 17 52 19.76 $-$34 25 00.64 5.85 $+$1.10 $+$2.41 $+$0.77 $-$14.5$\pm$0.1 275 18-10-2016 1$\times$300
HD 162496 17 52 49.22 $-$34 06 53.40 6.06 $+$1.24 $+$2.72 $+$0.82 $-$14.3$\pm$0.1 400 19-10-2016 1$\times$600
NGC 6991 22 20 53 16.77 $+$47 27 14.58 11.16 $+$0.92 $+$2.52 $+$0.60 $-$12.9$\pm$0.1 150 18-10-2016 2$\times$1800
67 20 54 29.82 $+$47 28 03.18 09.42 $+$1.04 $+$2.51 $+$0.62 $-$12.8$\pm$0.1 160 16-09-2016 1$\times$1800
100 20 55 03.96 $+$47 19 20.13 09.91 $+$1.06 $+$2.29 $+$0.59 $-$12.2$\pm$0.1 190 15-09-2016 2$\times$1200
131 20 55 42.70 $+$47 22 32.70 09.67 $+$1.05 $+$2.24 $+$0.55 $-$12.4$\pm$0.1 170 15-09-2016 1$\times$1800
NGC 7762 35 23 49 21.69 $+$68 01 01.97 11.66 $+$1.71 $+$4.54 $+$0.94 $-$49.2$\pm$0.1 135 20-10-2016 3$\times$1200
91 23 50 31.42 $+$68 01 41.51 11.73 $+$1.75 $+$4.21 $+$0.91 $-$47.7$\pm$0.1 135 20-10-2016 3$\times$1800
110 23 49 06.13 $+$67 59 08.58 12.56 $+$1.71 $+$4.14 $+$0.87 $-$45.7$\pm$0.1 110 19-10-2016 4$\times$1800
---------- ----------------- ------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------------- ----- ------------ ---------------
Observations and data reduction
===============================
Selection of red giants for subsequent spectroscopic observations was made by identifying stars having common proper motions at the putative red giant clump in the cluster colour-magnitude diagram (CMD). The CMDs created from the available BV and Gaia DR2 photometric magnitudes along with our program stars marked by red squares are shown in Figure \[cmdcluster\] and Figure \[cmd6991\] whose details will be presented in later sections.
High-resolution and high signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio optical spectra of 18 giant stars in six OCs, namely Stock 2 (3 giants), NGC 2168 (3 giants), NGC 6475 (3 giants), NGC 6991 (4 giants) and NGC 7762 (3 giants) were observed in 2016 September, October and November with the Robert G. Tull coudé cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph (Tull et al. 1995) at the 2.7-m Harlan J. Smith telescope of the McDonald observatory. On all occasions we employed the camera with a 2048$\times$2048 24 $\mu$m pixel CCD detector and 52.67 grooves mm$^{-1}$ echelle grating with exposures centred at 5060 Å in order 69. We secured two to four exposures of cluster giants in our target list (Table \[log\_observations\]) with each exposure limited to 20-30 min to minimize the influence of cosmic rays and to acquire a global S/N of above 100.
Each night’s observing routine included five zero second exposures (bias frames), 15 quartz lamp exposures (flat frames), and 2-3 exposures of Th-Ar lamp spectra along with observing the targets. The two-dimensional spectral frames were extracted to one-dimensional images in multiple steps using various routines available within the *imred* and *echelle* packages of the standard spectral reduction software [IRAF]{}[^1]. In short, each exposure of the program star was de-trended by removing bias level and the scattered light, and then divided by the normalized flat field. The individual echelle orders were traced, extracted to one-dimensional spectral format and then wavelength calibrated using Th-Ar lamp spectra as a reference. Observed spectra cover the wavelength range 3600$-$9800 Å over multiple echelle orders in a single exposure, with gaps between echelle orders of 10-120 Å for wavelengths longer than 6100 Å, which is sufficient to perform an abundance analysis of elements sampling all the major processes of stellar nucleosynthesis.
All the spectra correspond to a resolving power of $R$ $=$ 60,000 (5 km s$^{-1}$) as measured by the FWHM of Th [I]{} lines in comparison spectra. The spectrographic setup was stable throughout the night as inferred by the lack of significant systematic shift of Th [I]{} lines in comparison spectra ($\lesssim$1 mÅ) taken at the beginning and end of the night. Our wavelength scale based on the thorium-argon spectra is accurate within a root-mean-square scatter of 3 mÅ. Multiple spectra of a star were combined to acquire a single spectra whose S/N ratios greatly exceed 100 per pixel, permitting reliable estimate of line equivalent widths (EWs) down to the 3 mÅ level. The combined spectra of each star has S/N values over 100 across many echelle orders, but for wavelengths shorter than about 4000 Å the S/N ratio gradually drops and reaches a value of about 15 around 3600 Å region.
The spectum of each red giant was trimmed, normalized interactively to unity. The radial velocity (RV) was measured from a set of 20 lines with well defined line cores. The observed RVs were transformed to the heliocentric velocities using the [*rvcorrect*]{} routine in [IRAF]{}. The methods of observations, data reduction and RV measurements are described in depth in Reddy, Giridhar & Lambert (2012, 2013, 2015). The properties of the cluster giants observed in this study are summarized in Table \[log\_observations\] together with the available optical and 2MASS[^2] photometry (Cutri et al. 2003)[^3], computed heliocentric RVs, and S/N ratios measured around 6000 Å.
Radial velocities and cluster membership {#rv_mem}
----------------------------------------
Extensive studies of proper motions and radial velocities exist in the literature for the members of OCs NGC 2168, NGC 6475, NGC 6991 and NGC 7762 excluding Stock 2. Although the proper motion data is available for all stars in the field of Stock 2, only the giant stars have been subjected to RV measurements in the literature. The agreement of measured RVs between ours and the literature sources is excellent given the slightly larger measurement errors in the literature. We summarize below the comparison of our results with those from literature to verify cluster membership of each stellar target.
### NGC 2168
The mean RV of the cluster NGC 2168 was determined previously using a sample of dwarf and red giant members in three different studies: Barrado y Navascués, Deliyannis & Stauffer (2001, hereafter BN01), Geller et al. (2010) and Mermilliod, Mayor & Udry (2008). BN01 measured radial velocities to an accuracy of $\sigma=$1 km s$^{-1}$ from high-resolution spectra (R$\sim$20,000) of 39 main-sequence dwarfs showing no sign of binarity, obtaining a mean RV of the cluster of $-$8.0$\pm$1.5 km s$^{-1}$. NGC 2168 has been studied extensively as part of the WIYN Open Cluster Survey (WOCS; Mathieu 2000); consequently, membership has been established for the main-sequence dwarfs via both proper motions (McNamara & Sekiguchi 1986a) and radial velocities (Geller et al. 2010). Geller et al. (2010) determined the cluster mean RV of $-$8.16$\pm$0.05 km s$^{-1}$ using the spectra of 344 solar-type stars within the magnitude range 13.0 $<$V$<$ 16.5, whose individual RVs were estimated to a precision of $\pm$0.5 km s$^{-1}$. Since we selected only giants for abundance analysis, we have no stars in common with the above two studies for a direct star-to-star comparison of velocities. But a comparison of the cluster mean RVs obtained between the studies is useful. The mean RV of $-$7.8$\pm$0.3 km s$^{-1}$ ($\sigma=$0.1 km s$^{-1}$) obtained for NGC 2168 using the three red giants in our study is compatible with the mean values computed previously by BN01 and Geller et al. (2010) from the cluster dwarfs.
The study of Mermilliod et al. (2008) involving all the red giants in common with our work has resulted a cluster mean RV of $-$8.4$\pm$0.5 km s$^{-1}$ ($\sigma=$1.1 km s$^{-1}$) which suggest a fair agreement between the analyses. Had we compared our RV estimates of individual red giants with those measured by Mermilliod et al., the fair agreement would be essentially unchanged given the measurement uncertainties between the studies. Excellent agreement of the cluster mean RV between the red giants and main-sequence dwarfs of NGC 2168 strengthens identification of the giant stars selected for abundance analysis in this paper as cluster members.
### NGC 6475
Mermilliod, Mayor & Udry (2009) reported radial velocities from CORAVEL spectrovelocimeter observations of 75 main-sequence stars in the field of the open cluster NGC 6475. Excluding 9 spectroscopic binaries, the mean RV of $-$14.8$\pm$0.2 km s$^{-1}$ was computed using 33 potential members of NGC 6475. With a typical uncertainty of 0.5$-$2.5 km s$^{-1}$ in individual measurements, the standard deviation in the mean RV of the above sample is about $\sigma=$1.3 km s$^{-1}$. In a different study, Mermilliod et al. (2008) reported radial velocities of two of the red giants in this cluster among which the star HD 162587 was classified as a double-lined spectroscopic binary.
Two separate observations of the star HD 162587 were made, as the spectrum acquired on October 18, 2016 exhibits a clear sign of core splitting of the spectral lines that prompted us to reobserve the star on November 14, 2016 whose spectrum shows the evidence of double-lined nature of HD 162587. Excluding the star HD 162587 in table \[log\_observations\], we estimated the cluster mean RV of $-$14.4$\pm$0.1 km s$^{-1}$ ($\sigma=$0.1 km s$^{-1}$) using two red giants. An excellent agreement of the mean RVs computed independently from the red giants and a large sample of main-sequence dwarfs (Mermilliod et al. 2009) show that the giant stars included in our study are members of NGC 6475.
### NGC 6991 and NGC 7762
We measured a mean radial velocity of $-$12.6$\pm$0.3 km s$^{-1}$ (4 giants) and $-$47.5$\pm$1.4 km s$^{-1}$ (3 giants) for NGC 6991 and NGC 7762, respectively. The velocity dispersion found among these cluster giants is typical of what is seen among members of most Galactic OCs. The typical velocity dispersion of a virialized OC is of the order of 1 km s$^{-1}$ or less with the supplementary condition that the presence of undetected binaries can inflate the measured velocity dispersion of a cluster by many km s$^{-1}$ (Girard et al. 1989; Geller, Latham & Mathieu 2015). Although the intrinsic velocity dispersion of NGC 7762 is slightly higher than the typical of OCs, such a large radial velocity dispersion was measured previously among stars in this cluster (Casamiquela et al. 2016; Carraro, Semenko, & Villanova 2016). Therefore, we consider that the giant stars observed in this study are potential members of the respective OCs in Table \[log\_observations\].
The radial velocities for some of our cluster members were measured previously in two different studies: Casamiquela et al. (2016) have reported RVs for 6 stars each in NGC 6991 and NGC 7762 from the high-resolution spectra (R$\geq$62,000) acquired at the Spanish Observatories. For stars in common between the studies, the RV measurements are in fair agreement with mean differences of $+$0.2$\pm$0.2 km s$^{-1}$ (3 stars) and $+$0.2 km s$^{-1}$ (1 star) for stars in NGC 6991 and NGC 7762, respectively. Carraro et al. (2016) have measured RVs and metallicities using the medium resolution spectra (R$\geq$13,000) of 8 giants in NGC 7762, of which we have two stars in common. Although our RV estimates agree well for one star ($\#$110), the other star ($\#$91) in NGC 7762 exceeds Carraro et al.’s value by $+$2.5 km s$^{-1}$. However, noting the larger velocity differences in the range $-$2.4 to $+$2.6 km s$^{-1}$ for five stars in common between the analyses of Carraro et al. and Casamiquela et al. (see Table 2 in Carraro et al. 2016), the larger velocity difference found here for one star is not surprising.
### Stock 2
Although the radial velocity information exists only for a few giants in the field of Stock 2, accurate proper motions of the cluster members within an area of 70$\arcmin\times\,$70$\arcmin$ were measured previously by Spagna et al. (2009). Using a sample of 275 main-sequence dwarfs satisfying the conditions of i) measurement errors within 1.55 mas yr$^{-1}$ each in proper motions and ii) the membership probabilities P$_{\rm r}\geq$90%, Spagna et al. measured the cluster mean proper motions of $\mu_{\alpha}$cos $\delta=+$16.27$\pm$0.09 mas yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_{\delta}=-$13.33$\pm$0.07 mas yr$^{-1}$.
The selection of three red giants for spectroscopic observations was made on the basis of close agreement of their proper motions with that of the cluster mean. We computed the cluster mean proper motions of $\mu_{\alpha}$cos $\delta=+$16.55$\pm$0.62 mas yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_{\delta}=-$13.25$\pm$0.31 mas yr$^{-1}$ from the three red giants having a typical proper motions uncertainty of 0.08 mas yr$^{-1}$ each from the Gaia astrometry (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018). These values compare well with the values obtained from the main-sequence dwarfs in the literature. Although two of the cluster giants with IDs 43 and 1082 were classified as spectroscopic binaries by Mermilliod et al. (2008), we found no evidence of double-lined spectrum. Hence, we consider both the stars as single-lined binaries and conclude that the spectral energy distribution of the secondary companion must have negligible effect on the abundance analysis of these stars. Two of the cluster giants in Table \[log\_observations\] were measured to have consistent RVs while the RV of one star 1082 differs by 4 km s$^{-1}$ from the cluster mean RV of $+$8.5$\pm$0.8 km s$^{-1}$ ($\sigma=$2.9 km s$^{-1}$) obtained from Mermilliod et al.’s measurements. However, on the account of binarity and RV difference of 3.4 km s$^{-1}$ between ours and Mermilliod et al.’s value, we regard the star 1082 as a potential cluster member.
---------- ----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
(V-K) (J-K)
Stock 2 43 5067 5311 4916 2.27 4925 2.00 1.75 2.51 2.72
1011 5067 5184 4953 2.46 4900 2.30 1.57 2.31 2.43
1082 4938 4696 5037 2.53 5050 2.60 1.51 2.20 2.16
NGC 2168 81 4551 4483 4467 1.88 4500 1.65 1.78 2.81 3.01
310 5106 5316 5078 1.74 5150 1.10 2.76 3.16 3.78
662 4749 4521 4400 1.99 4500 1.80 1.80 2.78 2.84
NGC 6475 HD 162587 4718 4631 4341 1.99 $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$
HD 162587$^{1}$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ 4800 2.50 0.12 $\ldots$ $\ldots$
HD 162587$^{2}$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ 5100 2.80 0.15 $\ldots$ $\ldots$
HD 162391 4793 4875 4243 2.14 4900 2.00 2.07 2.56 2.49
HD 162496 4595 4546 4112 2.10 4600 1.90 1.81 2.52 2.53
NGC 6991 22 5205 4842 4837 3.40 5300 3.45 1.14 1.18 1.00
67 4940 4843 4751 2.56 4950 2.80 1.45 1.93 1.62
100 4899 5092 4865 2.74 5050 2.90 1.27 1.74 1.56
131 4920 5161 5009 2.65 5050 2.90 1.35 1.83 1.61
NGC 7762 35 4630 4332 4629 2.22 4425 2.00 1.33 2.02 2.23
91 4595 4589 4722 2.22 4775 2.30 1.45 2.00 1.97
110 4662 4652 4863 2.60 4800 2.50 1.34 1.65 1.82
---------- ----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Stellar parameters and chemical composition
===========================================
Line list
---------
The line list comprising the atomic line data was taken from our previous papers (Reddy et al. 2012, 2013, 2015) and the line equivalent widths were measured interactively from the spectra of program stars using the [*splot*]{} task in [IRAF]{}. Our spectral line list of 23 elements (Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, and Eu) includes clean, unblended, isolated and symmetric spectral features within the spectral range 4450$-$8850 Å. The high S/N ratios of the spectra helped in identifying the continuum regions and the spectrum normalization has been done more securely around the selected lines, their EWs can be measured with fair certainty.
Lines from wavelength intervals with uncertain continuum placement due to heavy line crowding and/or affected by telluric contamination were excluded. Weak (EW$<$8 mÅ) as well as strong (EW$>$140 mÅ) lines were also discarded from the analysis. Chemical abundances for most elements well represented by lines are based on lines weaker than 120 mÅ, but strong lines were employed for species represented by a few lines (for example, Ba [II]{}). Excluding the sub-giant star NGC 6991\#22, the EWs of the barium lines employed for abundance analysis cover the range 110$-$300 mÅ with a mean value of about 179$\pm$59 mÅ(16 giants). Our final list of 350 absorption lines per star contains on average 150 Fe [I]{} lines occupying a range of $\sim$0.1 to 5.0 eV in lower excitation potential (LEP) and 20$-$140 mÅ in EWs, and 16 Fe [II]{} lines with LEPs of about 2.8 to 3.9 eV and EWs from $\simeq$ 25 to 110 mÅ.
Stellar parameters {#sp_stars}
------------------
To determine the stellar parameters and the chemical abundances of program stars, we followed the standard spectroscopic technique that requires a line list, model photospheres and a spectral analysis code. We used the grid of ATLAS9 one-dimensional, line-blanketed plane-parallel uniform LTE models computed with updated opacity distribution functions from Castelli & Kurucz (2003). The desired model photosphere characterized by a specific combination of temperature, gravity, microturbulence and metallicity was extracted from the extensive grid of ATLAS9 models via the linear interpolation software written by Carlos Allende Prieto[^4]. To compute the chemical abundances, we used the line list and model photosphere as inputs to the LTE line analysis and spectrum synthesis code [**MOOG**]{}[^5].
However, the first step in the abundance analysis is the selection of a suitable model photospheric temperature and gravity. We obtained such preliminary estimates using the optical and 2MASS photometric colours (B-V), (V-K$_{\rm s}$) and (J-K$_{\rm s}$) following the precepts discussed in Reddy et al. (2012). We derived the star’s photometric effective temperature, T$^{\rm phot}_{\rm eff_\star}$, by substituting the dereddened[^6] photometric colours into the infrared flux method based colour$-$temperature calibrations of Alonso, Arribas & Martínez-Roger (1999).
The photometric estimates of surface gravities, $\log~g_{\rm phot}$, were made by incorporating the heliocentric distance of the cluster, photometric temperature, bolometric correction $BC_{V}$, cluster turn-off mass $M_{\star}$ and the solar parameters of T$_{\rm eff},_{\odot}$= 5777 K and log $g_{\odot}$= 4.44 cm s$^{-2}$ into the well known log $g$$-$T$_{\rm eff}$ relation (Reddy et al. 2012). Estimates of $BC_{V}$s were made using Alonso et al.’s (1999) calibrations connecting the photometric temperature and metallicity.
The turn-off masses of giants have been estimated by achieving a good match between the cluster CMD and Padova stellar evolutionary tracks of Marigo et al. (2008): the adopted turn-off masses are 3.6, 4.6, 3.8, 2.1 and 1.5 $M_{\odot}$ for Stock 2, NGC 2168, NGC 6475, NGC 6991 and NGC 7762, respectively. Although the initial set of fundamental parameters (age, distance, reddening and metallicity) of OCs utilised in colour$-$temperature calibrations and isochrone fitting is drawn from the [WEBDA]{} database drawn, they were revised later using the spectroscopic estimates of cluster metallicities.
To mitigate the systematic errors in our final stellar abundances, we performed a differential abundance analysis of stars relative to the Sun by running the [*abfind*]{} driver of [**MOOG**]{}. Following Reddy et al. (2012), reference solar abundances were derived using solar EWs, measured off the solar integrated disk spectrum (Kurucz et al. 1984), and adopting the ODFNEW grid of Kurucz model photosphere with T$_{\rm eff},_{\odot}$ = 5777 K, log $g_{\odot}$ = 4.44 cm s$^{-2}$ and \[Fe/H\]$=$0.00. We found a microturbulence velocity of $\xi_{t}$ = 0.93 km s$^{-1}$ using Fe [II]{} lines.
Spectroscopic atmospheric parameters (i.e., effective temperature T$_{\rm eff}$, surface gravity log $g$, microturbulence $\xi_{t}$ and metallicity \[Fe/H\]) of program stars were derived in an iterative manner using iron line EWs thanks to numerous Fe [I]{} lines with good coverage in line’s LEP from $\sim$ 0.0 to 5.0 eV throughout the optical region of spectra as well as Fe [II]{} lines with a range in measured EWs. Starting with a Kurucz model with photometric estimates of temperature and gravity, the individual iron line abundances were force-fitted to match the model-generated iron line EWs to observed ones by imposing the conditions of excitation and ionization balance of Fe [I]{} and Fe [II]{} lines as well as the independence between the iron abundances and line’s reduced EWs. First, the microturbulence assumed to be isotropic and depth independent was derived by requiring that the iron abundance from Fe [I]{} and Fe [II]{} lines be independent of a line’s reduced equivalent width, REW$=$log (EW/$\lambda$). The value of $\xi_{t}$ derived from iron lines is confirmed by other species due to Ni [I]{}, Ti [I]{}, Ti [II]{}, V [I]{}, Cr [I]{} and Cr [II]{}. Second, the effective temperature was adjusted in steps of 25 K until the slope of iron abundance from Fe [I]{} lines with line’s LEP was less than 0.004 dex/$eV$ (excitation equilibrium). This condition is also reasonably satisfied for the lines of other species like Ti [I]{} and Ni [I]{}. Third, the surface gravity is adjusted until the difference in average abundances of Fe [I]{} and Fe [II]{} lines is smaller than 0.02 dex for the derived T$_{\rm eff}$ and $\xi_{t}$ (i.e. ionization balance between the neutral and ionized species). Ionization balance is also satisfied reasonably well by other species such as Ti and Cr having neutral and ionized lines. The final stellar parameters provided in Table \[stellar\_param\] were obtained via several iterations when these three conditions were simultaneously satisfied.
Following the procedure described in Reddy & Lambert (2015), we obtained uncertainties of 50 K, 0.1 dex and 0.1 km s$^{-1}$ in $T_{\rm eff}$, log $g$ and $\xi_{t}$, respectively, where each stellar parameter is varied while keeping other two parameters fixed until the three conditions imposed in derivation of stellar parameters produce spurious slopes and introduce $\pm$1$\sigma$ shift each in the average Fe abundance and in the difference between Fe [I]{} and Fe [II]{} abundances.
A comparison of photometric atmospheric parameters with estimates from spectroscopy is offered in table \[stellar\_param\]. With few exceptions, our spectroscopic $T_{\rm eff}$s and log $g$s are in good agreement with photometric ones: Mean differences in photometric temperatures estimated using (B-V) and (V-K) is $+$9 $\pm$ 184 K and using (V-K) and (J-K) is $+$95 $\pm$ 250 K. The corresponding mean differences between (B-V), (V-K) and (J-K) based colour temperatures and the spectroscopic T$^{spec}_{\rm eff}$’s are $-$9 $\pm$ 128 K, $-$19 $\pm$ 201 K and $-$114 $\pm$ 218 K, respectively. No single color-based temperature agrees well with corresponding spectroscopic temperatures for all stars. However, the differences between photometric and spectrographic estimates are within the uncertainties found between different colour-based temperatures for the same star. The mean differences in gravities and luminosities across the sample of 17 stars (neglecting HD 162587) are $+$0.14$\pm$0.26 dex and $-$0.10$\pm$0.27, respectively.
The photometric stellar parameters derived from the infrared flux method based colour$-$temperature calibrations are mainly sensitive to the adopted colours, reddening, metallicity and distance modulus of the cluster. An uncertainty of 0.02 mag. each in (B-V) and E(B-V), and an error of 0.05 dex in metallicity translates to errors of 65 K and 52 K in temperatures measured from (B-V) and (V-K) relations, respectively. Although the (J-K) vs. T$_{\rm eff}$ relation is independent of metallicity, errors of 0.02 mag. and 0.011 (i.e., 0.54\*E(B-V)), respectively in colour and reddening contributes a total temperature uncertainty of 68 K. Here the total error in T$_{\rm eff}$ is the quadratic sum of errors introduced by varying the respective parameters used in the photometric relations. Note, however, that these are the lower limits whose values tend to increase if true errors are adopted. Similarly, the above errors in T$_{\rm eff}$s and an uncertainty of 0.2 mag. in distance modulus yield an uncertainty of 0.08 dex in photometric estimates of surface gravities. Again the inclusion of differential reddening instead of adopting a single value for all members in a given cluster may further boost uncertainties in photometric stellar parameters.
These errors in photometric stellar parameters are too large given the small uncertainties in the reddening estimates. Should we adopt the photometric estimates for model photospheres in the abundance analysis, we will find a steep slope of Fe [I]{} abundance with line’s LEP and the ionization balance between the neutral and ionized species will also be disturbed. Therefore, to be consistent, we will consider the spectroscopic model photospheres as the final atmospheric parameters for stars under analysis.
The measurement of chemical abundances of program stars was extended to other species using line EWs and the spectroscopic atmospheric parameters derived previously from iron line EWs. But synthetic profiles were computed and matched to the stellar spectra to derive abundances for lines affected by hyperfine structure (hfs) and isotopic shifts and/or affected by blends. The suite of lines included in the synthetic spectrum analysis are Sc, Mn, Cu, Zn, Ba and Eu. We followed the standard procedure of synthetic profile fitting by running the [*synth*]{} driver of [**MOOG**]{}.
The chemical abundances for the individual cluster members averaged over all available lines of given species are presented in Tables \[abu\_stock2\]$-$\[abu\_ngc7762\], relative to solar abundances derived from the adopted $gf$-values (see Table 4 from Reddy et al. 2012). Table entries provide the average \[Fe/H\] and \[El/Fe\] for all elements along with the number of lines used in calculating the abundance of that element. Within the run from Na to Eu, all stars in a given cluster have very similar \[El/Fe\] for almost all the elements.
To compute the errors in elemental abundances, we repeated the abundance analysis by varying each stellar parameter separately by an amount equal to its uncertainty, while keeping other two parameters fixed. Additionally, we considered the error introduced by varying the model metallicity by 0.1 dex. The systematic uncertainty associated with the abundances is the quadratic sum of these four error terms. The random error in the mean abundance of a species El is replaced by the $\sigma_{[El/Fe]}$/$\sqrt(N_{\rm lines})$, where N$_{\rm lines}$ is the number of lines of species El. The total error $\sigma_{tot}$ for each of the species is the quadratic sum of the systematic and random errors. The final mean chemical composition of each OC and the $\sigma_{tot}$ from this study are presented in Table \[mean\_abundance\].
Inspection of Tables \[abu\_stock2\]$-$\[abu\_ngc7762\] shows that the giants common to a cluster have the same composition to within the estimated total error with almost no exceptions. The exceptions are abundances (e.g., Cu) based on a single line. Although the number of giants per cluster is few, their common composition within a cluster is consistent with the assumption of a chemical homogeneity for a cluster. Each giant was analyzed independently of all other giants and without knowledge about its host cluster and, thus, abundances for giants belonging to a common cluster provide an estimate of the measurement uncertainties.
Examination of Table \[mean\_abundance\] shows, as anticipated, for clusters with \[Fe/H\] $\simeq 0.0$, that \[El/Fe\] $\simeq 0.0$ for almost every element lighter than Ni in every cluster. Sodium might appear to be an exception but Na, as discussed below, is enriched through the first dredge-up. Ba to Eu enrichments in some clusters are expected, as discussed below (Lambert & Reddy 2016). Possible exceptions include Cu and Zn with \[Cu/Fe\] and \[Zn/Fe\] at $-0.2$ in NGC 6475 but Cu and Zn abundances are based on a single line each. In the Mg - Ni group, the only obvious outstanding \[El/Fe\] entries in Table \[mean\_abundance\] are those for Si for NGC 2168 and NGC 7762. Their entries of \[Si/Fe\] of $+0.28$ and $+0.23$, respectively, are shared by each giant in the cluster. These entries seem odd from the nucleosynthetic point of view because the other $\alpha$-elements (Mg, Ca and Ti) do not share this apparent overabundance.
---------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --
$[$Na I/Fe$]$ $+0.27\pm0.03$ $+0.22\pm0.03$ $+0.23\pm0.03$ $+0.10\pm0.03$ $+0.11\pm0.03$
$[$Mg I/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.03$ $+0.06\pm0.04$ $+0.01\pm0.03$ $-0.07\pm0.03$ $+0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Al I/Fe$]$ $+0.06\pm0.04$ $+0.03\pm0.03$ $+0.04\pm0.03$ $+0.08\pm0.03$ $+0.05\pm0.03$
$[$Si I/Fe$]$ $+0.09\pm0.04$ $+0.28\pm0.05$ $+0.06\pm0.05$ $+0.04\pm0.05$ $+0.23\pm0.05$
$[$Ca I/Fe$]$ $-0.04\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.04$ $-0.03\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.03$ $-0.02\pm0.03$
$[$Sc I/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.02$ $\ldots$ $\,0.00\pm0.05$ $+0.01\pm0.04$ $\ldots$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $+0.02\pm0.04$ $-0.04\pm0.03$ $-0.01\pm0.03$ $-0.02\pm0.03$ $\,0.00\pm0.04$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.06\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.04\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.04\pm0.03$ $\bf+0.01\pm0.02$ $\bf+0.07\pm0.02$
$[$Ti I/Fe$]$ $-0.06\pm0.04$ $-0.12\pm0.04$ $-0.02\pm0.04$ $-0.01\pm0.03$ $-0.06\pm0.04$
$[$Ti II/Fe$]$ $-0.08\pm0.03$ $-0.11\pm0.03$ $-0.04\pm0.03$ $-0.06\pm0.03$ $-0.06\pm0.04$
$[$V I/Fe$]$ $-0.03\pm0.04$ $-0.05\pm0.05$ $-0.01\pm0.05$ $-0.03\pm0.04$ $+0.01\pm0.05$
$[$Cr I/Fe$]$ $\,0.00\pm0.03$ $-0.02\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.03$ $-0.02\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Cr II/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.03$ $\,0.00\pm0.03$ $+0.02\pm0.03$ $+0.02\pm0.02$ $+0.07\pm0.04$
$[$Mn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.07\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.06\pm0.03$ $\bf-0.06\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.01\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.13\pm0.02$
$[$Fe I/H$]$ $-0.06\pm0.04$ $-0.11\pm0.04$ $-0.01\pm0.04$ $+0.01\pm0.04$ $-0.07\pm0.04$
$[$Fe II/H$]$ $-0.06\pm0.05$ $-0.11\pm0.04$ $-0.01\pm0.05$ $\,0.00\pm0.05$ $-0.08\pm0.05$
$[$Co I/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.02$ $+0.03\pm0.02$ $+0.01\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.03$ $+0.11\pm0.03$
$[$Ni I/Fe$]$ $-0.03\pm0.04$ $-0.02\pm0.04$ $-0.04\pm0.04$ $-0.01\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.04$
$[$Cu I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.11\pm0.01$ $\bf-0.11\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.17\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.03\pm0.01$ $\bf+0.03\pm0.01$
$[$Zn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.03\pm0.04$ $\bf-0.14\pm0.04$ $\bf-0.22\pm0.04$ $\bf+0.01\pm0.04$ $\bf-0.07\pm0.04$
$[$Y II/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.03$ $-0.01\pm0.03$ $\,0.00\pm0.03$ $+0.09\pm0.04$ $+0.04\pm0.04$
$[$Zr I/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.05$ $-0.11\pm0.05$ $+0.04\pm0.04$ $+0.01\pm0.05$ $+0.01\pm0.04$
$[$Zr II/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.04$ $+0.18\pm0.05$ $+0.07\pm0.04$ $+0.09\pm0.04$ $+0.03\pm0.04$
$[$Ba II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.26\pm0.05$ $\bf+0.17\pm0.05$ $\bf+0.12\pm0.05$ $\bf+0.12\pm0.05$ $\bf+0.07\pm0.05$
$[$La II/Fe$]$ $-0.06\pm0.04$ $-0.10\pm0.04$ $-0.03\pm0.05$ $+0.12\pm0.04$ $+0.05\pm0.05$
$[$Ce II/Fe$]$ $+0.04\pm0.04$ $+0.07\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.04$ $+0.17\pm0.04$ $+0.05\pm0.04$
$[$Nd II/Fe$]$ $+0.08\pm0.04$ $+0.07\pm0.04$ $+0.06\pm0.04$ $+0.19\pm0.04$ $+0.08\pm0.04$
$[$Sm II/Fe$]$ $+0.09\pm0.04$ $+0.03\pm0.04$ $+0.03\pm0.04$ $+0.24\pm0.05$ $+0.09\pm0.05$
$[$Eu II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.09\pm0.03$ $\bf+0.03\pm0.03$ $\bf+0.10\pm0.03$ $\bf+0.15\pm0.03$ $\bf+0.08\pm0.03$
---------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --
Revised cluster parameters
==========================
With the membership information based on proper motions and radial velocities of stars and the spectroscopic values of \[Fe/H\] measured to an accuracy of 0.05 dex, we have determined a refined set of cluster fundamental parameters using the Padova suite of stellar evolutionary tracks (Marigo et al. 2008).
To construct the CMDs, we relied mostly on the BV and Gaia DR2 photometry for all but the OC NGC 6991. For the cluster NGC 6991 whose (V, B-V) CMD is poorly populated and clearly lacks a well-defined cluster main-sequence, we measured the cluster parameters from Gaia DR2 CMD. Sources of the cluster UBV data include Krzeminski & Serkowski (1967) and Foster et al. (2000) for Stock 2, Sung & Bessell (1999; NGC 2168), Prosser et al. (1995; NGC 6475), Kharchenko et al. (2005; NGC 6991) and Maciejewski et al. (2008; NGC 7762). Figure \[cmdcluster\] provides (V, B-V) CMDs for all but clusters NGC 6991 and NGC 7762 with the radial velocity and proper motions confirmed members of each cluster highlighted with red filled circles (dwarfs) and squares (giants). The CMD of NGC 6991 and NGC 7762 will be discussed separately in the next section. Sources of proper motions and RVs of stars in each of the OCs are discussed previously in Section \[rv\_mem\].
We generated several Padova isochrones of varying age with a fixed spectroscopic \[Fe/H\] and compared them with the observed CMDs (Figure \[cmdcluster\]). Starting with the published cluster age, distance and reddening, the isochrones were shifted horizontally along the colour axis to determine the reddening E(B-V) and vertically to deduce the distance modulus (m-M)$_{\rm V}$ until the MS turn-off point, MS slope and colour, and the red clump were fitted simultaneously. Finally, we retained in each CMD a set of three isochrones separated in age by 0.1 dex that best covers much of the lower main-sequence down to fainter magnitudes. The best-fitting isochrone was judged by visual inspection of CMDs in figure \[cmdcluster\], where the middle isochrone correspond to cluster’s age with an error of 0.1 dex represented by the neighbouring tracks. We estimated the reddening and distance modulus of the cluster from the best fitting evolutionary track with typical errors of 0.04 and 0.15 dex, respectively.
In general the isochrone fits are reasonably good for the main-sequence, turn-off, and red clump regions of all OCs. Although the red clump colour in the observed CMD of Stock 2 is bluer by 0.04 than in the model evolutionary tracks, such a small difference is comparable to systematic errors in the calibration of the photometry. We have verified the cluster parameters obtained using the BV photometry with those calculated from Gaia astrometry (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018). The CMDs of OCs based on Gaia DR2 photometry with the set of theoretical isochrones from Marigo et al. (2008) are shown in the bottom rows of Figure \[cmdcluster\] and Figure \[cmd6991\]. The proper motions of cluster members used in constructing these Gaia CMDs are shown in figure \[pmcluster\]. Theoretical isochrones from the isochrone tables are transformed from the Johnson-Cousins photometric system to Gaia photometry using the transformation polynomials involving V, (V-I), G and (G$_{BP}$-G$_{RP}$) (Jordi et al. 2010). These transformed isochrones best fit the CMDs based on Gaia photometry for the cluster parameters listed in table \[rev\_param\]. Further refinement of cluster parameters using isochrones is not necessary for this paper which focuses mainly on the detailed chemical composition of each cluster.
We present in Table \[rev\_param\] the revised fundamental parameters of OCs from this study including those values calculated using the Gaia astrometry. An excellent agreement between the cluster parameters obtained independently using the BV photometry and Gaia DR2 photometry and astrometry is evident. A close match of the astrometric parameters of red giants analysed in this paper (Table \[cluster\_redgiants\]) with cluster parameters obtained from CMDs and the cluster mean parameters from Gaia DR2 (Table \[rev\_param\]) confirm the membership of red giants to OCs. Thus, the Gaia DR2 astrometry and photometry provides an independent measure of the cluster fundamental parameters, including the improved proper motions, distances and membership information of cluster giants analysed in this work.
---------- ---------- ------ ------- ------ ----- ------ ---------- ----- ------
DM$_{G}$
Stock 2 $-$0.06 0.45 09.35 225 390 0.58 09.05 372 225
NGC 2168 $-$0.11 0.31 10.65 125 866 0.40 10.50 861 125
NGC 6475 $-$0.01 0.10 07.50 158 274 0.13 07.45 273 158
NGC 6991 $\,$0.00 0.12 09.20 1000 582 0.15 09.10 573 1000
NGC 7762 $-$0.07 0.63 11.75 2500 910 0.81 11.45 904 2500
---------- ---------- ------ ------- ------ ----- ------ ---------- ----- ------
---------- -------------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------- ------------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------- -- --
Stock 2 387$^{+130}_{-78}$ $2.58\pm0.65$ $16.148\pm0.646$ $-13.680\pm0.600$ 375$^{+4}_{-4}$ $2.66\pm0.03$ $16.547\pm0.619$ $-13.250\pm0.310$
NGC 2168 869$^{+65}_{-56}$ $1.15\pm0.08$ $2.279\pm0.227$ $-2.920\pm0.297$ 877$^{+48}_{-43}$ $1.14\pm0.06$ $2.300\pm0.107$ $-2.993\pm0.189$
NGC 6475 274$^{+11}_{-10}$ $3.65\pm0.14$ $2.535\pm0.346$ $-5.004\pm0.464$ 273$^{+6}_{-6}$ $3.66\pm0.08$ $2.224\pm0.122$ $-5.519\pm0.108$
NGC 6991 562$^{+55}_{-46}$ $1.78\pm0.16$ $5.584\pm0.707$ $8.491\pm0.719$ 561$^{+6}_{-6}$ $1.78\pm0.02$ $5.435\pm0.134$ $8.433\pm0.073$
NGC 7762 990$^{+62}_{-55}$ $1.01\pm0.06$ $1.439\pm0.277$ $4.033\pm0.448$ 990$^{+10}_{-10}$ $1.01\pm0.01$ $1.237\pm0.235$ $4.020\pm0.126$
---------- -------------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------- ------------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------- -- --
NGC 6991
--------
Kharchenko et al. (2005) performed the first and only photometric membership study of the poorly populated OC NGC 6991 whose BV photometry collected from the All-Sky Compiled Catalogue of 2.5 Million Stars (ASCC-2.5, Kharchenko et al. 2001) covers a 24 arcminute radius field of view centered on the cluster at $\alpha({\rm J2000})$=20$^{\rm h}$ 54$^{\rm m}$ 32$^{\rm s}$, $\delta({\rm J2000})=+$47${\degr}$27${\arcmin}$. Yet the majority of faint stars in the cluster’s field of view lack UBV data due to the relatively bright limiting magnitude (V$\approx$ 14 mag) of the ASCC-2.5 catalogue. Kharchenko et al. estimated a cluster age of 1.3 Gyr, a reddening of E(B-V)$=$0.0 and a heliocentric distance of 700 parsec by fitting isochrones to the sparsely populated (V, B-V) colour-magnitude diagram such as the one shown in Figure \[cmd6991\].
However, the ready availability of Gaia DR2 photometry and astrometry from Gaia mission (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018) helped us to to derive accurate cluster properties. Gaia DR2 photometry was collected only for stars of common parallax and proper motions in a radius of 25-arcminute field around the cluster center.
The first panel in the bottom row of Figure \[cmd6991\] displays the Gaia based CMD constructed from the sample of stars whose individual proper motions have resulted a mean cluster motion of $\mu_{\alpha}$ cos $\delta=$+5.58$\pm$0.71 mas yr$^{-1}$ in right ascension and $\mu_{\delta}=$+8.49$\pm$0.72 mas yr$^{-1}$ in declination. Gaia CMD reveals a well-defined main-sequence along with a clump of red giants at G(mag)$\sim$10 and (G$_{BP}$-G$_{RP}$)$\sim$1.2.
The optimum fit by eye to the Gaia DR2 observations yields a reddening of E(G$_{BP}$-G$_{RP}$)$=$0.15$\pm$0.04 (i.e., E(B-V)$=$0.12$\pm$0.03) and a distance modulus of G$-$M$_{\rm G}=$9.1$\pm$0.1 (V$-$M$_{\rm V}=$9.2$\pm$0.1), corresponding to a cluster distance of d$=$573$\pm$25 parsec from the Sun. The solar metallicity Padova isochrone from Marigo et al. (2008) that best fits the observations has log(t)=9.0$\pm$0.1 yr that translates to a cluster age of 1.0$\pm$0.2 Gyr. We have verified that the cluster distance and age obtained from Gaia CMD also fits well the (J, J-H) and (K$_{\rm s}$, J-K$_{\rm s}$) CMDs for the JHK$_{s}$ photometry taken from 2MASS survey (Skrutskie et al. 2006).
Results
=======
Comparisons with the literature
-------------------------------
An aim of our abundance analyses is to provide information on chemical compositions for open clusters not previously studied spectroscopically. This aim often means that there is a scarcity of abundance determinations in the literature with which to compare our results. At present, there are analyses from spectra for giants in two (NGC 6475 and NGC 7762) of the five clusters in the present paper and iron abundance determinations for NGC 6691 and NGC 7762.
NGC 6475
--------
The chemical content of NGC 6475 was determined previously by Villanova, Carraro & Saviane (2009) from UVES high-resolution spectra (R = 80000) of the red giants HD 162391 and HD 162587 and two B-type and three F-K-type main sequence stars. Here, we restrict the comparison to the red giant HD 162391; HD 162587 is rejected because we find it to be a double-lined spectroscopic binary. Systematic differences between the hot and cool main sequence stars and the giant HD 162391 may vitiate an abundance comparison.
For HD 162391, our \[Fe/H\] $= -0.01\pm0.03$ is in fine agreement with $+0.02\pm0.01$ determined by Villanova et al. Their abundance ratios \[El/Fe\] agree with ours to $\pm0.10$ except for Na, V, Zn and Ba with the largest (Us - Villanova) of -0.29 occurring for Na. Our analysis of HD 162391 is fully confirmed by our results for HD 162496 (Table \[abu\_NGC2168\_6475\]).
Blanco-Cuaresma et al. (2015) provide an abundance analysis of a main sequence star in NGC 6475. Elements from Na to Ba were considered. The \[Fe/H\] of $+0.04\pm0.05$ is in good agreement with our \[Fe/H\] $-0.01\pm0.03$ from the two red giants. Inspection of the differences (Us - B-C) shows that for all the elements in common but Na they range from only $-0.07$ to $+0.06$. The Na difference is $+0.34$ indicating the red giant’s expected Na enrichment from the first dredge-up (see below). A sceptic might question the validity of a comparison involving a dwarf and a giant on the grounds that systematic effects may vitiate the comparison. Such a question may be examined because Blanco-Cuaresma et al. analysed six clusters for which spectra of both dwarfs and giants were available. In all six clusters, the differences in \[Fe/H\] and \[El/Fe\] between giants and dwarfs (except, of course for Na) were within $\pm0.10$ and mean difference were within $\pm0.05$ dex except for Mg ($+0.06$), Si ($+0.10$) and Sc ($+0.07$) with standard deviations of less than 0.03 except for Ba ($0.06$). In brief, the above comparison for NGC 6475 of a dwarf with a giant appears valid.
NGC 6991
--------
The \[Fe/H\] of NGC 6991 was determined from high-resolution spectra by Casamiquela et al. (2017): they in their Table 9 found \[Fe/H\] $= -0.01\pm0.03$ from six giants. Our value (Table \[mean\_abundance\]) from four giants is $+0.01\pm0.04$) in excellent agreement. Casamiquela et al. report \[Fe/H\] for seven clusters in common with our full sample. For the common seven including NGC 6691 and NGC 7762, the mean difference (Us - C) is a mere $-0.04\pm0.04$. Unfortunately, Fe was the only element reported on by Casamiquela et al.
NGC 7762
--------
The \[Fe/H\] of NGC 7762 was determined from high-resolution spectra by Casamiquela et al. (2017): they (their Table 9) found \[Fe/H\] $= 0.01\pm0.04$ from five giants. Our value (Table \[mean\_abundance\]) from three giants is $-0.07\pm0.04$). These three giants are slightly more evolved than the five selected by Casamiquela et al. These \[Fe/H\] estimates are in good agreement.
An abundance analysis covering Na, Si, Ca, Ti, Fe, Ni and Ba was reported by Carraro, Semenko & Villanova (2016) from medium resolution (R $\simeq 13000$) spectra of the interval 5940–6690Å. The mean \[Fe/H\] $= +0.04\pm0.12$ with a range of $-0.15$ to $+0.18$ across the sample of eight giants. This mean is consistent with our Fe abundance from three giants.
Our sample includes two of the eight giants observed by Carraro et al, namely $\#$91 and $\#$110. Our spectroscopic estimates of the atmospheric parameters are in good agreement with their work: differences in $T_{\rm eff}$ are within 50 K, surface gravities within 0.1 in $\log g$, and the microturbulent velocities within 0.1 km s$^{-1}$. Differences in abundances between our and their estimates are 0.07 for \[Fe/H\], 0.19 for \[Na/Fe\], $-0.08$ for \[Si/Fe\], $-0.12$ for \[Ca/Fe\], $-0.11$ for \[Ti/Fe\], and $-0.35$ for \[Ba/Fe\] for $\#91$. For $\#$110, the differences are $-0.16$ for \[Fe/H\], 0.23 for \[Na/Fe\], 0.05 for \[Si/Fe\], $-0.26$ for \[Ca/Fe\], $-0.14$ for \[Ni/Fe\], and $-0.31$ for Ba. These differences appear large and are at odds with the idea that a cluster has a homogeneous composition.
No evidence for a barium overabundance is shown by our spectra. The differences in atmospheric parameters are too small to yield a Ba abundance difference of 0.3 dex. We provide in Figure \[synthba\_7762\] synthetic spectra fits to the observed spectra of $\#$91 and $\#$110 in the region of the Ba[ii]{} 5854 Å line. The near-solar \[Ba/Fe\] ratio obtained in our analysis takes into account, as necessary, the hyperfine structure and isotopic shifts in the spectrum synthesis.
Sodium abundances and the first dredge-up
=========================================
Non-LTE corrections {#nonlte_na_al_fe}
-------------------
Sodium is expected to be enriched in the atmosphere of a giant thanks to the first dredge-up. Since the enrichment is predicted to be slight, we consider how non-LTE effects may alter our LTE abundances of Na, Al (a useful reference element) and Fe. Then, the non-LTE abundance ratios \[Na/Fe\], \[Al/Fe\] and \[Na/Al\] are compared with predictions about the first dredge-up.
For all giants in this and earlier papers in this series, the Na abundances derived assuming LTE were corrected for non-LTE effects using the grids of Lind et al. (2011). The corrections were derived on a line-by-line basis, using the stellar parameters (e.g., T$_{\rm eff}$, log $g$) and the EWs of Na lines (5688.20, 6154.22 and 6160.74 Å) of each star as input to the interactive non-LTE database[^7].
The average non-LTE sodium abundance for all stars including the Sun is lower than its average LTE abundance by values in the range $-$0.09 to $-$0.14 dex. The average non-LTE correction of $-$0.09 dex obtained for the Sun using the above set of three Na lines makes our reference non-LTE Na abundance as log$\epsilon$(Na)= 6.26 dex. As a result, our NLTE Na abundances derived relative to the Sun are not very much different from the differential LTE Na abundances. The non-LTE corrections applied for cluster giants in our analysis reduce the differential LTE Na abundance on an average by 0.0 to $-$0.05 dex.
The non-LTE corrections for Al were computed using the extensive grids of abundance corrections discussed in Nordlander & Lind (2017). The non-LTE Al abundance calculations were carried out using the stellar parameters and LTE Al abundances for the 7835, 7836, 8773, and 8774 Å lines as input to the source code[^8] of Nordlander & Lind. We derived an averaged non-LTE Al abundance correction of $-$0.02 dex for the Sun and corrections in the range $-$0.08 dex to $-$0.17 dex for the cluster giants. Our revised non-LTE Al solar abundance is 6.31 dex. These corrections for the cluster giants lower average LTE Al abundances by values in the range $-$0.06 to $-$0.15 dex. Table \[nlte\_naal\] lists LTE derived abundances of Na and Al in OCs (this paper and Reddy et al. 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016) and their non-LTE counterparts.
Additionally, we derived non-LTE iron abundances for our sample of giants in the OCs (Lind et al. 2011). At the metallicity of our cluster’s giants (0.0 to $-$0.26 dex), we derived a non-LTE Fe[i]{} correction of $+$0.02 dex and the abundance of 7.54 dex for the Sun and $+$0.02 to $+0.06$ dex for giants using a representative set of iron lines (Fe[I]{}: the 6240.6, 6252.6, 6498.9, 6574.2, 6609.1, 6739.5, 6750.1, 6793.2; Fe[ii]{}: 5425.3, 6247.6, 6369.5 lines) and for stellar parameters and abundances representative of the giants in our sample of OCs. The non-LTE Fe [ii]{} corrections derived for the Sun and red giants are almost 0.0 dex. The average non-LTE iron abundance corrections derived for cluster giants is about $+$0.03 dex. Therefore, these corrections to our LTE Fe abundance do not affect significantly the global behaviour of NLTE \[Na/Fe\] with a cluster’s turn-off mass.
Not only are non-LTE corrections themselves a source of uncertainty affecting the Na, Al and Fe abundances but because different non-LTE calculations may have been used in previous papers reporting on Na enrichment comparisons of published abundances should be adjusted to a common set of non-LTE corrections. Effects of alternative predictions of corrections for non-LTE effects on Na abundances are discussed by Alexeeva, Pakhomov & Mashonkina (2014) who provide their own calculations for the commonly used Na[i]{} lines. For solar metallicity red giants, the range in published non-LTE corrections is of the magnitude of the predicted increase from the first dredge-up. Consider the case of the cluster Collinder 261 where the mass of the red giants is too low for Na enrichment to be expected (see below) but Carretta et al. (2005) reported \[Na/Fe\] $= +0.33\pm0.06$ after applying non-LTE corrections from Gratton et al. (1999). Smiljanic et al. (2016) remark that this \[Na/Fe\] becomes \[Na/Fe\] $\sim 0.0$ after using the more sophisticated calculations of non-LTE corrections from the Lind et al. (2011) instead of the Gratton et al. grid, a reduction in Na abundance by about 0.3 dex. (A giant’s \[Na/Fe\] also depends, of course, on the adopted solar Na and Fe abundances and the non-LTE corrections applied to them.)
Sodium enrichment and stellar mass
----------------------------------
The composition of a red clump giant differs from that of its main sequence progenitor thanks to the deep convective envelope developed as the star ascends the first giant branch. This development results in what is known as the first dredge-up. Changes in composition primarily affect the elemental and isotopic abundances of C, N and O because these nuclides participate in a series of H-burning reactions in the interior regions of the main sequence star subsequently tapped by the convective envelope. Not surprisingly, there is an extensive literature on predicted and observed changes to these nuclidic abundances. Within the span of elements considered here – Na to Eu – sodium is the sole element whose surface abundance is predicted to be detectably increased by the first dredge-up thanks to conversion of $^{22}$Ne to $^{23}$Na in the interior prior to the first dredge-up. Our initial choice of predictions for the Na enrichment following the first dredge-up is taken from Karakas & Lattanzio (2014). The predicted increase in \[Na/Fe\] is a function of a giant’s mass which we identify with the cluster’s turn-off mass.
Given that this and our previous papers on open clusters have provided Na abundances for red giants with masses of 1 to 4 $M_\odot$ from a common analysis it seems appropriate to examine whether Na enrichment in giants follows the theoretical prescription and, particularly, since Karakas & Lattanzio (2014) in their comprehensive review noted ‘conflicting results’ for Na abundances reported in the literature. Our commentary is not exhaustive because not only do the observations depend on several factors (e.g., the non-LTE corrections to the Na, Al and Fe abundances) but available papers providing predictions concerning Na enrichments for red giants are few in number and their predictions differ somewhat for reasons not entirely transparent to observers.
In our discussion, we combine Na with Al because abundances from the Na[i]{} and Al[i]{} lines depend in a quite similar fashion on uncertainties around the atmospheric parameters and all modelling of the first dredge-up predicts that in contrast to Na, the surface abundance of Al is not increased. Thus, the signature of the first dredge-up is an increase of \[Na/Fe\] but an unchanged \[Al/Fe\]. Discussion below draws on estimates of the non-LTE abundances of Na, Al and Fe listed in the table \[nlte\_naal\] and are discussed in Section \[nonlte\_na\_al\_fe\]. Initial comparison of our observed abundances with predictions considers the mean values for each cluster as a function of a cluster’s turn-off mass $M_{\rm turn-off}$ – see Figure \[na\_al\_mass\] where clusters are separated into three categories by their \[Fe/H\]. Within a single cluster when several giants were analysed, the Na abundances are homogeneous with a typical star-to-star abundance scatter of about 0.05 dex or less. Although the number of giants per cluster is always small, the lack of scatter in \[Na/Fe\] across a cluster suggests that Na enrichment is not affected greatly by factors which might be expected to vary from star-to-star as, for example, stellar rotation velocity which is predicted to affect the enrichment of Na at the surface.
To begin comparison of observed and predicted abundances of Na and Al, a reference set of predictions for \[Na/Fe\] is taken from Karakas & Lattanzio (2014, their Figure 8). All available modelling of the first dredge-up shows that Al is not enriched at the surface. Predictions for \[Na/Fe\] shown in Figure \[na\_al\_mass\] by the continuous curve refer to stars of metallicity $Z = 0.02$ after the standard first dredge-up. Solar abundances provided by Asplund et al. (2009) correspond to $Z = 0.0142$ which implies that $Z = 0.02$ corresponds to \[Fe/H\] = $+$0.14, as Karakas & Lattanzio note, but the predictions are insensitive to $Z$ over the range covered by our clusters. But $Z$ is not the only relevant indicator of a model’s composition. Since Na enrichment depends on conversion of $^{22}$Ne to Na, the adopted initial $^{22}$Ne abundance is relevant in predicting the post dredge-up Na abundance. In the solar system, Ne’s three stable isotopes have relative abundances of $^{20}$Ne:$^{21}$Ne:$^{22}$Ne of 92.9:0.2:6.8. Karakas & Lattanzio’s $Z = 0.02$ corresponds to a total Ne abundance of 7.97$\pm$0.10 dex on the customary scale where the H abundance is 12.0. In standard models of stellar evolution, surface abundances of red giants evolved beyond the point on the first red giant branch at which the first dredge-up is complete are not subject to additional change in surface composition until stars evolve up the asymptotic giant branch. Thus, the predictions shown in Figure \[na\_al\_mass\] should apply to our sample of red giants which is dominated by He-core burning (clump) giants. These predictions for the standard first dredge-up are very similar to those illustrated by Hamdani et al. (2000) for $Z = 0.018$ with, perhaps, the same nuclear reaction rates adopted by Karakas & Lattanzio but using a stellar evolution code by Mowlavi (1999) - see also similar predictions provided by models computed by Ventura et al. (2013) and ilustrated by Smiljanic et al. (2018, Figure 3).[^9]
Another set of predictions for He-core burning giants following the standard first dredge-up is provided by Lagarde et al. (2012, see also Charbonnel & Lagarde 2010) for an initial composition corresponding to $Z = 0.014$, the solar composition according to Asplund, Grevesse & Sauval (2005), but with an enhanced Ne abundance (Ne = 8.11 rather than the 2005 value of 7.84) but – presumably – the same isotopic fractional abundances. Lagarde et al.’s predictions confirm the onset of Na enrichment at $M_{\rm turn-off} \simeq 2M_\odot$ but yield larger Na enrichments than predicted by Karakas & Lattanzio at higher masses, i.e., \[Na/Fe\] $\simeq 0.25$ for $M_{\rm turn-off} \simeq 3M_\odot$ to 6$M_\odot$. (Smiljanic et al. (2018)’s representation of Lagarde et al.’s predictions for the standard first dredge-up show \[Na/Fe\] at about 0.27 at 2.5$M_\odot$ increasing to about 0.42 at 6$M_\odot$. Apparently, Smiljanic et al. took these estimates for red giants high up on the AGB following completion of He-core burning.) Predicted \[Na/Fe\] are not very dependent on the initial metallicity of the stellar models – see Smiljanic et al. (2018) who provide predictions for \[Fe/H\] = 0 and $-0.54$ from Lagarde et al.
The \[Na/Fe\] predictions from Lagarde et al. appear to provide a closer match to our observations than those from Karakas & Lattanzio shown in Figure \[na\_al\_mass\]. We surmise that the higher \[Na/Fe\] predicted by Lagarde et al. (2012) are in part due to their higher adopted Ne abundance. Since Ne is not detectable in the solar photospheric spectrum, its solar abundance is estimated from the solar coronal spectrum or the measurement of solar energetic particles. Lagarde et al. chose to adopt a Ne abundance obtained from spectra of local young B stars where Ne lines are measurable (Cunha, Hubeny & Lenz 2006). Predicted \[Na/Fe\] are also sensitive to the adopted nuclear reaction rates, especially for the $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{23}$Na reaction. Hamdani et al. (2000) chose the NACRE rates (Arnould, Goriely & Jorissen 1999) and find that predicted \[Na/Fe\] may be substantially changed by adjusting the key rate to its maximum and minimum values, e.g., at $M_{\rm turn-off} = 3M_\odot$, the NACRE rates give \[Na/Fe\] = +0.15 but rates adjusted to their maximum and minimum give \[Na/Fe\] = +0.23 and +0.09, respectively. The $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma$) rate has been the subject of extensive recent scrutiny – see, for example, Ferraro et al. (2018).
The above predictions refer to the standard first dredge-up, i.e., the additional mixing on the first giant branch now commonly referred to as ‘thermohaline’ mixing and mixing in the interior of the main sequence star arising from rapid rotation were not included. Lagarde et al. reported additional calculations in which both thermohaline and rotation-induced mixing were included. A clear indicator that thermohaline (or an equivalent) mixing occurs in stars is the well known presence of low $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratios in giants in conflict with the higher ratios expected from the standard first dredge-up alone. In contrast to this isotopic ratio, the \[Na/Fe\] predictions are little affected by addition of thermohaline mixing to the physics of the first dredge-up – see Charbonnel & Lagarde (2010, Figure 21). Rotation-induced mixing in a main sequence star may raise \[Na/Fe\] at a given mass and also may lower the minimum mass for the onset of surface Na enrichment. Charbonnel & Lagarde (also, their Figure 21) predict that for an initial rotation velocity of 110 km s$^{-1}$ Na enrichment begins at about 1.4$M_\odot$ and post first dredge-up increases \[Na/Fe\] to about +0.30 from the +0.23 obtained without rotational-induced mixing. In calculations reported by Lagarde et al. (2012), an initial rotation velocity dependent on initial mass but within the range of 90 to 137 km s$^{-1}$ was adopted. This range is consistent with observed range for low and intermediate mass stars in open clusters. Lagarde et al.’s calculations show that their modelling of thermohaline and rotation-induced mixing raises \[Na/Fe\] by about 0.06 at 3$M_\odot$ to 0.11 at 6$M_\odot$ for He-core burning giants.
In light of the uncertainties around the predicted Na enrichment from the first dredge-up, it is fair to conclude that the predicted \[Na/Fe\] and \[Al/Fe\] for giant stars with initial masses from about 2$M_\odot$ to 5$M_\odot$ match the observed values for giants from our collection of clusters. The scatter in Na abundances at a given mass does not exceed the measurement errors and, thus, rotationally-induced mixing is unlikely to be a major contributor inside the main sequence progenitors. An obvious lacuna in our measurements of Na in red giants concerns low mass stars, $M < 2M_\odot$, where Na enrichment is not expected unless rotationally-induced mixing is severe. (Two of our clusters have a turn-off mass of less than 1.5$M_\odot$ and one (NGC 2682) appears to be Na enriched beyond expectation. Such a large value of \[Na/Fe\] measured in our study for NGC 2682 is in agreement with others in the literature (see Table 7 in Reddy et al. 2013).) Exploration of the range below about 1$M_\odot$ is difficult because few clusters survive for the 10 billion years or longer necessary for these low mass stars to become red giants. Additionally, slowly-acting atomic diffusion can distort the surface compositions of stars at the main sequence turn-off and so corrupt the giant-main sequence comparison.
There are, however, five clusters with $M_{\rm turn-off} \leq 2M_\odot$ for which Na has been measured: Collinder 261, Trumpler 20, NGC 2243, Berkeley 25 and Ruprecht 147. Collinder 261 was initially (Carretta et al. 2005) reported to be Na rich but Smiljanic et al. (2016) argued that more appropriate non-LTE corrections lead to \[Na/Fe\] $\sim 0.0$ (see above). Smiljanic et al. (2016) analysed the three clusters: Trumpler 20 with $M_{\rm turn-off} = 1.8M_\odot$, NGC 2243 with $M_{\rm turn-off} = 1.2M_\odot$ and Berkeley 25 with $M_{\rm turn-off} = 1.15M_\odot$ obtaining non-LTE \[Na/Fe\] values of 0.06, 0.10 and 0.04, respectively, and non-LTE \[Al/Fe\] values of less than 0.07. Ruprecht 147 with $M_{\rm turn-off} \simeq 1.0M_\odot$ was analysed by Bragaglia et al. (2018) obtaining the non-LTE value \[Na/Fe\] $= 0.24$ for giant stars and 0.08 for main sequence stars or a $+0.16$ increase for the giants. All of these clusters have a metallicity near solar. Unless there are hidden offsets in these analyses, it appears that sodium in giants with masses of less than about 2$M_\odot$ is, as predicted, not enriched.
Cluster giants with masses above 2$M_\odot$ have been analysed by others. Clusters from the Gaia-ESO survey are discussed by Smiljanic et al. 2016, 2018) with masses $M_{\rm turn-off} = 2.2M_\odot$ to $5.6M_\odot$: the non-LTE \[Na/Fe\] values are in good agreement with ours with the possible exception of a giant in Trumpler 2 with $M_{\rm turn-off} = 5.6M\odot$ having \[Na/Fe\] $= 0.48$. Other clusters with non-LTE \[Na/Fe\] include the Hyades (Smiljanic 2012) with $+0.30$ at $M_{\rm turn-off} = 2.5M_\odot$, NGC 4609 (Drazdauskas et al. 2016) with $+0.33$ at $M_{\rm turn-off} = 5.6M_\odot$, NGC 5316 with $+0.27$ at $M_{\rm turn-off} = 5.0M_\odot$ and IC 4756 (Bagdonas et al. 2018) with $+0.14$ at $M_{\rm turn-off} = 2.2M_\odot$. In general, the non-LTE \[Al/Fe\] are close to zero. All of these \[Na/Fe\] values have been corrected for non-LTE effects using the Lind et al. (2011) grids.
It will be extremely challenging to obtain a precise match to observed Na enrichments because of uncertainties around the theoretical modelling of the first dredge-up in giant stars. Sources of uncertainty include the unknown initial $^{22}$Ne abundance, the $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{23}$Na nuclear reaction rate, the rotationally-induced mixing and the possible presence of atomic diffusion affecting the surface abundances in a cluster’s main sequence and turn-off stars which might be considered sources for the initial abundances for the cluster’s red giants. On the observational side of the comparison of observation and theory, key information on surface composition changes resulting from the first dredge-up are provided by measurements of the C, N and O elemental and isotopic abundances. These latter measurements should be integrated with the Na abundances in a comprehensive test of the first dredge-up. Nonetheless, it is clear that Na but not Al enrichment occurs in red giants about as predicted for stars evolving off the main sequence to the He-core burning stage.
Heavy elements as a chemical tag
================================
Across our previous sample of clusters, the composition of a cluster appeared defined by its \[Fe/H\] for elements unaffected by the first dredge-up except for the heavy elements (elements heavier than Fe), i.e., the run of \[El/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] followed that shown by field dwarfs and giants. The scatter in \[El/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] was small and dominated by the errors of measurement for the samples of cluster giants, field giants and dwarfs. This uniformity and small intrinsic scatter in \[El/Fe\] occurred for elements up through the iron-group was not unexpected because field stars are considered to come from dissolving open clusters whose composition is heavily influenced by contamination by ejecta from supernovae. The correspondence failed for heavy elements in that elements such as La (for example) whose synthesis occurs in AGB stars showed a range in \[La/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] with similar ranges found for the giants in clusters and the field. Lambert & Reddy (2016) speculated that star-forming complexes of interstellar clouds were polluted by main $s$-process products from AGB stars which in contrast to supernovae eject mass into interstellar clouds at low velocity and so may contaminate regions of a star-forming complex to varying degrees. Y, a weak $s$-process from massive stars, and Eu, a $r$-process product, do not correlate well with La and the other heavy elements. This speculative idea received a measure of support from theoretical considerations by Armillotta, Krumholz & Fujimoto (2018). Abundances of $s$-process heavy elements appear to provide a chemical tag by which to identify star forming complexes with an otherwise common composition. Unfortunately at the present precision of abundance determinations, the range in heavy element abundances at a given \[Fe/H\] seems to be continuous and, therefore, tracing field stars to their natal complex is impossible.
Addition of five clusters to the larger sample considered by Lambert & Reddy (2016) is unlikely to alter the quantitative evidence about the \[El/Fe\] ratios. Figure \[latoeu\_oc\] shows the key figure from Lambert & Reddy (their Figure 2) with the five new clusters represented by filled symbols and previous clusters by open symbols where the choice of a symbol and its color depends on the \[Fe/H\] of the cluster. Across the total sample of clusters the \[Fe/H\] spans the range from $+0.08$ to $-0.44$ but the clusters in Figure \[latoeu\_oc\] cover only the \[Fe/H\] range from $+0.05$ to $-0.25$ subdivided into three intervals. Figure \[latoeu\_oc\] shows indeed that the new quintet supports the trends previously isolated by Lambert & Reddy (2016). For giants (and dwarfs) error estimates for the abundances of these heavy elements are essentially identical from Y to Eu because all abundances come from weak lines of singly-charged ions. Thus, the different slopes in the various panels cannot be assigned to a (simple) mischaracterization of a stellar atmosphere.
Lambert & Reddy (2016) confirmed the trends exhibited in Figure \[latoeu\_oc\] with samples of field dwarfs (Battistini & Bensby 2016) and of field giants (Mishenina et al. 2006, 2007; Luck 2015) over the same \[Fe/H\] range covered by the sample of clusters. Comparisons of the cluster sample with other samples involving larger intervals of \[Fe/H\] should recognize two factors: (i) open clusters belong to the thin disc and comparisons should not mix thin with thick stars, and (ii) there is evidence that \[El/Fe\] for heavy elements is dependent on \[Fe/H\] for both dwarfs and giants in the thin disc and, thus, comparisons should compare stars of the same \[Fe/H\] or correct stars of different \[Fe/H\] to their \[El/Fe\] at a reference \[Fe/H\].
For dwarfs, abundance determinations for thin disc residents show that \[El/Fe\] for heavy elements decline slightly with increasing \[Fe/H\]. Mishenina et al.’s (2016) sample for local dwarfs shows that the decline of \[El/Fe\] with increasing \[Fe/H\] for La, Ce, Nd, and Sm, elements dominated by a $s$-process contributions, has an average slope of about 0.4 dex per dex with a shallower slope for Y.[^10] Eu, a $r$-process element, has a similar behaviour to Y. The mean slope over the 0.1 dex bins chosen for Figure \[latoeu\_oc\] yields a dispersion of only 0.04 dex but potential samples from the literature may span 0.7 dex in \[Fe/H\] (see below) and thus involve spreads of 0.3 dex in \[El/Fe\] which rivals the range shown in Figure \[latoeu\_oc\]. Abundances provided by Battistini & Bensby (2016) follow the pattern shown by Mishenina et al. - see also Delgado Mena et al. (2017).
Our first fresh comparison between our results in Figure \[latoeu\_oc\] and others involves the sample of 22 clusters discussed by Magrini et al. (2018) as part of the extensive Gaia-ESO survey. This sample covers a broader range in \[Fe/H\] than ours. The sample is divided at \[Fe/H\] = 0. For the 12 clusters with \[Fe/H\] $> 0.0$, the mean \[Fe/H\] = $+0.19$. For the 10 clusters with \[Fe/H\] $< 0.0$, the mean \[Fe/H\] $= -0.14$. Figure \[latoeu\_magrini\] compares our Clusters with those from the Gaia-ESO sample for the common elements Y, La, Ce and Eu. The Gaia-ESO sample with \[Fe/H\] $< 0.0$ on average should and do fall amongst our ‘green’ and ‘blue’ clusters. The \[Fe/H\] $> 0$ Gaia-ESO clusters are on average 0.2 dex more \[Fe/H\]-rich than our ‘red’ clusters. With the standard slope of 0.4 dex per dex, these Gaia-ESO clusters are expected to be displaced from our ‘red’ clusters by about 0.1 tex on average to lower \[La/Fe\], \[Ce/Fe\] and \[Eu/Fe\]. Figure \[latoeu\_magrini\] confirms these shifts. The shift for \[Y/Fe\] may be somewhat larger than expected. In brief, the Gaia-ESO sample broadly confirms the pattern in Figure \[latoeu\_oc\].
For the second comparison, we consider the large sample of dwarfs analysed by Delgado Mena et al. (2017). Comparisons in Figure \[latoeu\_delgado\] are restricted to stars assigned to the thin disc and in order to minimize abundance errors only to stars with effective temperatures between 5400 K and 6100 K. In this figure Ce is adopted for the abscissa; La was not considered by Delgado Mena et al. We plot Delgado Mena et al.’s results in 0.1 dex bins with two bins per row. In the top row, the two bins separated by only 0.1 in \[Fe/H\] overlap with our ‘red’ and ‘green’ clusters. For the standard slope of $-0.4$ (see above), the scatter within and the displacement between the \[Fe/H\] $= 0.0$ and $-0.1$ samples should be about 0.04 dex, which is small relative to the observed scatter in the \[El/Fe\] within the panels. In the second row, the \[Fe/H\] bins are $+0.1\pm0.05$ and $-0.2\pm0.05$. Again the scatter within a bin attributable to the standard slope of 0.4 dex per dex is only 0.04 which is considerably smaller than the observed scatter. The 0.3 dex difference in \[Fe/H\] between the two bins should correspond to a displacement of the two distributions by about 0.12 which is seen for Ce, Nd and Eu. Y is more weakly correlated with Ce and Nd. Eu is almost uncorrelated with Ce. In short, products of the main $s$-process are tightly coupled but products of the weak $s$-process (here, Y) and the $r$-process (here, Eu) appear weakly coupled to the main $s$-process.
Concluding remarks
==================
Addition of the five open clusters discussed in this paper brings to 33 the total number of clusters whose composition from red giant members has been measured in this series of papers. Here, the focus has been on two issues: Na enrichment in red giants and the potential chemical tag offered by heavy element abundances.
First, predictions about Na enrichment of a giant’s atmosphere as a result of the first dredge-up have been tested against our measured Na abundances. It is clear that Na is enriched as predicted but quantitative agreement with predictions has proven elusive very largely because of inherent uncertainties in theoretical predictions about the Na enrichment resulting from the first dredge-up. These uncertainties include a star’s initial $^{22}$Ne abundance, the nuclear reaction rate for $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{23}$Na, the role of rotationally-induced mixing, and the initial Na abundance. Determining or inferring a giant’s or its main sequence progenitor’s Ne abundance is a challenging problem. For an open cluster, the initial Na abundance may, in principle, be determined from spectra of the cluster’s main sequence stars. Such comparison of main sequence stars and giants may not only be vitiated by differential inadequacies of theoretical stellar atmospheres of main sequence and giant stars but also by alteration of the atmospheric composition of main sequence stars by atomic diffusion, as discussed recently for the 4 Gyr cluster M 67 (Bertelli et al. 2018; Gao et al. 2018; Souto et al. 2018). Diffusion is a slow process and is not expected to affect the atmospheric composition of main sequence stars in young open clusters and, indeed, Bertelli et al.’s analysis suggests that effects of diffusion are not present in the 540 Myr cluster NGC 6633. The first dredge-up by mixing the outer envelope erases the effects of atomic diffusion. Future attempts to put the Na enrichment from the first dredge-up on a firm quantitative basis should include determinations of the C, N and O elemental and isotopic abundances.
Heavy element abundances – Y, La, Ce, Nd, Sm and Eu – for the five clusters examined here support our earlier identification that abundances of La, Ce, Nd and Sm with respect to lighter elements (Mg - Ni, for example) may vary by about 0.4 dex (Lambert & Reddy 2016). Such a variations was found here also among a large sample of FGK dwarfs (Delgado Mena et al. 2017) confirming similar results for field dwarfs and giants provided by Lambert & Reddy. In principle, a ratio such as La/Fe may serve as a chemical tag and so identify field stars resulting from a common now-dissolved cluster. This will be very difficult because the run of La etc. abundances for common Mg-Ni abundances appears continuous at the present precision of the abundances. Perhaps, if the abundance data is combined with kinematical information of the precision now provided by Gaia, the chemical-astrometric tag may be able to relate field stars from a common star-forming complex.
There is no reason to cease the exploration of the open cluster population. With the Gaia data it is possible to make more secure identifications of cluster member including dwarfs for many additional clusters, even some at larger distances from the Sun than presently explored and, thus, bringing insight into the inner Galaxy and its outer reaches.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{}\
We thank the referee for thoroughly helpful comments. We thank John Lattanzio, Amanda Karakas, Thomas Nordlander and Rodolfo Smiljanic for helpful email exchanges. We are grateful to the McDonald Observatory’s Time Allocation Committee for granting us observing time for this project. This research has made use of the WEBDA database, operated at the Institute for Astronomy of the University of Vienna and the NASA ADS, USA. This research has also made use of Aladin. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
[99]{}
Alexeeva S. A., Pakhomov Yu. V., Mashonkina L. I., 2014, AstL, 40, 406 Alonso A., Arribas S., Martínez-Roger C., 1999, A&AS, 140, 261 Armillotta L., Krumholz M. R., Fujimoto Y., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5000 Arnould M., Goriely S., Jorissen A., 1999, A&A, 347, 572 Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., 2005, ASPC, 336, 25 Bagdonas V., Drazdauskas A., Tautvai[š]{}ien[. e]{} G., Smiljanic R., Chorniy Y., 2018, A&A, 615, 165 Barrado y Navascués D., Deliyannis C. P., Stauffer J. R., 2001, ApJ, 549, 452 Battistini C., Bensby T., 2016, A&A, 586, 49 Bertelli M. C., Pasquali A., Richer J., Michaud G., Salaris M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 425 Bisterzo S., Travaglio C., Gallino R., Wiescher M., K[ a]{}ppeler F., 2014, ApJ, 787, 10 Blanco-Cuaresma S., Soubiran C., Heiter U., Asplund, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, 47 Bragaglia A., Fu X., Mucciarelli A., Andreuzzi G., Donati P., 2018, A&A, 619, 176 Cantat-Gaudin T., Jordi C., Vallenari A., Bragaglia A., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, 93 Carraro G., Semenko E. A., Villanova S., 2016, AJ, 152, 224 Carretta E., Bragaglia A., Gratton R. G., Tosi M., 2005, A&A, 441, 131 Casamiquela L., Carrera R., Blanco-Cuaresma S., Jordi C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4363 Casamiquela L., Carrera R., Jordi C., Balaguer-Núňez L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3150 Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2003, IAU Symposium 210, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, Uppsala, Sweden, eds. N.E. Piskunov, W.W. Weiss, and D. F. Gray, 2003, ASP-S210 Charbonnel C., Lagarde N., 2010, A&A, 522, 10 Cunha K., Hubeny I., Lanz T., 2006, ApJ, 647, 143 Cutri R. M., Skrutskie M. F., van Dyk S., et al. 2003, The IRSA 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog (Pasadena, CA: IPAC/California Institute of Technology) Delgado Mena E., Tsantaki M., Adibekyan V. Zh., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., González Hernández J. I., Israelian G., 2017, A&A, 606, 94 Drazdauskas A., Tautvaišienė G., Smiljanic R., Bagdonas V., Chorniy Y., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 794 Ferraro F., Tak[' a]{}cs M. P., Piatt[. i]{} D., Cavanna F., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 2701 Foster D. C., Theissen A., Butler C. J., Rolleston W. R. J., Byrne P. B., Hawley S. L., 2000, A&AS, 143, 409 Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, ARA&A, 40, 4875 Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018, A&A, 616, 1 Gao X., Lind K., Amarsi A. M., Buder S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2666 Geller A. M., Latham D. W, Mathieu R. D., 2015, AJ, 150, 97 Geller A. M., Mathieu R. D., Braden E. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1383 Girard T. M., Grundy W. M., Lopez C. E., van Altena W. F., 1989, AJ, 98, 227 Gratton R.G., Carretta E., Eriksson K., Gustafsson B., 1999, A&A, 350, 955 Hamdani S., North P., Mowlavi N., Raboud D., Mermilliod J.-C., 2000, A&A, 360, 509 Jordi C., Gebran M., Carrasco J. M., de Bruijne J., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, 48 Karakas A. I., Lattanzio J. C., 2014, PASA, 31, 30 Kharchenko N. V., et al. 2001, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 17, 409 Kharchenko N. V., Piskunov A. E., R[ö]{}ser S., Schilbach E., Scholz R.-D., 2005, A&A, 438, 1163 Kurucz R. L., Furenlid I., Brault J., & Testerman L., 1984, Solar Flux Atlas from 296 to 1300 nm, ed. R. L. Kurucz, I. Furenlid, J. Brault, & L. Testerman (Sunspot, NM: National Solar Observatory) Krzeminski W., Serkowski K., 1967, ApJ, 147, 988 Lagarde N., Decressin T., Charbonnel C., Eggenberger P., Ekström S., Palacios A., 2012, A&A, 543, 108 Lambert D. L., Reddy A. B. S., 2016, ApJ, 831, 202 Lind K., Asplund M., Barklem P. S., Belyaev A. K., 2011, A&A, 528, 103 Luck R. E. 2015, AJ, 150, 88 Maciejewski G., Boeva S., Georgiev Ts., Mihov B., Ovcharov E., Valcheva A., Niedzielski A., 2008, BaltA, 17, 51 Magrini L., Spina L., Randich S., Friel E., Kordopatis G., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, 106 Marigo P., Girardi L., Bressan A., Groenewegen M. A. T., Silva L., Granato G. L., 2008, A&A, 482, 883 Mathieu R. D. 2000, in ASPC, Vol. 198, “Stellar Clusters and Associations: Convection, Rotation, and Dynamos”, ed. R. Pallavicini, G. Micela, & S. Sciortino, 517 McNamara B. J. Sekiguchi K., 1986a, AJ, 91, 557 Mermilliod J.-C., Mayor M., Udry S., 2009, A&A, 498, 949 Mermilliod J.-C., Mayor M., Udry S., 2008, A&A, 485, 303 Mishenina T. V., Bienaym[é]{} O., Gorbaneva T. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 456, 1109 Mishenina T. V., Gorbaneva T. I., Bienaym[é]{} O., et al. 2007, Astronomy Reports, 51, 382 Mishenina T., Kovtyukh V., Soubiran C., Adibekyan V. Zh, 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1563 Mowlavi N., 1999, A&A, 350, 73 Nordlander T., Lind K., 2017, A&A, 607, A75 Prosser C. F., Stauffer J. R., Caillault J.-P., Balachandran S., Stern R. A., Randich S., 1995, AJ, 110, 1229 Reddy A. B. S., Giridhar S., Lambert D. L., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4301 Reddy A. B. S., Giridhar S., Lambert D. L., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3338 Reddy A. B. S., Giridhar S., Lambert D. L., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1350 Reddy A. B. S., Lambert D. L., 2017, ApJ, 845, 151 Reddy A. B. S., Lambert D. L., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1976 Reddy A. B. S., Lambert D. L., Giridhar S., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4366 Roeser S., Demleitner M., Schilbach E., 2010, AJ, 139, 2440 Skrutskie M. F., Cutri R. M., Stiening R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163 Smiljanic R., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1562 Smiljanic R., Donati P., Bragaglia A., Lemasle B., Romano D., 2018, A&A, 616, 112 Smiljanic R., Romano D., Bragaglia A., Donati P., 2016, A&A, 589, 115 Sneden C., 1973, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Texas, Austin Sneden C., Cowan J., Gallino R., 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241 Soubiran C., Cantat-Gaudin T., Romero-Gómez M., Casamiquela L., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, 155 Souto D., Cunha K., Smith V. V., Allende Prieto C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 14 Spagna A., Cossu F., Lattanzi M. G., Massone G., 2009, MmSAI, 80, 129 Sung H., Bessell M. S., 1999, MNRAS, 306, 361 Tull R.G., MacQueen P.J., Sneden C., Lambert D.L., 1995, PASP, 107, 251 Ventura P., Di Criscienzo M., Carini R., D’Antona F., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3642 Villanova S., Carraro G., Saviane I., 2009, A&A, 504, 845
\[abu\_stock2\]
---------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
$[$Na I/Fe$]$ $+0.32\pm0.03$(6) $+0.25\pm0.04$(6) $+0.25\pm0.02$(5) $+0.27\pm0.03$
$[$Mg I/Fe$]$ $+0.07\pm0.04$(3) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(5) $+0.01\pm0.01$(4) $+0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Al I/Fe$]$ $+0.07\pm0.03$(5) $+0.07\pm0.03$(5) $+0.04\pm0.04$(5) $+0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Si I/Fe$]$ $+0.09\pm0.03$(11) $+0.09\pm0.02$(9) $+0.08\pm0.02$(10) $+0.09\pm0.02$
$[$Ca I/Fe$]$ $-0.03\pm0.03$(11) $-0.04\pm0.03$(9) $-0.05\pm0.02$(7) $-0.04\pm0.03$
$[$Sc I/Fe$]$ $+0.02\pm0.03$(5) $+0.02\pm0.01$(4) $+0.05\pm0.03$(4) $+0.03\pm0.02$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.01$(6) $\,0.00\pm0.05$(6) $+0.03\pm0.04$(5) $+0.02\pm0.04$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.07\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.05\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.07\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.06\pm0.01$
$[$Ti I/Fe$]$ $-0.05\pm0.03$(16) $-0.08\pm0.03$(15) $-0.04\pm0.04$(14) $-0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Ti II/Fe$]$ $-0.07\pm0.01$(6) $-0.10\pm0.02$(6) $-0.07\pm0.03$(6) $-0.08\pm0.02$
$[$V I/Fe$]$ $-0.03\pm0.02$(11) $-0.04\pm0.03$(12) $-0.02\pm0.04$(11) $-0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Cr I/Fe$]$ $+0.01\pm0.04$(8) $-0.01\pm0.03$(9) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(9) $\,0.00\pm0.03$
$[$Cr II/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.04$(7) $+0.05\pm0.02$(7) $+0.01\pm0.02$(7) $+0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Mn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.06\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.07\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.07\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.07\pm0.01$
$[$Fe I/H$]$ $-0.07\pm0.03$(157) $-0.06\pm0.04$(157) $-0.05\pm0.03$(150) $-0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Fe II/H$]$ $-0.07\pm0.02$(20) $-0.04\pm0.04$(21) $-0.06\pm0.02$(18) $-0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Co I/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.02$(6) $-0.02\pm0.02$(6) $+0.01\pm0.01$(6) $-0.01\pm0.02$
$[$Ni I/Fe$]$ $-0.02\pm0.04$(22) $-0.03\pm0.04$(23) $-0.03\pm0.04$(22) $-0.03\pm0.04$
$[$Cu I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.11\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.12\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.10\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.11\pm0.01$
$[$Zn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.02\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.04\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.03\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.03\pm0.01$
$[$Y II/Fe$]$ $\,0.00\pm0.03$(10) $-0.02\pm0.02$(10) $-0.02\pm0.02$(8) $-0.01\pm0.02$
$[$Zr I/Fe$]$ $+0.02\pm0.04$(6) $+0.03\pm0.04$(6) $+0.04\pm0.02$(5) $+0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Zr II/Fe$]$ $+0.05\pm0.04$(3) $+0.04\pm0.01$(3) $\,0.00\pm0.02$(3) $+0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Ba II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.27\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.25\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.26\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.26\pm0.02$
$[$La II/Fe$]$ $-0.07\pm0.01$(5) $-0.06\pm0.04$(5) $-0.06\pm0.01$(5) $-0.06\pm0.02$
$[$Ce II/Fe$]$ $+0.02\pm0.02$(5) $+0.04\pm0.04$(5) $+0.05\pm0.02$(5) $+0.04\pm0.03$
$[$Nd II/Fe$]$ $+0.06\pm0.04$(10) $+0.09\pm0.02$(10) $+0.10\pm0.04$(9) $+0.08\pm0.03$
$[$Sm II/Fe$]$ $+0.09\pm0.01$(7) $+0.09\pm0.02$(7) $+0.10\pm0.03$(7) $+0.09\pm0.02$
$[$Eu II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.07\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.09\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.10\pm0.01$(1) $+0.09\pm0.01$
---------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
---------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
$[$Na I/Fe$]$ $+0.20\pm0.02$(6) $+0.27\pm0.03$(4) $+0.18\pm0.03$(6) $+0.22\pm0.03$ $+0.23\pm0.02$(6) $+0.22\pm0.03$(6) $+0.23\pm0.02$
$[$Mg I/Fe$]$ $+0.05\pm0.03$(5) $+0.05\pm0.04$(5) $+0.08\pm0.03$(5) $+0.06\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.03$(5) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(5) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Al I/Fe$]$ $+0.02\pm0.02$(5) $+0.06\pm0.03$(5) $+0.01\pm0.03$(5) $+0.03\pm0.03$ $+0.04\pm0.02$(5) $+0.03\pm0.02$(5) $+0.04\pm0.02$
$[$Si I/Fe$]$ $+0.33\pm0.04$(9) $+0.24\pm0.02$(12) $+0.29\pm0.04$(9) $+0.28\pm0.03$ $+0.05\pm0.03$(11) $+0.06\pm0.04$(9) $+0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Ca I/Fe$]$ $+0.01\pm0.04$(11) $+0.03\pm0.04$(11) $\,0.00\pm0.02$(10) $+0.01\pm0.03$ $-0.03\pm0.03$(12) $-0.02\pm0.03$(10) $-0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Sc I/Fe$]$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $+0.03\pm0.03$(3) $-0.02\pm0.03$(3) $+0.00\pm0.03$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $-0.04\pm0.03$(6) $-0.08\pm0.03$(4) $-0.01\pm0.03$(5) $-0.04\pm0.03$ $-0.03\pm0.02$(5) $\,0.00\pm0.02$(6) $-0.01\pm0.02$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.04\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.03\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.05\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.04\pm0.01$ $\bf-0.02\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.05\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.04\pm0.02$
$[$Ti I/Fe$]$ $-0.13\pm0.03$(14) $-0.06\pm0.02$(13) $-0.16\pm0.03$(13) $-0.12\pm0.03$ $\,0.00\pm0.03$(13) $-0.04\pm0.03$(14) $-0.02\pm0.03$
$[$Ti II/Fe$]$ $-0.12\pm0.01$(7) $-0.10\pm0.03$(6) $-0.10\pm0.03$(7) $-0.11\pm0.02$ $-0.04\pm0.02$(6) $-0.05\pm0.02$(5) $-0.04\pm0.02$
$[$V I/Fe$]$ $-0.05\pm0.04$(11) $-0.03\pm0.04$(8) $-0.07\pm0.04$(11) $-0.05\pm0.04$ $\,0.00\pm0.04$(8) $-0.01\pm0.03$(11) $-0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Cr I/Fe$]$ $-0.03\pm0.02$(8) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(7) $-0.03\pm0.03$(8) $-0.02\pm0.03$ $\,0.00\pm0.03$(8) $+0.01\pm0.03$(8) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Cr II/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.03$(7) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(4) $+0.02\pm0.03$(6) $\,0.00\pm0.03$ $+0.01\pm0.03$(7) $+0.03\pm0.02$(6) $+0.02\pm0.02$
$[$Mn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.04\pm0.02$(2) $\bf-0.05\pm0.02$(2) $\bf-0.10\pm0.02$(2) $\bf-0.06\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.04\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.08\pm0.02$(2) $\bf-0.06\pm0.01$
$[$Fe I/H$]$ $-0.12\pm0.03$(150) $-0.09\pm0.03$(146) $-0.11\pm0.03$(153) $-0.11\pm0.03$ $-0.01\pm0.03$(154) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(153) $-0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Fe II/H$]$ $-0.11\pm0.03$(17) $-0.11\pm0.03$(11) $-0.10\pm0.02$(17) $-0.11\pm0.03$ $-0.01\pm0.03$(16) $-0.01\pm0.04$(18) $-0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Co I/Fe$]$ $+0.02\pm0.02$(5) $\,0.00\pm0.01$(4) $+0.06\pm0.02$(5) $+0.03\pm0.02$ $+0.01\pm0.02$(5) $+0.01\pm0.03$(6) $+0.01\pm0.02$
$[$Ni I/Fe$]$ $-0.02\pm0.04$(21) $-0.04\pm0.03$(22) $-0.01\pm0.03$(21) $-0.02\pm0.03$ $-0.03\pm0.03$(24) $-0.05\pm0.04$(21) $-0.04\pm0.03$
$[$Cu I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.09\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.15\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.10\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.11\pm0.01$ $\bf-0.19\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.15\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.17\pm0.02$
$[$Zn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.14\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.12\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.15\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.14\pm0.02$ $\bf-0.19\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.25\pm0.02$(1) $\bf-0.22\pm0.02$
$[$Y II/Fe$]$ $\,0.00\pm0.03$(9) $-0.03\pm0.00$(7) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(10) $-0.01\pm0.02$ $+0.01\pm0.03$(8) $+0.01\pm0.02$(9) $\,0.00\pm0.02$
$[$Zr I/Fe$]$ $-0.09\pm0.03$(6) $-0.12\pm0.02$(2) $-0.12\pm0.04$(4) $-0.11\pm0.03$ $+0.09\pm0.02$(6) $-0.01\pm0.03$(6) $+0.04\pm0.02$
$[$Zr II/Fe$]$ $+0.20\pm0.04$(3) $+0.17\pm0.04$(3) $+0.16\pm0.02$(3) $+0.18\pm0.03$ $+0.06\pm0.03$(3) $+0.08\pm0.03$(3) $+0.07\pm0.03$
$[$Ba II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.20\pm0.03$(1) $\bf+0.60\pm0.04$(1) $\bf+0.15\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.17\pm0.03$ $\bf+0.11\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.12\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.12\pm0.02$
$[$La II/Fe$]$ $-0.11\pm0.04$(5) $-0.10\pm0.01$(5) $-0.08\pm0.03$(5) $-0.10\pm0.03$ $-0.03\pm0.04$(5) $-0.03\pm0.03$(4) $-0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Ce II/Fe$]$ $+0.08\pm0.02$(5) $+0.06\pm0.02$(4) $+0.08\pm0.02$(5) $+0.07\pm0.02$ $-0.01\pm0.03$(5) $+0.02\pm0.03$(5) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Nd II/Fe$]$ $+0.08\pm0.02$(9) $+0.05\pm0.01$(8) $+0.09\pm0.03$(8) $+0.07\pm0.02$ $+0.05\pm0.03$(8) $+0.07\pm0.03$(9) $+0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Sm II/Fe$]$ $+0.04\pm0.02$(6) $+0.02\pm0.03$(7) $+0.02\pm0.01$(7) $+0.03\pm0.02$ $+0.03\pm0.03$(7) $+0.02\pm0.03$(7) $+0.03\pm0.03$
$[$Eu II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.06\pm0.02$(1) $\bf\,0.00\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.04\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.03\pm0.02$ $\bf+0.10\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.11\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.10\pm0.02$
---------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
\[abu\_6991\]
---------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
$[$Na I/Fe$]$ $+0.06\pm0.02$(6) $+0.10\pm0.03$(6) $+0.12\pm0.03$(6) $+0.11\pm0.02$(6) $+0.10\pm0.02$
$[$Mg I/Fe$]$ $-0.07\pm0.03$(5) $-0.06\pm0.03$(7) $-0.06\pm0.03$(7) $-0.07\pm0.03$(7) $-0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Al I/Fe$]$ $-0.11\pm0.04$(5) $-0.06\pm0.02$(5) $-0.07\pm0.02$(5) $-0.09\pm0.02$(5) $+0.08\pm0.03$
$[$Si I/Fe$]$ $+0.01\pm0.04$(10) $+0.04\pm0.03$(12) $+0.06\pm0.03$(14) $+0.06\pm0.03$(14) $+0.04\pm0.03$
$[$Ca I/Fe$]$ $\,0.00\pm0.04$(12) $~0.00\pm0.03$(11) $+0.04\pm0.03$(12) $+0.02\pm0.02$(12) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Sc I/Fe$]$ $\,0.00\pm0.02$(5) $+0.03\pm0.03$(4) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(6) $+0.01\pm0.03$(4) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.03$(6) $-0.02\pm0.03$(6) $-0.02\pm0.02$(5) $-0.02\pm0.04$(7) $-0.02\pm0.03$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.01\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.02\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.00\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.02\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.01\pm0.01$
$[$Ti I/Fe$]$ $-0.02\pm0.02$(12) $-0.01\pm0.03$(14) $-0.03\pm0.02$(14) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(15) $-0.01\pm0.02$
$[$Ti II/Fe$]$ $-0.07\pm0.01$(10) $-0.04\pm0.03$(10) $-0.08\pm0.04$(11) $-0.06\pm0.02$(11) $-0.06\pm0.03$
$[$V I/Fe$]$ $-0.04\pm0.03$(11) $-0.02\pm0.03$(11) $-0.03\pm0.03$(12) $-0.01\pm0.03$(13) $-0.02\pm0.03$
$[$Cr I/Fe$]$ $-0.03\pm0.02$(8) $-0.01\pm0.03$(10) $-0.01\pm0.02$(9) $-0.03\pm0.02$(8) $-0.02\pm0.02$
$[$Cr II/Fe$]$ $-0.03\pm0.02$(7) $+0.03\pm0.02$(7) $+0.04\pm0.02$(8) $+0.05\pm0.02$(8) $+0.02\pm0.02$
$[$Mn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.01\pm0.01$(2) $\bf+0.00\pm0.01$(2) $\bf+0.00\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.01\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.01\pm0.01$
$[$Fe I/H$]$ $+0.01\pm0.04$(143) $-0.01\pm0.03$(162) $+0.01\pm0.03$(159) $+0.01\pm0.02$(160) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Fe II/H$]$ $+0.01\pm0.03$(15) $~0.00\pm0.03$(20) $-0.01\pm0.02$(20) $+0.01\pm0.03$(22) $\,0.00\pm0.03$
$[$Co I/Fe$]$ $-0.02\pm0.03$(6) $+0.02\pm0.02$(6) $+0.01\pm0.03$(6) $+0.01\pm0.02$(6) $+0.01\pm0.02$
$[$Ni I/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.02$(22) $-0.01\pm0.02$(23) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(23) $-0.01\pm0.03$(23) $-0.01\pm0.02$
$[$Cu I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.05\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.03\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.02\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.03\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.03\pm0.01$
$[$Zn I/Fe$]$ $\bf\,0.00\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.01\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.02\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.01\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.01\pm0.01$
$[$Y II/Fe$]$ $+0.08\pm0.03$(9) $+0.09\pm0.03$(10) $+0.08\pm0.03$(10) $+0.09\pm0.02$(10) $+0.08\pm0.03$
$[$Zr I/Fe$]$ $+0.12\pm0.04$(5) $+0.12\pm0.02$(6) $+0.09\pm0.03$(5) $+0.12\pm0.03$(5) $+0.011\pm0.03$
$[$Zr II/Fe$]$ $+0.08\pm0.03$(3) $+0.10\pm0.01$(3) $+0.07\pm0.02$(3) $+0.11\pm0.03$(3) $+0.09\pm0.02$
$[$Ba II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.12\pm0.03$(1) $\bf+0.13\pm0.03$(1) $\bf+0.12\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.12\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.12\pm0.02$
$[$La II/Fe$]$ $+0.10\pm0.02$(5) $+0.13\pm0.04$(7) $+0.14\pm0.03$(6) $+0.13\pm0.01$(6) $+0.12\pm0.03$
$[$Ce II/Fe$]$ $+0.17\pm0.03$(5) $+0.17\pm0.03$(5) $+0.17\pm0.03$(5) $+0.16\pm0.03$(5) $+0.17\pm0.03$
$[$Nd II/Fe$]$ $+0.20\pm0.03$(6) $+0.20\pm0.02$(10) $+0.18\pm0.03$(11) $+0.17\pm0.03$(10) $+0.19\pm0.03$
$[$Sm II/Fe$]$ $+0.22\pm0.04$(6) $+0.26\pm0.04$(7) $+0.23\pm0.03$(7) $+0.23\pm0.03$(7) $+0.24\pm0.03$
$[$Eu II/Fe$]$ $\ldots$ $\bf+0.16\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.15\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.14\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.15\pm0.02$
---------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
\[abu\_ngc7762\]
---------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
$[$Na I/Fe$]$ $+0.03\pm0.02$(4) $+0.22\pm0.03$(4) $+0.09\pm0.02$(4) $+0.11\pm0.02$
$[$Mg I/Fe$]$ $+0.02\pm0.01$(3) $+0.04\pm0.02$(4) $+0.04\pm0.03$(4) $+0.03\pm0.02$
$[$Al I/Fe$]$ $+0.06\pm0.01$(5) $+0.01\pm0.04$(5) $+0.07\pm0.02$(4) $+0.05\pm0.03$
$[$Si I/Fe$]$ $+0.28\pm0.04$(13) $+0.21\pm0.04$(11) $+0.20\pm0.02$(10) $+0.23\pm0.03$
$[$Ca I/Fe$]$ $-0.04\pm0.03$(12) $-0.01\pm0.03$(11) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(9) $-0.02\pm0.03$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $-0.02\pm0.04$(7) $+0.02\pm0.04$(6) $+0.01\pm0.04$(6) $\,0.00\pm0.04$
$[$Sc II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.06\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.08\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.07\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.07\pm0.01$
$[$Ti I/Fe$]$ $-0.06\pm0.03$(9) $-0.09\pm0.03$(13) $-0.03\pm0.02$(12) $-0.06\pm0.03$
$[$Ti II/Fe$]$ $-0.07\pm0.03$(8) $-0.05\pm0.03$(8) $-0.05\pm0.04$(7) $-0.06\pm0.03$
$[$V I/Fe$]$ $\,0.00\pm0.04$(7) $\,0.00\pm0.03$(12) $+0.03\pm0.04$(8) $+0.01\pm0.04$
$[$Cr I/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.03$(10) $\,0.00\pm0.02$(8) $+0.03\pm0.03$(10) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Cr II/Fe$]$ $+0.05\pm0.04$(6) $+0.08\pm0.03$(8) $+0.07\pm0.04$(6) $+0.07\pm0.04$
$[$Mn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.14\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.11\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.13\pm0.01$(2) $\bf-0.13\pm0.01$
$[$Fe I/H$]$ $-0.06\pm0.03$(141) $-0.08\pm0.03$(140) $-0.07\pm0.04$(133) $-0.07\pm0.03$
$[$Fe II/H$]$ $-0.07\pm0.02$(17) $-0.08\pm0.03$(16) $-0.08\pm0.04$(15) $-0.08\pm0.03$
$[$Co I/Fe$]$ $+0.12\pm0.01$(5) $+0.11\pm0.03$(6) $+0.11\pm0.03$(6) $+0.11\pm0.02$
$[$Ni I/Fe$]$ $+0.01\pm0.03$(23) $-0.01\pm0.04$(19) $+0.03\pm0.03$(17) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Cu I/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.02\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.03\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.04\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.03\pm0.01$
$[$Zn I/Fe$]$ $\bf-0.09\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.06\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.06\pm0.01$(1) $\bf-0.07\pm0.01$
$[$Y II/Fe$]$ $+0.04\pm0.03$(7) $+0.06\pm0.03$(9) $+0.03\pm0.03$(9) $+0.04\pm0.03$
$[$Zr I/Fe$]$ $-0.02\pm0.04$(6) $-0.02\pm0.02$(6) $+0.02\pm0.02$(6) $+0.01\pm0.03$
$[$Zr II/Fe$]$ $-0.01\pm0.02$(3) $+0.03\pm0.01$(3) $+0.07\pm0.03$(3) $+0.03\pm0.02$
$[$Ba II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.06\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.08\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.07\pm0.02$(1) $\bf+0.07\pm0.02$
$[$La II/Fe$]$ $+0.05\pm0.04$(7) $+0.05\pm0.03$(6) $+0.04\pm0.03$(5) $+0.05\pm0.03$
$[$Ce II/Fe$]$ $+0.05\pm0.04$(5) $+0.04\pm0.02$(4) $+0.06\pm0.02$(5) $+0.05\pm0.03$
$[$Nd II/Fe$]$ $+0.07\pm0.03$(9) $+0.09\pm0.03$(7) $+0.09\pm0.03$(9) $+0.08\pm0.03$
$[$Sm II/Fe$]$ $+0.08\pm0.03$(7) $+0.10\pm0.04$(7) $+0.10\pm0.04$(7) $+0.09\pm0.04$
$[$Eu II/Fe$]$ $\bf+0.06\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.10\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.10\pm0.01$(1) $\bf+0.08\pm0.01$
---------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
\[nlte\_naal\]
[lccccc]{} & & & & &\
& & & & &\
\
NGC 6991 & 0.10$\pm$0.01 & 0.06$\pm$0.01 & 0.08$\pm$0.03 & 0.00$\pm$0.03 & 2.10\
NGC 6475 & 0.23$\pm$0.02 & 0.20$\pm$0.02 & 0.04$\pm$0.03 & -0.11$\pm$0.03 & 3.80\
NGC 2099 & 0.23$\pm$0.02 & 0.19$\pm$0.02 & 0.01$\pm$0.03 & -0.09$\pm$0.03 & 2.95\
NGC 752 & 0.12$\pm$0.01 & 0.08$\pm$0.01 & 0.15$\pm$0.02 & 0.08$\pm$0.02 & 2.02\
NGC 6633 & 0.20$\pm$0.01 & 0.16$\pm$0.01 & 0.06$\pm$0.02 & -0.03$\pm$0.02 & 2.76\
NGC 2281 & 0.20$\pm$0.02 & 0.17$\pm$0.02 & -0.02$\pm$0.02 & -0.11$\pm$0.02 & 2.92\
\
Stock 2 & 0.27$\pm$0.01 & 0.23$\pm$0.01 & 0.06$\pm$0.04 & -0.09$\pm$0.04 & 3.60\
NGC 6940 & 0.25$\pm$0.04 & 0.22$\pm$0.04 & 0.05$\pm$0.03 & -0.05$\pm$0.03 & 2.33\
NGC 2539 & 0.27$\pm$0.02 & 0.23$\pm$0.02 & 0.00$\pm$0.01 & -0.07$\pm$0.01 & 2.89\
NGC 7762 & 0.11$\pm$0.02 & 0.08$\pm$0.02 & 0.05$\pm$0.03 & -0.08$\pm$0.03 & 1.50\
NGC 2482 & 0.30$\pm$0.02 & 0.26$\pm$0.02 & 0.07$\pm$0.02 & -0.03$\pm$0.02 & 2.82\
NGC 2360 & 0.20$\pm$0.01 & 0.16$\pm$0.01 & 0.09$\pm$0.02 & 0.03$\pm$0.02 & 2.53\
NGC 7209 & 0.27$\pm$0.03 & 0.23$\pm$0.03 & 0.06$\pm$0.02 & -0.06$\pm$0.02 & 2.79\
NGC 2682 & 0.25$\pm$0.02 & 0.22$\pm$0.02 & 0.09$\pm$0.01 & -0.01$\pm$0.01 & 1.20\
NGC 2251 & 0.33$\pm$0.03 & 0.29$\pm$0.03 & 0.00$\pm$0.03 & -0.11$\pm$0.03 & 3.21\
NGC 1912 & 0.33$\pm$0.05 & 0.28$\pm$0.05 & 0.06$\pm$0.02 & -0.03$\pm$0.02 & 3.13\
NGC 2527 & 0.32$\pm$0.03 & 0.28$\pm$0.03 & 0.05$\pm$0.02 & -0.02$\pm$0.02 & 2.71\
NGC 1662 & 0.22$\pm$0.01 & 0.17$\pm$0.01 & -0.03$\pm$0.03 & -0.09$\pm$0.03 & 2.77\
NGC 2548 & 0.26$\pm$0.03 & 0.22$\pm$0.03 & 0.03$\pm$0.02 & -0.03$\pm$0.02 & 2.83\
NGC 2168 & 0.22$\pm$0.02 & 0.21$\pm$0.02 & 0.03$\pm$0.03 & -0.11$\pm$0.03 & 4.60\
NGC 1664 & 0.27$\pm$0.02 & 0.23$\pm$0.02 & -0.01$\pm$0.02 & -0.09$\pm$0.02 & 3.13\
NGC 1817 & 0.16$\pm$0.02 & 0.12$\pm$0.02 & 0.11$\pm$0.02 & 0.04$\pm$0.02 & 2.80\
NGC 2447 & 0.12$\pm$0.01 & 0.09$\pm$0.01 & -0.14$\pm$0.03 & -0.23$\pm$0.03 & 2.85\
NGC 1342 & 0.28$\pm$0.02 & 0.24$\pm$0.02 & -0.05$\pm$0.02 & -0.11$\pm$0.02 & 2.71\
NGC 1647 & 0.37$\pm$0.05 & 0.36$\pm$0.05 & 0.13$\pm$0.05 & -0.02$\pm$0.05 & 4.09\
\
NGC 2437 & 0.32$\pm$0.03 & 0.28$\pm$0.03 & -0.01$\pm$0.02 & -0.13$\pm$0.02 & 3.29\
NGC 2354 & 0.12$\pm$0.05 & 0.09$\pm$0.05 & -0.11$\pm$0.03 & -0.18$\pm$0.03 & 4.24\
NGC 2335 & 0.24$\pm$0.02 & 0.20$\pm$0.02 & -0.02$\pm$0.02 & -0.08$\pm$0.02 & 3.90\
NGC 2287 & 0.24$\pm$0.03 & 0.23$\pm$0.03 & 0.05$\pm$0.02 & -0.08$\pm$0.02 & 3.29\
NGC 2506 & 0.21$\pm$0.04 & 0.18$\pm$0.04 & 0.17$\pm$0.01 & 0.09$\pm$0.01 & 2.02\
NGC 2345 & 0.18$\pm$0.04 & 0.18$\pm$0.04 & 0.03$\pm$0.02 & -0.10$\pm$0.02 & 2.50\
[^1]: IRAF is a general purpose software system for the reduction and analysis of astronomical data distributed by NOAO, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^2]: <http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator>
[^3]: Originally published by the University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC)/ California Institute of Technology.
[^4]: <http://www.as.utexas.edu/~hebe/stools/>
[^5]: [**MOOG**]{} was developed and updated by Chris Sneden and originally described in Sneden (1973)
[^6]: The adopted interstellar extinctions are (A$_{V}$, A$_{K}$, E(V-K), E(J-K))= (3.1, 0.28, 2.75, 0.54)\*E(B-V), where E(B-V) is taken from the [WEBDA]{} database
[^7]: <http://www.inspect-stars.com/>
[^8]: Available online at <https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~thomasn/NLTE/>
[^9]: This statement about Na enrichment following the first dredge-up overlooks the fact that changes of a few percentage points occur in the H and He abundances and these are undetectable at present. It is assumed that ratios such as \[Na/Fe\] and \[Na/Al\] are measurable without serious error even if the model atmosphere assumes slightly inappropriate H and He mass fractions.
[^10]: Sm is less dominated by the $s$-process than La, Ce and Nd. The main $s$-process provides about 32% of Sm but higher fractions of La (72%), Ce (82%) and Nd (63%) (Sneden, Cowan & Gallino 2008; Bisterzo et al. 2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
6.6in 8.8in -0.25truein -0.30truein 0.30truein
[**G[**roupe**]{} d’A[**nnecy**]{}\
\
Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules**]{}
[**G[**roupe**]{} de L[**yon**]{}\
\
Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon**]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**A. Ferrari, P.R. Sala**]{}\
[*INFN, Sezione di Milano, Via Celoria 16, I-20133 Milano, Italy*]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**J. Ranft**]{}\
[*Laboratoire de Physique Théorique [[E]{}[S]{}[L]{}[A]{}[P]{}]{}[^1]\
Groupe d’Annecy: LAPP, Chemin de Bellevue, BP 110,\
F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux Cedex, France.*]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*and*]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**S. Roesler**]{}\
[*Universität Siegen, Fachbereich Physik, D-57068 Siegen, Germany.*]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**Abstract**]{}
Based on a Monte Carlo realization of the Dual Parton Model we study the production of target associated particles and of nuclear fragments in high energy hadron–nucleus interactions. A formation zone intranuclear cascade of low energy secondaries inside the target nucleus is discussed. We calculate excitation energies of residual nuclei left after the intranuclear cascade process and treat their further disintegration by introducing models for the evaporation of protons, neutrons, and light fragments, high energy fission, and by applying a Fermi Break-up model to light nuclear fragments. The results are compared to data on target associated particle production. We furthermore calculate cross sections for the production of nuclear fragments.
Introduction
============
The Dual Parton Model (DPM) [@Capella94a] and Monte Carlo (MC) implementations of this model for hadron-hadron [@Aurenche92a; @Bopp94a], hadron-nucleus, and nucleus-nucleus collisions [@Moehring91; @Ranft94c] have been quite successful in describing many aspects of hadron production in high energy collisions. So far however, MC models for hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions based on the DPM did mainly describe the high energy component of newly created hadrons, not the many particles resulting from the nuclear disintegration following the high energy collisions.
Models for nuclear evaporation and fragmentation and for high energy fission are however usually included in hadron cascade models such as [FLUKA]{} [@Fasso94a; @Fasso94b; @Aarnio94] used for detector simulation and for the evaluation of radiation damage to high energy accelerator and detector components. In the older models, the nuclear excitation energy, which is the starting point for the calculation of the nuclear disintegration, was often introduced only in a phenomenological way [@Ranft72] or it was calculated on the basis of valid but simple intranuclear cascade models [@Bertini63; @Bertini69] which are not applicable in the multi-GeV energy range of present experiments. The intranuclear cascade models have been greatly improved since then [@Fasso94a; @Fasso94b; @Aarnio94; @Yariv81] and their range of validity can be extended to higher energies due to the introduction of the formation zone concept [@Stodolski75; @Ranft89].
Here, we use the [DTUNUC]{} [@Moehring91] and [DPMJET-II]{} [@Ranft94c] MC implementations of the DPM for high energy hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions. These MC models contain a formation zone intranuclear cascade which is responsible for knocking out cascade protons and neutrons of the residual nucleus. The cascade protons have energies which are typical for the so called grey prongs observed in emulsion experiments. Therefore, we are able to calculate the nuclear excitation energy of the residual nucleus. In a second step, this excitation energy is the basis for nuclear evaporation, and high energy fission reactions. In the present paper these mechanisms are investigated in hadron-nucleus collisions. In a forthcoming publication we intend to extend these studies to peripheral high energy nucleus-nucleus collisions.
In Sec.2 we describe the formation zone intranuclear cascade model [@Ranft88a] and focus on the calculation of excitation energies. In Sec.3 models for evaporation and fragmentation are presented. In Sec.4 we compare computed cross sections and multiplicities of grey and black prong production to experimental data. Furthermore, cross sections for the production of residual nuclei are discussed. In Sec.5 we summarize our results.
The calculation of excitation energies in the formation zone intranuclear cascade model
=======================================================================================
The two-component Dual Parton Model for hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two-component DPM and its MC realizations have been discussed in detail in [@Capella94a; @Aurenche92a; @Bopp94a; @Moehring91; @Ranft94c; @Engel95a]. Therefore, we summarize only briefly the main steps leading to the multiparticle state, which is the starting point for the intranuclear cascade and evaporation models being described in this paper.
The MC model for hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus interactions starts from an impulse approximation for the nucleons of the interacting nuclei. The spatial initial configuration, i.e. the positions of the nucleons in space-time in the rest system of the corresponding nucleus, is sampled from standard density distributions. For energies above 3-5 GeV/nucleon the collision proceeds via $\nu$ elementary interactions between $\nu_p$ and $\nu_t$ nucleons from the projectile and target, resp. The values $\nu, \nu_p,$ and $\nu_t$ are sampled according to Glauber’s multiple scattering formalism using the MC algorithm of [@Shmakov89]. The particle production is well described by the two-component DPM which is applied as in hadron-hadron interactions [@Aurenche92a; @Engel95a; @Bopp94b]. As a result a system of chains connecting partons of the nucleons involved in the scattering process is formed. The chains are hadronized applying the model [JETSET]{} [@Sjostrand86; @Sjostrand87a]. The hadrons may than cause intranuclear cascade processes, which are treated by the formation zone intranuclear cascade model [@Ranft88a], an extension of the intranuclear cascade model [@Bertini63; @Bertini69]. At energies below 3-5 GeV/nucleon the formation zone intranuclear cascade model itself provides a reasonable description of inelastic nuclear collisions.
In the following we summarize the main ideas of the formation zone intranuclear cascade model for hadron-nucleus interactions. Modifications which have to be introduced to describe nucleus-nucleus collisions will be discussed in a forthcoming paper. The physical picture explaining the absence of the intranuclear cascade at high energies is the concept of the formation zone [@Stodolski75]. It has been introduced in analogy to the Landau-Pomeranchuk [@Landau53] effect, which explains the observation that electrons passing through material become more penetrating at high energies. For the formation zone of an electron with 4-momentum $p$ and energy $E$ upon radiation of a photon with 4-momentum $k$ one obtains $$\label{tauelec}
\tau=\frac{E}{k\cdot p}=\frac{E}{m}\frac{1}{\omega_e},$$ where $\omega_e$ is the frequency of the photon in the rest frame of the electron and $E/m$ is the time dilatation factor from the electron rest frame to the laboratory. Within the quark model, the states being formed in the primary nucleon-nucleon interaction can be understood as consisting of valence quarks only, i.e without the full system of sea quarks, antiquarks, and gluons and have therefore a reduced probability for hadronic interactions inside the nucleus [@Ranft88a]. The formation zone concept can be translated to hadron production as follows [@Ranft89]. Denoting the 4-momenta of the projectile hadron $p_p$ and the secondary hadron $p_s$ in the laboratory frame with $$p_p=(E_p,0,0,\sqrt{E_p^2-m_p^2}), \qquad
p_s=(E_s,\vec{p}_{s\perp},\sqrt{E_s^2-m_s^2-\vec{p}_{s\perp}^2})$$ and replacing in Eq. (\[tauelec\]) the electron momentum by $p_p$ and the photon momentum by $p_s$, the hadron formation zone reads for $E_p\gg m_p$ $$\tau_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}=\frac{2E_s}{(m_px)^2+m_s^2+p_{s\perp}^2},
\qquad x=\frac{E_s}{E_p}.$$ Since for most of the produced secondaries the term $(m_px)^2$ can be neglected one can approximate $$\tau_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}\approx \gamma_s\tau_s, \qquad
\gamma_s=\frac{E_s}{m_s}.$$ In the rest system of the secondary hadron $s$, we define an average formation time $\tau_s$ needed to create a complete hadronic state [@Ranft88a; @Ranft89] $$\label{deffortim}
\tau_s=\tau_0\frac{m_s^2}{m_s^2+p_{s\perp}^2}.$$ $\tau_0$ is a free parameter, which has to be determined by comparing particle production within the model to experimental data. Typical values are in the range from 1 fm/$c$ to 10 fm/$c$[^2]. From the comparisons discussed further below we find $\tau_0=2$ fm/$c$. For each secondary we sample a formation time $\tau$ from an exponential distribution [@Bialas84] with an average value as given in Eq. (\[deffortim\]). As it was described in [@Moehring91], in our MC model we know the full space-time history of the collision. In any particular Lorentz frame we can follow the trajectories of the secondaries created in the hadronization of the chains in space and time. Due to relativistic time dilatation secondaries with high energies in the nucleus rest system are mostly formed outside the nucleus and are therefore not able to initiate intranuclear cascade processes. On the other hand, the lower the energy of the secondary hadronic system the higher is the probability to form a hadron inside the nucleus. These hadrons may therefore reinteract with spectator nucleons taking into account the nuclear geometry. In the model, inelastic secondary interactions of hadrons with energies below 9 GeV are described with the code [HADRIN]{} [@Haenssgen86]. In general, the intranuclear cascade would start with resonances resulting from the chain hadronization procedure, but we apply the following way. Since the interaction cross sections of resonances needed within [HADRIN]{} are less well known, we firstly treat their decay and sample the intranuclear cascade starting from the stable particles. We assume that the effect of this approximation can mostly be compensated by using an effective $\tau_0$ value. Reinteractions within the colliding nucleus beyond 9 GeV are very rare and therefore neglected in the present approach. Pauli’s principle is taken into account as described in [@Moehring91]. For the secondaries produced in intranuclear cascade processes we apply the same formalism as described above and therefore obtain a formation zone intranuclear cascade in all generations of secondaries.
The calculation of nuclear excitation energies
----------------------------------------------
The treatment of nuclear effects within the MC model has already been discussed in [@Moehring91]. Since they are essential in calculating excitation energies of nuclei left after primary interactions and intranuclear cascade processes we summarize the basic ideas. Fermi momenta for nucleons as well as a simplified treatment of the nuclear potential are applied to control the generation of low-energy particles. Nucleon momenta are sampled from zero-temperature Fermi distributions $$\frac{dN^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}}}{dp}=N^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}}
\frac{3p^2}{(p_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}})^3}.$$ Here and in the following the indices “n” and “p” denote neutrons and protons, resp. The maximum allowed Fermi momenta of neutrons and protons are $$\label{maxFermi}
p_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}}=
\left[\left(\frac{N^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}}}{V_A}\right)
\frac{3h^3}{8\pi}\right]^{\frac{1}{3}}$$ with $V_A$ being the volume of the corresponding nucleus with an approximate nuclear radius $R_A=r_0A^{1/3}, r_0=1.29$ fm. Modifications of the actual nucleon momentum distribution, as they would arise, for instance, taking the reduced density and momenta in the nuclear skin into consideration, effectively result in a reduction of the Fermi momenta as compared to those sampled from Eq. (\[maxFermi\]). This effect can be estimated by a correction factor $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize mod}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ which modifies the Fermi-momenta. Results presented in this paper have been obtained with $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize mod}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$=0.75. The depth of the nuclear potential is assumed to be the Fermi energy and the binding energy for outer shell nucleons $$\label{nucpot}
V^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}}=
\frac{(p_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}})^2}
{2m_{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}}}+
E^{\mbox{\scriptsize n,p}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize bind}}.$$ To extend the applicability of the model to the energy region well below 1 GeV an approximate treatment of the Coulomb-potential is provided. The Coulomb-barrier modifying the nuclear potential is calculated from $$\label{coulpot}
V_{\mbox{\scriptsize C}} = \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r_0}
\frac{Z_1Z_2}{(A_1^{1/3}+A_2^{1/3})}$$ with the mass numbers $A_1, A_2$ and charges $Z_1, Z_2$ of the colliding nuclei, i.e. with $A_1=|Z_1|=1$ for charged hadrons entering or leaving the target nucleus. $e$ denotes the elementary charge and $r_0=1.29$ fm.
The excitation energy $U$ of the residual nucleus with mass number $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$ and charge $Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$, i.e. the energy above the ground state mass $E_{0,\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$, is given as $$\begin{aligned}
&U&=E_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}-E_{0,\mbox{\scriptsize res}},\nonumber\\
&E_{0,\mbox{\scriptsize res}}&=
Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}m_{\mbox{\scriptsize p}}+
(A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}-Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}})m_{\mbox{\scriptsize n}}
-E_{\mbox{\scriptsize bind}}
(A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}},Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}).
$$ We calculate the binding energy $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize bind}}
(A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}},Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}})$ using the experimentally determined excess masses of all known (measured) nuclides and using mass formulae for nuclides far from the stable region, where no measurements are available. The excitation energy is obtained within our model from an explicit consideration of the effects of the nuclear potential (Eq. (\[nucpot\])) and the Coulomb energy (Eq. (\[coulpot\])), i.e. from corrections which are applied to the 4-momenta of the final state hadrons leaving the spectator nucleus. We modify the energies of these hadrons by the potential barrier and rescale the 3-momenta correspondingly. It is assumed that these corrections have to be applied to nucleons wounded in primary and secondary interactions and to those hadrons only, which are formed inside the spectator nucleus corresponding to the sampled formation time. Among these particles we find apart from the nucleons a small fraction of other baryons, which are assumed to move in a nucleon potential and mesons to which we apply an effective meson potential of 0.002 GeV. Due to energy-momentum conservation these corrections lead to a recoil momentum and, therefore, to an excitation of the residual nucleus. In addition, there is a further contribution to the recoil momentum of the residual nucleus arising from potential corrections applied to the momentum of the projectile hadron entering the nuclear potential and from cascade nucleons with kinetic energies below the nuclear potential which are therefore not able to escape the spectator nucleus.
In Fig.\[pAex1\]a we show the dependence of the average excitation energies of the target residual nuclei on the momenta of the projectile in the laboratory. The decrease of the excitation energy for momenta below about 50 GeV/$c$ is mainly due to the breakdown of the Glauber cascade[^3] as it can be clearly seen for Au and Pb targets. This is not the case for light nuclei where even at high energies only up to 2-3 target nucleons are involved on average in the primary interaction. This threshold behaviour will be discussed with respect to experimental information on grey and heavy particles in more detail further below. At high energies the average excitation energies are almost independent on the projectile momentum as one would expect from limiting fragmentation [@Benecke69]. The average excitation energies per nucleon of the residual target nucleus are given in Fig.\[pAex1\]b. In difference to Fig.\[pAex1\]a the $p_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}$-dependence is similar for all target nuclei apart from a constant shift towards higher excitation energies per nucleon for light nuclei. This is due to a smaller ratio of wounded nucleons to all target nucleons for heavy nuclei as compared to light nuclei.
In Fig.\[pAex2\] we show the average excitation energy of the residual target nucleus depending on the mass number of the target for proton-nucleus interactions at 300 GeV/$c$. The different symbols correspond to several numbers of nucleons lost by the target in primary and secondary interactions, i.e. $\Delta A$ is defined by $\Delta A=A-A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$. The excitation energy is strongly correlated to the number of removed nucleons. The more nucleons one removes from the target, the more energy is deposited into the spectator nucleus. For a fixed number $\Delta A$ the excitation energy is increasing with the mass number of the target. The reason for this is, that in heavy targets we need more cascading to remove a given number of nucleons than in light targets. As an example, the distribution of excitation energies and of excitation energies per nucleon of the target prefragment are shown for proton-gold interactions at 300 GeV/$c$ in Fig.\[pau300ex\]a,b. In addition to the distributions obtained taking all prefragments into account (labelled “all $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$”) we give distributions which correspond to several mass ranges, in particular to several lower cuts in the prefragment mass. Again, the more nucleons are involved in the primary interaction and the intranuclear cascade the higher are the mean excitation energies and, therefore, the broader are the excitation energy distributions.
\[evamodel\]Evaporation/Fragmentation
=====================================
At the end of the intranuclear cascade the residual nucleus is supposed to be left in an equilibrium state, in which the excitation energy $U$ is shared by a large number of nucleons. Such an equilibrated compound nucleus is supposed to be characterized by its mass, charge, and excitation energy with no further memory of the steps which led to its formation. The excitation energy can be higher than the separation energy, thus nucleons and light fragments ($\alpha$,d,$^3$H, $^3$He) can still be emitted: they constitute the low-energy (and most abundant) part of the emitted particles in the rest system of the residual nucleus, having an average energy of few MeV. The emission process can be well described as an evaporation from a hot system. The treatment starts from the formula of Weisskopf [@Weisskopf37], that is an application of the detailed balance principle. The evaporation probability for a particle of type $j$ , mass $m_j$, spin $S_j \cdot \hbar$, and kinetic energy $E$ is given by $$\label{eq:Weisskopf}
P_j(E)dE=\frac{(2S_j+1)m_j}{\pi^2\hbar^3}\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize inv}}
\frac{\rho_f(U_f)}{\rho_i(U_i)}EdE$$ where $\rho$’s are the nuclear level densities ($\rho_f(U_f)$ for the final nucleus, $\rho_i(U_i)$ for the initial one), $U_i \equiv U$ is the excitation energy of the evaporating nucleus, $U_f=U-E-Q_j$ that of the final one, $Q_j$ is the reaction $Q$ for emitting a particle of type $j$ from the original compound nucleus, and $\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize inv}}$ is the cross section for the inverse process.
Eq. (\[eq:Weisskopf\]) must be implemented with a suitable form for the nuclear level density and the inverse cross sections. Many recipes have been suggested for both. In the original work of Dostrovsky [@Dostrovsky59], $\rho(U)\approx C\exp{(2\sqrt{aU})}$, with $a=A/8$ has been used for the level density dependence on the excitation energy $U$. This has led to a simple form for the evaporation probability: $$\label{eq:Dos}
P_j(E)dE=\frac{(2S_j+1)m_j}{\pi^2\hbar^3}\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize inv}}
\frac{e^{2\sqrt{a(U-E-Q_j)}}}
{e^{2\sqrt{aU}}}EdE.$$ In the same work, the inverse cross sections have been parametrized in a very simple way, so that expression (\[eq:Dos\]) can be analytically integrated and used for MC sampling. The same formulation is used in this work with, however, a different choice of $a$ as it will be discussed later.
The total width for neutron emission can be found by integrating Eq. (\[eq:Weisskopf\]) between zero and the maximum possible ejectile energy $(U-Q_j)$ $$\label{eq:gammaj}
\Gamma_j=
\frac{(2S_j+1)m_j}{\pi^2\hbar^2}
\int_0^{(U-Q_j)}{\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize inv}}(E)\frac{\rho_f}{\rho_i}EdE}.$$ The same applies to charged particles, where the integration actually goes from some effective Coulomb barrier where $\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize inv}}$ drops to zero, up to the maximum energy.
The evaporative process is in competition with another equilibrium process, that is fission [@Vandenbosh73]. For the fission probability, a statistical method can be used [@Weisskopf37; @Bohr39]: obtaining for the total fission width $$\label{eq:gammaf}
\Gamma_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}=
\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\rho_i(U)}\int_0^{(U-B_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}})}
{\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(U-B_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}-E)dE}$$ where $B_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ is the fission barrier, and $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(U_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}})\approx
C\exp{(2\sqrt{a_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}} U_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}})}$, the level density of the fissioning nucleus at the saddle point, where the excitation energy $U_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ is given by the initial one minus the fission barrier.
We follow the prescriptions of Atchison [@Atchison80] to calculate the quantities entering Eq. (\[eq:gammaf\]), except, again, for the level density parameter $a_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$.
In both $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(U)$ and $\rho(U)$ we use the so-called backshifted level density, using $U-\Delta$ rather than $U$, where $\Delta$ is the pairing energy. Moreover, $\tilde a = a/A$, and $\tilde a_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}=a_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}/A$ are found to be all but constant parameters: they possess a dependence on $A$ and $Z$, due to shell and deformation effects, and a dependence on excitation energy. Both effects have been experimentally observed, and have been subject of many phenomenological and theoretical investigations (see [@Gilbert65; @Ignatyuk75a; @Ignatyuk75b; @Mashnik93; @Iljinov92; @Shlomo92]). Here the $N$ and $Z$ dependence of Ref. [@Gilbert65] is used, and complemented with the energy dependence prescription of Ignatyuk [@Ignatyuk75a; @Ignatyuk75b] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:camign}
a &=& A \cdot \left[ \bar{a} \cdot f(U) + \tilde{a} \cdot \left( 1 - f(U)
\right) \right] \nonumber \\
\bar{a} &=& a_0 + 9.17 \times 10^{-3} \cdot \left[
S_{\mbox{\scriptsize Z}}(Z) + S_{\mbox{\scriptsize N}}(N) \right]
\\
\tilde{a} &=& 0.154 - 6.3\times 10^{-5}\cdot A \nonumber \\
f(U) &=& \frac{ 1 - e^{-0.054\cdot (U-\Delta)}}{0.054 \cdot
(U-\Delta) } \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where according to [@Gilbert65], $a_0$ is given by 0.142 MeV$^{-1}$ and 0.12 MeV$^{-1}$ for undeformed and deformed nuclei respectively, and $S_{\mbox{\scriptsize Z}}(Z)$ and $S_{\mbox{\scriptsize N}}(N)$ are the shell correction terms for protons and neutrons. The unit of energy used throughout Eq. (\[eq:camign\]) is MeV.
The level density at the saddle point $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ is different from that of the nucleus in its ground state. From comparison to experimental data, it turns out that $a_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ is greater than the $a$ used for evaporation of about 10% at low excitation energies, and the two $a$’s become equal at large excitation energies. We use $a_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}} \approx
1.08 a$, with a smooth $A$ dependence. After fission occurs, the two fragments are treated like independent residual nuclei with their own excitation and can possibly emit further particles.
For light nuclei, the statistical assumptions and the sequential emission scheme underlying the classical evaporation models become less and less applicable, because:
- Already moderate excitation energies can represent a substantial fraction of the (total) binding energy of such nuclei.
- The level structure of such nuclei is usually highly specific and anyway level spacings can be comparable with the excitation energy.
- The “evaporation” of light fragments other than p or n becomes meaningless, since the mass of the “evaporated” fragment can be comparable or even larger than the mass of the residual nucleus.
Therefore other deexcitation mechanisms are more suitable for these light residual nuclei. The one adopted for this calculations is the so called Fermi Break-up model [@Fermi50; @Epherre67], where the excited nucleus is supposed to disassemble just in one step into two or more fragments, with branching given by plain phase space considerations. In particular, the probability for disassembling a nucleus of $N$ neutrons, $Z$ protons, and $U$ excitation energy (total mass $M^*=U+M_{A,Z}$) into $n$ fragments ($n\ge 2$) of the same total charge and baryon number, is given by: $$W=\frac{g}{G}\left[\frac{V_{\mbox{\scriptsize br}}}
{(2\pi\hbar)^3}\right]^{n-1}
\left(\frac{1}{M^*} \prod_{i=1}^n m_i \right)^{3/2}
\frac{(2\pi)^{3(n-1)/2}} {\Gamma(\frac{3}{2}(n-1))}
E_{\mbox{\scriptsize kin}}^{3n/2-5/2}$$ where the spin factor $g$, and the permutation factor $G$ are given by ($n_j$ is the number of identical particles of $j$th kind) $$g=\prod_{i=1}^n(2S_i+1),\qquad G=\prod_{j=1}^{k} n_j!$$ and $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize kin}}$ is the total kinetic energy of all fragments at the moment of break-up. $V_{\mbox{\scriptsize br}}$ is a volume of the order of the initial residual nucleus volume. Therefore, the final state are conveniently selected by means of a MC procedure, by evaluating such an expression for all possible combinations of fragments energetically allowed and making a random selection. We considered all combinations formed by up to six fragments, unless the residual “nucleus” is composed by $A$ like particles (p or n), in which case it is disintegrated into $A$ fragments according to phase space. All particle stable states with $A\le 16$ have been included, plus the particle unstable levels with sizeable $\gamma$ decay branching ratios. Also a few known particle unstable isotopes, like $^8$Be, have been included and, if produced, are let to decay according to the experimental branching. Once the final state configuration has been selected, the kinematical quantities of each fragment are chosen according to $n$-body phase space distribution. Such a selection must be performed taking care to subtract from the available energy the Coulomb repulsion of all charged particles: the Coulomb energy is then added back to the charged particles alone, to simulate properly the effect of the Coulomb repulsion. In practice $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize kin}}$ at disassembling will be given by: $$E_{\mbox{\scriptsize kin}}=U-\left(\sum_{i=1}^n m_i-M_{A,Z}\right)-
B_{\mbox{\scriptsize Coul}}$$ where it must be recalled that the emitted fragments can be in an excited state. The total Coulomb barrier $B_{\mbox{\scriptsize Coul}}$ of the selected configuration is distributed to charged particles after disassembling, in their own c.m. system.
According to the picture of the compound nucleus like an equilibrated system determined only by its mass, charge and excitation energy, with no memory of previous steps of the interaction, Fermi Break-up is activated in the model every time the current compound nucleus has mass number $A\le 17$, including possible light fission fragments. The fragmentation of higher mass compound nuclei is not yet included in the model. This process, although its cross section is quite small, is important when considering the distribution of residual nuclei, because it can produce isotopes very far both from the target mass and from the fission product distribution.
The production of grey and black particles and residual nuclei in high energy collisions
========================================================================================
\[slowprod\] Grey and black particles and correlations
------------------------------------------------------
The intranuclear cascade of low energy secondaries and the evaporation of nucleons and light fragments mainly contribute to the production of hadrons and light fragments with a velocity less than about $0.7c$ in the rest frame of the target nucleus. They are frequently called “target associated” or “slow” particles. Most of the experimental information on slow particle production presently comes from experiments using nuclear emulsions as targets. The emulsions usually consist of a component of light nuclei (H,C,N,O) and a component of heavy nuclei (Ag,Br). The appearance of slow particles in these experiments has led to their subdivision into “grey” and “black” particles. The exact definition usually differs slightly between different experiments. As shown by many authors this subdivision has not only an experimental meaning but also subdivides slow particle production into a region which can be understood by intranuclear cascade processes (grey particle production) and a region of black particle production based on nuclear evaporation processes. If not explicitly stated, throughout this paper we apply the following definitions: grey particles are assumed to be singly charged particles with a Lorentz-$\beta$ value between 0.23 and 0.7 and black particles are singly and multiply charged particles with $\beta<0.23$. This is in agreement with definitions usually assumed in experiments [@Stenlund82; @ALMT75]. Furthermore, within our calculation we use the emulsion-composition from [@Stenlund82], i.e. an emulsion consisting of 28.8% of light nuclei and of 71.4% of heavy nuclei.
In Tab.\[pemumulttab\] we give the average multiplicities of grey, black, and heavy (=grey+black) particles in proton-emulsion interactions as obtained with our MC model [DTUNUC]{} 2.0 together with experimental results for different momenta of the projectile proton. In addition this is shown in Fig.\[pemumult\] together with the corresponding shower particle ($\beta>0.7$) multiplicities. Whereas the average number of shower particles is increasing throughout the whole energy range we get an increasing multiplicity of grey and black particles up to about 40 GeV/$c$ which turns into an almost constant behaviour for higher energies. Within our model, this constant behaviour is due to limiting fragmentation in each hadron-nucleon interaction [@Benecke69] together with a constant formation zone intranuclear cascade and inelastic hadron-nucleus cross sections depending only weakly on the projectile energy. The position in energy of the threshold region, i.e. the region of increasing heavy particle multiplicities, is governed by the nuclear geometry and the nuclear potential, which both are treated in a very rough manner, and by the way the Glauber cascade is biased by lower cuts applied to chain masses. Further shifts of this region or changes of the slope in the threshold region can be obtained by varying the distributions from which the x-values of the sea-partons are sampled[^4]. The experimental data are taken from a compilation of data by Fredriksson et al. [@Fredriksson87], i.e. they were obtained in different experiments. The definitions of “grey” and “black” may therefore slightly vary between them. This fact may also partly account for the fluctuations within the data for grey and black particle multiplicities in the high energy region. For momenta above about 20 GeV/$c$ the model agrees well with measured multiplicities, whereas at low energies our results seem to depart from the experiments. However, the different definitions used for “grey” and “black” cannot completely explain the big differences within the experimental results at low energies and any clear experimental information on the threshold behaviour is missing. From this comparison it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the applicability of our model of slow particle production to energies below 10-20 GeV and to modifications within the model which could be necessary to reproduce the observed threshold behaviour.
In order to investigate how the two emulsion components contribute to the energy dependence of the average multiplicities discussed so far we show in Tabs.\[pcnomulttab\] and \[pagbrmulttab\] and, together with shower particle multiplicities, in Fig.\[pcnoagbrmult\] the mean grey, black, and heavy particle multiplicities for the light and heavy component separately in comparison to experimental data [@Fredriksson87]. In order to illustrate the uncertainties within the experimental data we give for some energies several multiplicity values, which were measured in different experiments. As it is clearly shown in Fig.\[pcnoagbrmult\]a in interactions of protons with light nuclei even at high energies only up to three target nucleons are interacting with the projectile, i.e. we are dealing with a very limited Glauber cascade and, therefore, do not observe the typical breakdown of the cascade at low energies which would manifest itself in decreasing grey and black particle multiplicities. In agreement with the measurements we obtain constant mean grey and black particle multiplicities in the whole energy range. It seems, that the model overestimates the black particle multiplicity which could be due to the absence of the treatment of the nuclear skin in the nuclear potential, i.e. by underestimating the low part of the excitation energy distribution. However we must note, that the experiments were usually classifying the target nuclei as belonging to one of the components by the number of produced heavy particles, which implies further uncertainties. An average value of one grey particle per interaction agrees well with the experimental results. The model reproduces the measured multiplicities of slow particles in interactions of protons with nuclei of the heavy component (Tab.\[pagbrmulttab\], Fig.\[pcnoagbrmult\]b) down to a proton momentum of about 20 GeV/$c$.
In Figs.\[hemung\] and \[hemunb\] we present the grey and black particle multiplicity distributions normalized to unity for proton-emulsion interactions at 200 GeV (a) and $\Sigma^-$-emulsion interactions at 350 GeV (b) together with data [@Stenlund82; @Szarska93]. As the comparisons show, our model is able to reproduce the data on slow particle multiplicities very well. The grey particle multiplicity distribution for proton projectiles (Fig.\[hemung\]a) slightly underestimates the measured distribution at high multiplicities which, however, might be not very conclusive since the uncertainties within the experimental data are rather big in this region. The hump in the calculated black particle distribution for proton projectiles at $N_b\approx 4$ (Fig.\[hemunb\]a) is due to the evaporation of charged particles from light emulsion nuclei and seems to be less pronounced in the measured distribution. This is not the case in the $\Sigma^-$-emulsion data (Fig.\[hemunb\]b), where, on the other hand, the uncertainties are higher than within the proton-emulsion data.
The reasonable description of slow particle multiplicity distributions implies that the model should be able to reproduce measured correlations between grey, black, and shower particle multiplicities. In Fig.\[pemunbnscorr\] we compare correlations between grey and shower particle multiplicities (a,b) and between black and shower particle multiplicities (c,d) and in Fig.\[pemungnbcorr\]a,b between grey and black particle multiplicities with data of the Alma-Ata–Leningrad–Moscow–Tashkent Collab. [@ALMT75] on proton-emulsion interactions at 200 GeV and in Fig.\[pemungnbcorr\]b in addition to data of the KLM-Collab. [@Dabrowska93a]. In Ref. [@ALMT75] the errorbars are obviously only given for selected data points. Apart from the correlation between grey and black particles, where we obtain slightly more black particles for a fixed number of grey particles than seen in the experiments, our calculations are in good agreement with the data within their uncertainties.
A detailed experimental study of slow particle production in interactions of protons, pions, and kaons with different target nuclei at energies varying between 50 GeV and 150 GeV was presented in [@Braune82]. Here, grey particles are defined as charged particles having a velocity between $0.3c$ and $0.7c$. In Tab.\[hAmulttab\] we compare our results on mean grey particle multiplicities to these data. Again, the agreement is satisfactorily.
The dependence of the mean grey, heavy, and shower particle multiplicities on the mass number of the target nucleus in proton-nucleus collisions at 300 GeV/$c$ was subject to further comparisons. The results are given in Tab.\[pAmulttab\] and Fig.\[pAmult\] together with data taken from Ref. [@Fredriksson87]. Our model is reproducing the increase of the heavy particle multiplicity with the target mass number. As mentioned above the data point for C,N,O was obtained in emulsion experiments in which the identities of the target nuclei were deduced from the heavy particle multiplicities. Therefore this data point has to be taken with care.
Finally, we compare grey particle multiplicity distributions in interactions of protons and pions with different target nuclei at 200 GeV/$c$ with recent data of the WA80-Collab. [@Albrecht93]. In agreement with the experiment grey particles are defined as singly charged particles with a kinetic energy between 30 MeV and 400 MeV emitted in the target rapidity region ($-1.7<\eta<1.3$). The result of the comparison is shown in Fig.\[pAngwa80\]. All calculated distributions are normalized to the Glauber cross sections of the corresponding interactions. For the two light nuclei (C,Al) our distributions are consistently broader than the experimental distributions, whereas for heavier targets we agree well in shape and absolute normalization with the data.
Residual nuclei and high energy fission
---------------------------------------
After evaporation most of the residual nuclei have lost up to one-third of their nucleons depending on their mass $A_T$, on the kind and energy of the projectile, and on the interaction characteristics (impact parameter etc.). They may be considered as heavy fragments produced in a spallation or a deep spallation process. In addition, the high energy fission model and the Fermi Break-up model which were introduced in Sect.\[evamodel\] modify the mass spectrum of the nuclear prefragments furthermore. In Fig.\[pagresA\] we show the isobaric mass yields of fragments in interactions of silver nuclei with 11.5 GeV (a) and 300 GeV (b) protons together with data [@English74; @Porile79]. Since multifragmentation is not included in our MC model we get – apart from light fragments ($A\le 4$) which were evaporated from the residual nucleus – almost no fragments with masses below $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}\approx 40$. In the spallation region ($50\le A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}\le 100$) our calculation agrees within a factor of two with the measured mass yields, which is satisfactorily in view of our simplified approach and taking into account the fact that multifragmentation would lead to a further decrease of the cross section. The rising yields of fragments close to the target mass ($A_T-5\le A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}\le A_T$) are not described within our model. This is due to the fact that such processes like quasi-elastic scattering are not treated within our model and it might be due to our rough treatment of the nuclear potential, i.e. we probably underestimate the low part of the excitation energy distribution by neglecting the nuclear skin effects. As experimental results on isotope production show, fragment production cross sections remain about constant for projectile energies above 10 GeV (see Fig.\[pagresA\] and [@Kaufman76; @Huefner85]). This fact suggests that the regime of constant slow particle production may already be reached at an energy of about 10 GeV. In contrast, within our model the threshold above which slow particle production does not change significantly is at about 20–30 GeV (cf. discussion in Sect.\[slowprod\]). This fact explains the different shape of the calculated mass yields at $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}=11.5$ GeV (Fig.\[pagresA\]a) as compared to $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}=300$ GeV (Fig.\[pagresA\]b). However, in order to draw further conclusions on the threshold region which are based on fragment production cross sections, it would be necessary to describe all aspects of the fragmentation process (such as multifragmentation) which is beyond the scope of this work.
In Fig.\[pauresA\] we compare the charge yield obtained in interactions of 10.6 GeV protons on $^{197}$Au nuclei (a) and the isobaric mass yield obtained in interactions of 800 GeV protons on $^{197}$Au nuclei (b) to data [@Heinrich95; @Sihver92]. Since high energy fission significantly modifies the fragment production cross sections we show both, the mass yields of the residual nuclei after the evaporation-step without high energy fission (crosses) and mass yields obtained taking high energy fission into account (diamonds). Within the limitations of our models we are able to reproduce the measured yields very well, especially the yields at $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}=800$ GeV (Fig.\[pauresA\]b) where we agree with the data in the mass range $60\le A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}\le 190$ within their uncertainties. The calculated yields at $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}=2,3,4$ represent light fragments evaporated from the prefragments. Again, our models do not cover the multifragmentation region and the mass region very close to the target mass.
In order to investigate isotope-production in more detail we compare independent mass yield distributions from interactions of 800 GeV protons with $^{197}$Au with data [@Sihver92] in Fig.\[pAuZiso\]. There we plot the cross sections for the production of certain isotopes with masses $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$ and charge $Z$ versus the difference of their charge and the most probable charge $Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize mp}}$ for three intervals of $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$. Corresponding to [@Sihver92] $Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize mp}}$ is defined as $$Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize mp}}(A)=aA^2+bA+c$$ with $a=-0.382\cdot 10^{-3}$, $b=0.483$, $c=0$ for $82\le
A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}\le 89$, and $c=0.231$ for $122\le A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}\le 129$. In the highest mass range $166\le A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}\le 176$ $c$ had to be modified by 1.0 in order to compare the shape of the distributions, i.e. $c=1.254$. For each interval we calculate the independent yields for three different $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$ values. We are able to reproduce the measured charge distributions which have the typical gaussian shape.
The average recoil momenta of the fragments in proton-$^{197}$Au interactions at 800 GeV as a function of the mass loss $\Delta A=A_T-A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$ are shown together with data from different experiments [@Morrissey89] in Fig.\[pAuprcl\]. The momenta of the fragments obtained with our MC model are in reasonable agreement with the data.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
We have extended Monte Carlo models based on the Dual Parton Model for high energy hadron-nucleus collisions to the calculation of cross sections for residual nuclei production and to nuclear evaporation, Fermi Break-up, and high energy fission.
As it has been demonstrated in a number of past studies [@Aurenche92a; @Bopp94a; @Moehring91; @Ranft94c] the models used agree quite well with momentum distributions and multiplicities of hadrons produced in high energy interactions. Here we find in addition a quite good agreement of the average numbers of grey prongs $\langle N_g\rangle$ and black prongs $\langle N_b\rangle$ as function of the collision energy and as function of the target nucleus with experimental data, which were mostly obtained in emulsion experiments.
Furthermore, calculated multiplicity distributions of grey and black prongs agree well to data. The correlations between the fast shower particles and grey and black prongs as well as the correlations between grey and black prongs are often used to analyze the observed events in terms of centrality of the collision or in terms if the impact parameter. Our Monte Carlo events show all of these correlations in good agreement with experimental results.
We find a reasonable agreement of the calculated cross-sections with data for the production of residual nuclei in most of the mass-region below the mass of the original target nucleus. Since our model is formulated only in terms of average nuclear properties we can not reproduce all the fluctuations, which are due to particular properties of individual nuclei.
At high energies we find the average numbers of grey and black prongs to become independent from the collision energy. This is a behaviour which can be traced back to the limiting fragmentation property of hadron-hadron collisions in the target or projectile rest frame. The threshold region, where this high energy behaviour is reached is difficult to predict in a model like ours. As the model has enough freedom to adjust the threshold behaviour to the behaviour of the data, a further tuning of the model parameters might be possible as soon as more consistent data become available.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
One of the authors (S.R.) acknowledges stimulating discussions with F.W. Bopp and W. Heinrich.
[10]{}
A. Capella, U. Sukhatme, C. I. Tan and J. Tran Thanh Van: [Phys. Rep. ]{}236 (1994) 227
P. Aurenche, F. W. Bopp, A. Capella, J. Kwiecinski, M. Maire, J. Ranft and J. Tran Thanh Van: [Phys. Rev. ]{}D45 (1992) 92
F. W. Bopp, R. Engel, D. Pertermann and Ranft: [Phys. Rev. ]{}D49 (1994) 3236
H.-J. Möhring and J. Ranft: [Z. Phys. ]{}C52 (1991) 643
J. Ranft: [Phys. Rev. ]{}D51 (1995) 64
A. Fassò, A. Ferrari, J. Ranft and P. R. Sala: , , 1994
A. Fassò, A. Ferrari, J. Ranft and P. R. Sala: , , 1994
P. A. Aarnio et al.: , 1994
J. Ranft and J. T. Routti: Particle Accelerators 4 (1972) 101
H. W. Bertini: [Phys. Rev. ]{}137 (1963) 1801
H. W. Bertini: [Phys. Rev. ]{}188 (1969) 1711
Y. Yariv and Z. Fraenkel: [Phys. Rev. ]{}C24 (1981) 488
L. Stodolski: Proc. Vth Int. Colloquium on Multiparticle Reactions, Oxford (1975) 577
J. Ranft: [Z. Phys. ]{}C43 (1989) 439
J. Ranft: [Phys. Rev. ]{}D37 (1988) 1842
R. Engel: [Z. Phys. ]{}C66 (1995) 203
S. Y. Shmakov, V. V. Uzhinskii and A. M. Zadoroshny: [Comput. Phys. Commun. ]{}54 (1989) 125
P. Aurenche, F. W. Bopp, R. Engel, D. Pertermann, J. Ranft and S. Roesler: [Comput. Phys. Commun. ]{}83 (1994) 107
T. Sjöstrand: [Comput. Phys. Commun. ]{}39 (1986) 347
T. Sjöstrand and M. Bengtsson: [Comput. Phys. Commun. ]{}43 (1987) 367
L. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk: Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSR 92 (1953) 535,734
A. Bialas: [Z. Phys. ]{}C26 (1984) 301
K. Hänssgen and J. Ranft: [Comput. Phys. Commun. ]{}39 (1986) 37
J. Benecke, T. T. Chou, C. N. Yang and E. Yen: [Phys. Rev. ]{}188 (1969) 2159
V. F. Weisskopf: [Phys. Rev. ]{}52 (1937) 295
I. Dostrovsky, Z. Fraenkel and G. Friedlander: [Phys. Rev. ]{}116 (1959) 683
R. Vandenbosh and J. R. Huizenga: Academic Press New York 1973
N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler: [Phys. Rev. ]{}56 (1939) 426
F. Atchison: Jül-conf-34, Talk given at the Meeting on Targets for neutron beam spallation sources, ed. by G. Bauer, KFA Jülich, Germany, 1980
A. Gilbert and A. G. W. Cameron: Can. J. Phys. 43 (1965) 1446
A. V. Ignatyuk, G. N. Smirenkin and A. S. Tishin: [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. ]{}21 (1975) 255
A. V. Ignatyuk et al.: [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. ]{}21 (1975) 612
S. G. Mashnik: Acta Phys. Slov. 43 (1993) 86
A. S. Iljinov and M. V. Mebel: [Nucl. Phys. ]{}A543 (1992) 517
S. Shlomo: [Nucl. Phys. ]{}A539 (1992) 17
E. Fermi: Prog. Theor. Phys. 5 (1950) 1570
M. Èpherre and È. Gradsztajn: J. Physique 18 (1967) 48
E. Stenlund and I. Otterlund: [Nucl. Phys. ]{}B198 (1982) 407
Alma-Ata–Leningrad–Moscow–Tashkent Collab.: [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. ]{}22 (1975) 380
S. Fredriksson, G. Eilam, G. Berlad and L. Bergström: [Phys. Rep. ]{}144 (1987) 187 and references therein
M. Szarska et al.: [Phys. Rev. ]{}D47 (1993) 784
KLM Collab.: A. Dabrowska et al.: [Z. Phys. ]{}C59 (1993) 399
K. Braune et al.: [Z. Phys. ]{}C13 (1982) 191
WA80 Collab.: R. Albrecht et al.: [Z. Phys. ]{}C57 (1993) 37
G. English, N. T. Porile and E. P. Steinberg: [Phys. Rev. ]{}C10 (1974) 2268
N. T. Porile, G. T. Cole and C. Rudy: [Phys. Rev. ]{}C19 (1979) 2288
S. B. Kaufman et al.: [Phys. Rev. ]{}C14 (1976) 1121
J. Hüfner: [Phys. Rep. ]{}125 (1985) 129
W. Heinrich et al.: Radiation Measurements 25 (1995) 203
L. Sihver et al.: [Nucl. Phys. ]{}A543 (1992) 703
D. J. Morrissey: [Phys. Rev. ]{}C39 (1989) 460
Tables {#tables .unnumbered}
======
------------------------------ -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- ---------------
$p_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}$
(GeV/$c$) DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp.
6.2 2.0 3.58$\pm$0.11 3.2 5.2 9.25$\pm$0.18
9.0 2.3 3.1 $\pm$0.4 3.6 4.7 $\pm$0.5 5.9
14.9 2.4 4.2 6.6 8.4
21.0 2.6 2.9 $\pm$0.2 4.6 4.6 $\pm$0.2 7.2
24.0 2.5 3.17$\pm$0.1 4.5 7.0 7.7 $\pm$0.2
50.0 2.8 3.07$\pm$0.1 5.0 7.8 7.5 $\pm$0.2
67.0 2.9 2.5 $\pm$0.1 5.2 4.7 $\pm$0.2 8.1
67.0 2.85$\pm$0.09 7.5 $\pm$0.2
200.0 2.9 2.48$\pm$0.08 5.4 4.79$\pm$0.12 8.3
300.0 2.9 2.6$\pm$0.2 5.4 5.4 8.3 7.1 $\pm$0.2
400.0 2.9 5.4 8.3 8.1 $\pm$0.2
------------------------------ -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- ---------------
: \[pemumulttab\] Multiplicities of grey ($N_g$), black ($N_b$), and heavy ($N_h=N_g+N_b$) particles in interactions of protons with emulsion nuclei are given for different momenta of the incident proton. The values as obtained with our model [DTUNUC]{} are compared to data from various experiments [@Fredriksson87]. Within our results we define “grey particles” as particles with a velocity $\beta=v/c$ between 0.23 and 0.7 and therefore “black particles” as particles with $\beta<0.23$. Within the experimental data an upper $\beta$-limit for grey particles of 0.7 is usually assumed, whereas the $\beta$-cut between “grey” and “black” may slightly differ between different experiments.
------------------------------ -------- --------------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------------
$p_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}$
(GeV/$c$) DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp.
6.0 0.9 2.54$\pm$0.06 3.2 4.1 8.05$\pm$0.1
6.0 0.96$\pm$0.07 2.67$\pm$0.14
9.0 0.86 1.4$\pm$0.1 3.1 3.96 4.7$\pm$0.1
21.0 1.02 0.7$\pm$0.1 2.9 2.2$\pm$0.1 3.92 2.9$\pm$0.1
26.0 1.05 0.91$\pm$0.04 2.9 3.95 2.5$\pm$0.1
50.0 1.03 0.91$\pm$0.04 2.8 3.83 2.4$\pm$0.1
60.0 1.07 0.63$\pm$0.07 2.9 2.0$\pm$0.2 3.97 2.6$\pm$0.2
67.0 0.6$\pm$0.1 1.5$\pm$0.1
69.0 1.05 0.84$\pm$0.04 2.8 3.85 3.47$\pm$0.15
69.0 0.91$\pm$0.05 3.65$\pm$0.1
200.0 1.06 0.9$\pm$0.05 2.8 1.8$\pm$0.08 3.86 2.7$\pm$0.11
200.0 2.61$\pm$0.08
200.0 2.75$\pm$0.1
300.0 1.08 2.8 3.88 2.9$\pm$0.21
400.0 1.04 0.67$\pm$0.04 2.8 3.84 2.47$\pm$0.09
------------------------------ -------- --------------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------------
: \[pcnomulttab\] Grey ($N_g$), black ($N_b$), and heavy ($N_h=N_g+N_b$) particle multiplicities in interactions of protons with light emulsion nuclei (C,N,O) are given for different momenta of the incident proton. Results of the model are compared to data from various experiments [@Fredriksson87]. For the definition of grey and black particles we refer to the caption of Tab. \[pemumulttab\].
------------------------------ -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- ---------------
$p_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}$
(GeV/$c$) DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp.
9.0 2.8 4.1$\pm$0.5 4.0 6.8 10.2$\pm$0.8
13.8 2.9 6.6$\pm$0.6 4.7 7.6 16.0$\pm$1.4
21.0 3.1 3.9$\pm$0.2 5.3 5.9$\pm$0.3 8.4
3.9$\pm$0.2 9.8$\pm$0.3
24.0 3.2 5.1$\pm$0.6 5.4 8.6 16.0$\pm$1.5
24.0 3.96$\pm$0.13 9.5$\pm$0.3
26.0 3.2 3.3$\pm$0.1 5.4 8.6 11.2$\pm$0.15
50.0 3.5 3.86$\pm$0.13 6.0 9.5 9.4$\pm$0.3
60.0 3.6 3.4$\pm$0.2 6.3 4.9$\pm$0.6 9.7 8.3$\pm$0.6
67.0 3.5 3.4$\pm$0.2 6.1 6.2$\pm$0.3 9.5
67.0 3.1$\pm$0.1 9.7$\pm$0.3
200.0 3.8 3.29$\pm$0.1 6.6 6.36$\pm$0.16 10.4 9.66$\pm$0.24
200.0 9.92$\pm$0.17
300.0 3.9 6.8 10.7 9.9$\pm$0.5
400.0 3.9 6.9 10.8 12.4$\pm$0.9
400.0 3.8$\pm$0.1 9.9$\pm$0.2
------------------------------ -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- ---------------
: \[pagbrmulttab\] Grey ($N_g$), black ($N_b$), and heavy ($N_h=N_g+N_b$) particle multiplicities in interactions of protons with heavy emulsion nuclei (Ag,Br) are given for different momenta of the incident proton. Results of the model are compared to data from various experiments [@Fredriksson87]. For the definition of grey and black particles we refer to the caption of Tab. \[pemumulttab\].
------------ -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- ---------------
DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp.
p–C 0.74 0.91$\pm$0.05 0.73 0.82$\pm$0.04 0.77 0.89$\pm$0.04
p–Cu 2.2 2.23$\pm$0.11 2.2 2.26$\pm$0.11 2.3 2.27$\pm$0.11
p–Pb 4.6 4.04$\pm$0.2 4.5 3.75$\pm$0.19
$\pi^+$–C 0.69 0.85$\pm$0.04 0.69 0.81$\pm$0.04 0.64 0.84$\pm$0.04
$\pi^+$–Cu 1.96 1.99$\pm$0.1 1.98 2.04$\pm$0.1 1.97 1.99$\pm$0.1
$\pi^+$–Pb 4.0 3.42$\pm$0.17 3.9 2.89$\pm$0.14 3.9 3.31$\pm$0.17
$K^+$–C 0.65 0.81$\pm$0.04 0.67 0.80$\pm$0.04
$K^+$–Cu 1.82 1.92$\pm$0.1 1.76 1.93$\pm$0.1
$K^+$–Pb 3.62 3.43$\pm$0.17 3.77 3.23$\pm$0.16
------------ -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- ---------------
: \[hAmulttab\] Average grey particle multiplicity for proton, pion, and kaon interactions with nuclei at different energies. The data are from [@Braune82]. Grey particles are defined as charged particles with a velocity $v=\beta c$ between $0.3c$ and $0.7c$.
---------- -------- ------------- -------- --------------
Nucleus
DTUNUC Exp. DTUNUC Exp.
C,N,O 1.1 3.9 2.9$\pm$0.21
Al 1.4 5.4
Cr 2.1 7.3 7.2$\pm$0.7
Emulsion 2.6 2.6$\pm$0.2 7.9 7.1$\pm$0.2
Ag,Br 3.2 9.7 9.9$\pm$0.5
W 5.0 13.5 12.9$\pm$1.2
Au 5.4 14.2
---------- -------- ------------- -------- --------------
: \[pAmulttab\] Dependence of the average multiplicities of grey ($N_g$) and heavy ($N_h$) particles on the target mass number in proton-nucleus interactions at $p_{\mbox{\scriptsize Lab}}=300$ GeV/$c$. Results of the model are compared to data from various experiments [@Fredriksson87]. “Grey” and “heavy” are defined as given in the caption of Tab. \[pemumulttab\]
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
1. \[pAex1\] Average excitation energies of residual target nuclei in proton–nucleus interactions before evaporation are shown for different momenta of the incident proton (a). In (b) the average excitation energies are given per nucleon of the residual target nucleus.
2. \[pAex2\] Target mass dependence of the average excitation energies for residual target nuclei with mass $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$ in proton–nucleus interactions before evaporation. $\Delta A$ is the number of nucleons lost by the target nucleus in the primary collision ($\Delta A=A_t-A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$).
3. \[pau300ex\] In a) the distribution of excitation energies of gold prefragments in proton-gold interactions at 300 GeV/$c$ is shown for different ranges of prefragment mass $A_{\mbox{\scriptsize res}}$. The corresponding excitation energy distributions per nucleon of the gold prefragment are given in b).
4. \[pemumult\] Mean multiplicities of shower, grey, and heavy particles in collisions of protons with emulsion nuclei. Data from various experiments [@Fredriksson87] (points) are compared to results of the model (lines).
5. \[pcnoagbrmult\] Mean multiplicities of shower, grey, and heavy particles in collisions of protons with emulsion nuclei are shown for the component consisting of light nuclei (C,N,O) (a) and the heavy component (Ag, Br) (b). Data from various experiments [@Fredriksson87] (points) are compared to results of the model (lines).
6. \[hemung\] Grey particle multiplicity distributions for interactions of protons (a) and $\Sigma^-$–hyperons (b) with emulsion nuclei are plotted together with experimental results [@Stenlund82; @Szarska93].
7. \[hemunb\] Black particle multiplicity distributions for interactions of protons (a) and $\Sigma^-$–hyperons (b) with emulsion nuclei are plotted together with experimental results [@Stenlund82; @Szarska93].
8. \[pemunbnscorr\] The correlations between grey ($N_g$) and shower ($N_s$) particle multiplicities (a,b) and black ($N_b$) and shower particle multiplicities (c,d) in interactions of protons with emulsion nuclei are compared to experimental results [@ALMT75].
9. \[pemungnbcorr\] The correlations between grey ($N_g$) and black ($N_b$) particle multiplicities in interactions of protons with emulsion nuclei are compared to experimental results [@ALMT75; @Dabrowska93a].
10. \[pAmult\] Target mass number dependence of the average multiplicities of shower, grey, and heavy particles in proton–nucleus interactions. Data from various experiments [@Fredriksson87] (points) are compared to results of the model (lines).
11. \[pAngwa80\] The distributions of grey particle multiplicities in proton–nucleus (a) and pion–nucleus (b) interactions as calculated with [DTUNUC]{} are compared to experimental results of the WA80-Collab. [@Albrecht93].
12. \[pagresA\] Mass distributions of prefragments produced in proton-silver interactions at 11.5 GeV (a) and at 300 GeV (b) as obtained with the model are compared to experimental results [@English74; @Porile79].
13. \[pauresA\] Charge distributions of prefragments produced in proton-gold interactions at 10.6 GeV (a) and mass distributions of prefragments produced in proton-gold interactions at 800 GeV (b) as obtained with the model are compared to experimental results [@Heinrich95; @Sihver92]. In addition, the distributions obtained without high-energy fission are shown (crosses).
14. \[pAuZiso\] The yield distributions from interactions of protons with $^{197}$Au nuclei at 800 GeV are shown together with experimental results of Sihver et al. [@Sihver92] for three different intervals of the mass of the prefragment.
15. \[pAuprcl\] The total momentum of residual nuclei as a function of the mass loss of the target nucleus are compared to experimental results. The experimental data are from different experiments and have been taken from Fig. 7 in [@Sihver92].
[^1]: URA 14-36 du CNRS, associée à l’Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon et à l’Université de Savoie.
[^2]: In Refs. [@Moehring91; @Ranft94c] $\tau_0$ was fixed to $\tau_0=5$ fm/$c$ whereas in Ref. [@Ranft88a] $\tau_0$=1-2 fm/$c$ was used.
[^3]: Note, that the Glauber cascade as obtained with Glauber’s formalism is biased by sampling the actual chain systems [@Moehring91]. In order to ensure that the chain masses $M^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize chain}}=sx_{p}x_{t}$ exceed the masses of the lowest-mass hadronic states with the corresponding quantum numbers lower $x$-cuts are imposed for all parton systems. Therefore, at low energies these $x$-cuts may reduce the number of sea quark containing chains.
[^4]: Within [DTUNUC]{} they are sampled from a $1/x$-distribution [@Moehring91].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report analytical solutions for spatial solitons supported by layers of a quadratically nonlinear ($\chi^{(2)}$) material embedded into a linear planar waveguide. A full set of symmetric, asymmetric, and antisymmetric modes pinned to a symmetric pair of the nonlinear layers is obtained. The solutions describe a bifurcation of the *subcritical* type, which accounts for the transition from the symmetric to asymmetric modes. The antisymmetric states (which do not undergo the bifurcation) are completely stable (the stability of the solitons pinned to the embedded layers is tested by means of numerical simulations). Exact solutions are also found for nonlinear layers embedded into a nonlinear waveguide, including the case when the uniform and localized $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinearities have opposite signs (competing nonlinearities). For the layers embedded into the nonlinear medium, stability properties are explained by comparison to the respective cascading limit.'
address:
- '$^1$Department of Physical Electronics, School of Electrical Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel'
- '$^*$Corresponding author: [email protected]'
author:
- 'Asia Shapira,$^{1,*}$ Noa Voloch-Bloch,$^1$ Boris A. Malomed,$^1$ and Ady Arie$^1$'
title: Spatial quadratic solitons guided by narrow layers of a nonlinear material
---
Introduction
============
The use of composite materials and engineered optical media opens ways to new modes of the guided wave propagation, including self-trapped nonlinear ones, in the form of spatial solitons. Recent reviews summarize results obtained along these directions for photonic crystals [@PhotCryst] and quasicrystals [@QuaCryst], quasi-discrete media [@PhotLatt1], and nonlinear lattices, which feature periodic modulation of the local nonlinearity [@Barcelona].
In ordinary settings, optical solitons are supported by uniform nonlinearities (cubic, quadratic, or saturable), which may be combined with a periodic grating, that plays the role of a linear potential of the lattice type [@Wang], and is necessary for stabilizing solitons against the collapse in the multidimensional geometry [@J-Opt]. On the other hand, spatially modulated nonlinearities may themselves induce an effective potential [@Barcelona]. In particular, an interesting issue is a possibility to support solitons by localized nonlinearities embedded into linear host media. To introduce the topic, we will resort here to a couple of simple models that admit analytical solutions, and thus provide for a direct insight into specific properties of solitons supported by the localized nonlinearity.
The simplest model of this type was introduced in Ref. [@Azbel], in the form of the nonlinear Schredinger (NLS) equation for the wave amplitude $u(x,z)$, with the cubic nonlinearity localized at a single point: $$iu_{z}+(1/2)\psi_{xx}+\delta(x)|u|^{2}u=0.\label{Mark}$$ In terms of the optical transmission, $z$ is the propagation distance and $x$ the transverse coordinate. Obviously, Eq. (\[Mark\]) amounts to a linear equation at $x<0$ and $x>0$, supplemented by the jump condition for the derivative at $x=0$, which is produced by the integration of the equation around $x=0$:$$~u_{x}\left(x=+0\right)-u_{x}\left(x=-0\right)=-2\left\vert u(x=0)\right\vert ^{2}u(x=0).\label{xx}$$ A family of exact solutions to Eq. (\[Mark\]), in the form of *peakons*, is obvious: $$u\left(x,z\right)=(2k)^{1/4}\exp\left(ikz-\sqrt{2k}|x|\right),\label{simple}$$ with arbitrary propagation constant $k>0$. This family features degeneracy, as the power (norm) of the solutions does not depend on $k$, $P\equiv\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|u(x)|^{2}dx\equiv1$. In particular, the formal application of the Vakhitov-Kolokolov (VK) criterion, $dP/d\mu<0$, which is a necessary stability condition for solitons in self-focusing nonlinear media [@VK], predicts neutral stability of solutions (\[simple\]). In fact, all these degenerate solitons are unstable, collapsing into a singularity or decaying, as illustrated by another analytical solution to Eq. (\[Mark\]), which explicitly describes the onset of the collapse at $z\rightarrow-0$ [@Nir]: $$\psi\left(x,z\right)=\sqrt{-x_{0}/z}\exp\left[i\left(|x|-ix_{0}\right)^{2}/\left(2z\right)\right].\label{similariton}$$ Here $x_{0}>0$ is an arbitrary real constant, and $z$ is negative. The same solution (\[similariton\]) with $x_{0}<0$ describes decaying solitons at $z>0$ [@Nir]. The power of this solution is also $P=1$, irrespective of the value of $x_{0}$.
The solitons may be stabilized if a linear periodic potential is added to Eq. (\[Mark\]) [@Nir]. The stability is also achieved if the single $\delta$-function in Eq. (\[Mark\]) is replaced by a symmetric pair, which corresponds to the equation introduced in Ref. [@Dong], $$iu_{z}+(1/2)\psi_{xx}+\left[\delta(x-L/2)+\delta(x+L/2)\right]|\psi|^{2}\psi=0.\label{2delta}$$ Exact analytical solutions to Eq. (\[2delta\]) were found in Ref. [@Dong] for symmetric, antisymmetric and asymmetric localized modes. The respective, spontaneous-symmetry-breaking (SSB) bifurcation, which generates asymmetric solutions from the symmetric ones, takes place, with the increase of the power, at its critical value $P_{\mathrm{cr}}=\left(8/9\right)\left[1+\left(1/3\right)\ln2\right]\approx0.95$. In this model, based on the ideal $\delta$-functions, the bifurcation is degenerate, featuring an *ultimately subcritical* character: branches of the asymmetric solutions go backward as functions of $P$, up to the state, attained at $P=1$, in which the entire power is concentrated in an infinitely narrow soliton pinned to one of the two $\delta$-functions. Accordingly, these branches are fully unstable. The symmetric modes are stable at $P<P_{\mathrm{cr}}$ and unstable at $P>P_{\mathrm{cr}}$, while antisymmetric modes are completely unstable, although they do not undergo any bifurcation.
The degenerate character of the model with the two ideal $\delta$-functions is the price paid for its analytical solvability. The degeneracy is lifted if the $\delta$-functions in Eq. (\[2delta\]) are approximated by regular expressions:$$\delta\left(x\mp L/2\right)\rightarrow\delta\left(x\mp L/2\right)\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}a}\exp\left(-\frac{\left(x\mp L/2\right)^{2}}{a^{2}}\right),\label{a}$$ with small regularizing parameter $a$. The numerical analysis of the regularized model demonstrates that the branches of asymmetric states *turn forward* at some $P$, which causes the stabilization of the asymmetric solutions past the turning points. At $a>a_{0}\approx0.2$, the SSB bifurcation becomes *supercritical*, i.e., the branches of the asymmetric solutions go forward immediately after they emerge, being completely stable [@Dong].
Rather than being represented by a single spot or a symmetric pair, as outlined above, the localized nonlinearity may be extended to a periodic lattice of $\delta$-functions embedded into the linear medium. The description of stationary modes in such a model can be exactly reduced to stationary solutions of the discrete NLS equation [@Canberra2; @Kominis], which has been studied in detail [@NLS]. However, the periodic nonlinearity does not admit asymmetric modes.
A fundamental role in optics belongs to second-harmonic generating systems based on the quadratic ($\chi^{(2)}$) nonlinearity [@Buryak; @Jena]. In this connection, it is relevant to consider media with one or several narrow $\chi^{(2)}$ layers embedded into a linear planar waveguide. For the single layer approximated by the respective $\delta$-function, exact solutions in the form of peakons, similar to those given by Eq. (\[simple\]), were found in Ref. [@Canberra]. Unlike solutions (\[simple\]), they are not degenerate (the total power depends on the propagation constant), a bigger part of the solution family being stable.
A new problem, which is considered in the present work, is to find double peakons pinned to a *symmetric pair* of $\chi^{(2)}$ delta-functions, cf. Eq. (\[2delta\]) for the $\chi^{(3)}$ nonlinearity. In this model, we report analytical solutions of all the types, *viz*., symmetric, antisymmetric (as concerns the fundamental-frequency component), and asymmetric ones. The corresponding SSB bifurcation is subcritical, but nongenerate (i.e., asymmetric branches eventually turn forward as stable ones). Antisymmetric modes do not undergo bifurcations, and turn out to be stable.
Another new configuration is a nonlinear *double layer* (alias a dipolar layer), formed by a fused pair of two narrow nonlinear stripes with opposite signs. While it would be very difficult to create such a configuration for the Kerr nonlinearity, in $\chi^{(2)}$ systems it is more feasible, as the sign of the nonlinearity may be changed by reversing the orientation of ferroelectric domains accounting for the $\chi^{(2)}$ interaction. We consider the double layer described by function $\delta^{\prime}(x)$ in front of the $\chi^{(2)}$ terms. A family of exact solutions for solitons pinned to the double layer is found, but they all turn out to be unstable (throughout the paper, the stability is tested via direct simulations of the perturbed evolution, in the framework of equations with the ideal $\delta$-functions replaced by their regularized counterparts).
The most challenging problem is to construct analytical solutions for a soliton pinned to a nonlinear layer embedded into a *nonlinear* waveguide. In this setting, the signs of the localized and uniform $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinearities may be identical or opposite. We produce exact solutions of two different types for this case, and test their stability. We also find some particular exact symmetric solutions for a pair of nonlinear layers inserted into the nonlinear waveguide.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we briefly recapitulate the peakon solution for the single $\chi^{(2)}$ layer embedded into the linear medium. In particular, we apply the adiabatic approximation to the description of peakons pinned to the layer whose strength slowly varies along the propagation distance. The most essential results are reported in Section 3, dealing with the pair of $\chi^{(2)}$ layers embedded into the linear medium, including exact solutions for asymmetric double peakons. Results for the double layer are presented in Section 4, and the nonlinear layer(s) buried into the nonlinear waveguide are considered in Section 5. The paper is concluded by Section 6.
The $\chi^{(2)}$ monolayer embedded into the linear medium
==========================================================
The basic model, with a single narrow channel carrying the $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinearity, can be written as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial A_{1}}{\partial Z}+\frac{1}{2k_{1}}\frac{\partial^{2}A_{1}}{\partial X^{2}}+\kappa\delta(X/k_{1})A_{2}A_{1}^{\ast}e^{-i\triangle kZ} & = & 0,\label{A1}\\
i\frac{\partial A_{2}}{\partial Z}+\frac{1}{2k_{2}}\frac{\partial^{2}A_{2}}{\partial X^{2}}+\kappa\delta(X/k_{1})A_{1}^{2}e^{i\triangle kZ} & = & 0,\label{A2}\end{aligned}$$
where $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ are local amplitudes of the fundamental-frequency (FF) and second-harmonic (SH) components, $k_{1}$ and $k_{2}$ are the respective wave numbers, $\kappa$ is the nonlinearity coefficients, and $\triangle k$ the phase mismatch. To reduce the number of control parameters, we transform Eqs. (\[A1\]) and (\[A2\]): $A_{1}(X,Z)\equiv(1/2)u(x,z)$, $A_{2}(X,Z)\equiv v(x,z)e^{i\triangle kZ}$, and rescale the spatial coordinates and coefficients by means of $k_{1}$, $x\equiv X/k_{1}$, $z\equiv Z/k_{1}$, $\gamma=\kappa/k_{1}$, and $Q=2\triangle k/k_{1}$. The resulting normalized equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
iu_{z}+(1/2)u_{xx}+\gamma\delta(x)u^{\ast}v & = & 0,\label{u}\\
2iv_{z}+(1/2)v_{xx}-Qv+(\gamma/2)\delta(x)u^{2} & = & 0,\label{v}\end{aligned}$$
The integration of the equations in an infinitesimal vicinity of $x=0$ yields the relations for the jumps of gradients of the FF and SH fields at $x=0$, cf. Eq. (\[xx\]), $$\begin{aligned}
u_{x}(x & = & +0)-u_{x}(x=-0)=-2\gamma u^{\ast}(x=0)v(x=0),\label{ju}\\
v_{x}(x & = & +0)-v_{x}(x=-0)=-\gamma u^{2}(x=0),\label{jv}\end{aligned}$$ while the fields themselves must be continuous across $x=0$.
A family of exact stationary solutions to Eqs. (\[u\]) and (\[v\]) in the form of peakons, similar to solution (\[simple\]), is [@Canberra]$$\begin{aligned}
u_{\mathrm{peak}}\left(z,x\right) & = & \pm2\left[k\left(4k+Q\right)\right]^{1/4}\gamma^{-1}e^{ikz}\exp\left(-\sqrt{2k}|x|\right),\nonumber \\
v_{\mathrm{peak}}\left(z,x\right) & = & \sqrt{2k}\gamma^{-1}e^{2ikz}\exp\left(-\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}|x|\right).\label{exact}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[u\]) and (\[v\]) conserve the total power, alias the *Manley-Rowe invariant*,$$P=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[\left\vert u(x)\right\vert ^{2}dx+4\left\vert v(x)\right\vert ^{2}\right]dx\label{P}$$ For peakon (\[exact\]), its value is$$P_{\mathrm{peakon}}=2\sqrt{2}\left(6k+Q\right)\left[\gamma^{2}\sqrt{4k+Q}\right]^{-1}.\label{T}$$ For $Q<0$, this dependence $P(k)$ has a positive slope, $dP/dk>0$, at $k>-Q/3$, and a negative slope at $0<k<-Q/3$. According to the VKcriterion, the peakons should be stable for $k>-Q/3$, and unstable for $0<k<-Q/3$. For $Q>0$, condition $dP/dk>0$ holds for all $k>0$, hence the entire peakon family is expected to be *stable* for $Q>0$ [@Canberra]. It can be verified by direct simulations that the stability of the peakons precisely complies with the predictions of the VK criterion. Note also that expression (\[T\]) gives rise to a *power threshold*: the solitons exist if their total power exceeds a minimum value, which vanishes only at $Q=0$,$$P_{\min}=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
P(k=0)\equiv2\sqrt{2Q}/\gamma^{2}~\mathrm{for}~~Q>0,\\
P(k=-Q/3)\equiv2\sqrt{-6Q}/\gamma^{2}~\mathrm{for}~~Q<0.\end{array}\right.\label{min}$$
In the case when the nonlinearity strength slowly varies along the $\chi^{(2)}$ layer, i.e., $\gamma=\gamma(z)$ in Eqs. (\[u\]) and (\[v\]), the adiabatic approximation may be applied, assuming that the solution given by Eqs. (\[exact\]) remains locally valid at each value of $z$, with slowly varying $k(z)$ which is determined by the conservation of the total power, $P=\mathrm{const}$. Then, one immediately finds from Eq. (\[T\])$$k(z)=\frac{1}{4}\left\{ \left[\sqrt{\frac{P^{2}\gamma^{4}(z)}{72}+\frac{Q}{3}}+\frac{P\gamma^{2}(z)}{6\sqrt{2}}\right]^{2}-Q\right\} .\label{k}$$ There are limitations on the use of the adiabatic approximation: as seen from Eq. (\[k\]), for $Q<0$ this equation makes sense if the expression under the radical is positive, i.e., $\gamma^{4}(z)>24|Q|/P^{2}.$ For $Q>0$, the radical is always real; however, in that case there is another constraint, $k>0$ [\[]{}solution (\[exact\]) does not make sense for $k<0$[\]]{}. As follows from Eq. (\[k\]), this constraint amounts to $\gamma^{4}(z)>8Q/P^{2}.$ Thus, the adiabatic approximation does not allow the peakon to pass points where $\gamma(z)$ vanishes.
The symmetric pair of nonlinear layers in the linear host medium
================================================================
Formulation
-----------
The modification of Eqs. (\[u\]) and (\[v\]) for two parallel layers is obvious, cf. Eq. (\[2delta\]):
$$\begin{aligned}
iu_{z}+\frac{1}{2}u_{xx}+\gamma\left[\delta\left(x-\frac{L}{2}\right)+\delta\left(x+\frac{L}{2}\right)\right]u^{\ast}v & = & 0,\label{2u}\\
2iv_{z}+\frac{1}{2}v_{xx}-Qv+\frac{\gamma}{2}\left[\delta\left(x-\frac{L}{2}\right)+\delta\left(x+\frac{L}{2}\right)\right]u^{2} & = & 0.\label{2v}\end{aligned}$$
Being a novel model for the $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinearity, it is related to its counterpart (\[2delta\]) with the cubic nonlinearity through the *cascading limit*, which corresponds to large positive values of mismatch $Q$ [@Jena; @Buryak]. In this limit, one can eliminate the SH field, using Eq. (\[2v\]), $v\approx\left(\gamma/2Q\right)\left[\tilde{\delta}\left(x-L/2\right)+\tilde{\delta}\left(x+L/2\right)\right]u^{2},$ where it is necessary to assume that the ideal $\delta$-function is replaced by its regularization $\tilde{\delta}(x)$, see Eq. (\[a\]). Then, the substitution of this approximation into Eq. (\[2u\]) leads to equation$$iu_{z}+\frac{1}{2}u_{xx}+\frac{\gamma^{2}}{2Q}\left[\tilde{\delta}^{2}\left(x-\frac{L}{2}\right)+\tilde{\delta}^{2}\left(x+\frac{L}{2}\right)\right]|u|^{2}u=0.\label{limit}$$ With the ideal $\delta$-function, Eq. (\[limit\]) does not make sense, as $\delta^{2}(x)$ does not exist. Nevertheless, if $\tilde{\delta}\left(x\mp L/2\right)$ are taken as smooth approximations, Eq. (\[limit\]) is meaningful, being tantamount to the accordingly regularized version of Eq. (\[2delta\]).
General analysis
----------------
Stationary localized solutions to Eqs. (\[2u\]) and (\[2v\]) are sought for as$$u(x,z)=e^{-ikz}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
A_{-}e^{\sqrt{2k}\left(x+L/2\right)},~~\mathrm{at}~~x<-L/2,\\
A_{1}\cosh\left(\sqrt{2k}x\right)+A_{2}\sinh\left(\sqrt{2k}x\right),~~\mathrm{at}~~-L/2<x<+L/2,\\
A_{+}e^{-\sqrt{2k}\left(x-L/2\right)},~~\mathrm{at}~~x>L/2,\end{array}\right.\label{genu}$$ $$v(x,z)=e^{-2ikz}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
B_{-}e^{\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}\left(x+L/2\right)},~~\mathrm{at}~~x<-L/2,\\
B_{1}\cosh\left(\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}x\right)+B_{2}\sinh\left(\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}x\right),~~\mathrm{at}~~-L/2<x<+L/2,\\
B_{+}e^{-\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}\left(x-L/2\right)},~~\mathrm{at}~~x>L/2.\end{array}\right.\label{genv}$$ Conditions of the continuity of $u$ and $v$ at $x=\pm L/2$ make it possible to express the inner amplitudes, $A_{1,2}$ and $B_{1,2}$, in terms of the outer ones, $A_{\pm}$ and $B_{\pm}$$$\begin{aligned}
A_{1} & = & \frac{A_{+}+A_{-}}{2\cosh\left(\sqrt{k/2}L\right)},~A_{2}=\frac{A_{+}-A_{-}}{2\sinh\left(\sqrt{k/2}L\right)},\nonumber \\
B_{1} & = & \frac{B_{+}+B_{-}}{2\cosh\left(\sqrt{\left(4k+Q\right)/2}L\right)},~B_{2}=\frac{B_{+}-B_{-}}{2\sinh\left(\sqrt{\left(4k+Q\right)/2}L\right)}~.\label{AABB}\end{aligned}$$ Further, we introduce notations$$\begin{aligned}
s_{1} & = & \left[\sinh\left(\sqrt{2k}L\right)\right]^{-1},~s_{2}=\left[\sinh\left(\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}L\right)\right]^{-1},\nonumber\\
c_{1} & = & 1+\coth\left(\sqrt{2k}L\right),~c_{2}=1+\coth\left(\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}L\right)~,\label{sc}\\
\gamma_{1} & = & \gamma/\sqrt{2k},~\gamma_{2}=\gamma/\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}~.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then, conditions (\[ju\]) and (\[jv\]) for the jump of the wave functions at points $x=\pm L/2$ give rise to the following equations:$$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}A_{-}-s_{1}A_{+} & = & 2\gamma_{1}A_{-}B_{-},~c_{1}A_{+}-s_{1}A_{-}=2\gamma_{1}A_{+}B_{+},\label{Ajump}\\
c_{2}B_{-}-s_{2}B_{+} & = & \gamma_{2}A_{-}^{2},~c_{2}B_{+}-s_{2}B_{-}=\gamma_{2}A_{+}^{2}~.\label{Bjump}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. (\[Bjump\]), one can eliminate $B_{\pm}$ in favor of $A_{\pm}$:$$B_{+}=\frac{\gamma_{2}\left(c_{2}A_{+}^{2}+s_{2}A_{-}^{2}\right)}{c_{2}^{2}-s_{2}^{2}},~B_{-}=\frac{\gamma_{2}\left(c_{2}A_{-}^{2}+s_{2}A_{+}^{2}\right)}{c_{2}^{2}-s_{2}^{2}}~.\label{BB}$$
Symmetric, asymmetric, and antisymmetric modes
----------------------------------------------
Substituting Eqs. (\[BB\]) into Eqs. (\[Ajump\]) and assuming $A_{+}^{2}-A_{-}^{2}\neq0$ (i.e., that the solution is *asymmetric*) leads to the following expressions for the amplitudes of the asymmetric modes:$$A_{+}A_{-}=\frac{\left(c_{2}+s_{2}\right)s_{1}}{2\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}},~A_{+}^{2}+A_{-}^{2}=\frac{c_{1}}{2c_{2}}\frac{c_{2}^{2}-s_{2}^{2}}{\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}}~.\label{asymm}$$ The asymmetry of the stationary mode is characterized by $$\epsilon\equiv\frac{\left(A_{+}-A_{-}\right)^{2}}{\left(A_{+}+A_{-}\right)^{2}}=\frac{c_{1}c_{2}-c_{1}s_{2}-c_{2}s_{1}}{c_{1}c_{2}-c_{1}s_{2}+c_{2}s_{1}}.\label{epsilon}$$
On the other hand, Eqs. (\[Ajump\]) and (\[Bjump\]) immediately give rise to the symmetric solutions,$$\begin{aligned}
A_{+} & = & A_{-}\equiv\left(A_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}=\sqrt{\frac{\left(c_{1}-s_{1}\right)\left(c_{2}-s_{2}\right)}{2\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}}},\nonumber\\
B_{+} & = & B_{-}\equiv\left(B_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}=\left(2\gamma_{1}\right)^{-1}\left(c_{1}-s_{1}\right)~.\label{symm}\end{aligned}$$ Then, Eqs. (\[AABB\]) yield, for the symmetric solution, $\left(A_{2}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}=\left(B_{2}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}=0,$ and$$\left(A_{1}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}=\frac{\left(A_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}}{\cosh\left(\sqrt{k/2}L\right)},~\left(B_{1}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}=\frac{\left(B_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{symm}}}{\cosh\left(\sqrt{\left(4k+Q\right)/2}L\right)}.\label{symm2}$$
The asymmetric solutions emerge, with the increase of $L$, from the symmetric one as a result of the SSB bifurcation, at the point at which the asymmetric solution, as given by Eqs. (\[asymm\]), coincides with its symmetric counterpart (\[symm\]). Setting, accordingly, $\epsilon=0$ in Eq. (\[epsilon\]) predicts the location of the bifurcation point: $c_{1}c_{2}=c_{1}s_{2}+c_{2}s_{1}.$ Only the symmetric solution, given by Eqs. (\[symm\]) and (\[symm2\]), exists at $$c_{1}c_{2}<c_{1}s_{2}+c_{2}s_{1}~,\label{no}$$ where Eq. (\[epsilon\]) formally yields $\left(A_{+}-A_{-}\right)^{2}<0$, while both the symmetric and asymmetric solutions exist at $$c_{1}c_{2}>c_{1}s_{2}+c_{2}s_{1}~,\label{yes}$$ when Eq. (\[epsilon\]) yields $\left(A_{+}-A_{-}\right)^{2}>0$.
As follows from definitions (\[sc\]), condition (\[no\]) holds in the limit when the two layers merge into one, $L\rightarrow0,$ in which case $c_{1}\approx s_{1}$ and $c_{2}\approx s_{2}$. On the other hand, at $L\rightarrow\infty$ definitions (\[sc\]) imply $c_{1}\approx c_{2}\approx2$ and $s_{1,2}\rightarrow0,$ i.e., condition (\[yes\]) holds in the limit of a very large separation between the layers. Therefore, the SSB indeed occurs, with the increase of $L$, at a particular value of the separation.
It is also possible to find solutions which are antisymmetric in the FF component, with $A_{+}=-A_{-}$ and $B_{+}=+B_{-}$, while the SH component remains symmetric. In this case, Eqs. (\[AABB\]), (\[Ajump\]), and (\[Bjump\]) yield$$\begin{aligned}
A_{+} & = & -A_{-}\equiv\left(A_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}=\sqrt{\frac{\left(c_{1}+s_{1}\right)\left(c_{2}-s_{2}\right)}{2\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}}},\nonumber\\
B_{+} & = & B_{-}\equiv\left(B_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}=\left(2\gamma_{1}\right)^{-1}\left(c_{1}+s_{1}\right)~.\label{anti}\end{aligned}$$ $$\left(A_{2}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}=\frac{\left(A_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}}{\sinh\left(\sqrt{k/2}L\right)},~\left(B_{1}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}=\frac{\left(B_{\pm}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}}{\cosh\left(\sqrt{\left(4k+Q\right)/2}L\right)},\label{anti2}$$ and $\left(A_{1}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}=\left(B_{2}\right)_{\mathrm{antisymm}}=0$, cf. Eqs. (\[symm\]) and (\[symm2\]).
Numerical results
-----------------
The numerical analysis of the dual-layer model aimed to address two issues: the form of the bifurcation diagram (subcritical or supercritical), which is implicitly described by the above analytical expressions, and the stability of the symmetric, asymmetric, and antisymmetric double peakons.
We took values of rescaled constants and variables which correspond to $k=1$ and the following typical values of physical parameters: at the FF wavelength of $1.0645~\mathrm{\mu}$m, the sample was assumed to be stoichiometric lithium tantalate (SLT) with the e-ee interaction, where two extraordinary waves induce an extraordinary nonlinear polarization. Undoing the rescalings which lead to the rescaled notation, it is straightforward to see that rescaled mismatch $Q=1$ corresponds, in physical units, to a very small value, $6$ m$^{-1}$, i.e., our actual results corresponds to the nearly matched $\chi^{(2)}$ system.
Further, the refractive indices and the relevant element of the $\chi^{(2)}$ susceptibility tensor were taken according to Ref. [@Dolev] (at $100^{\circ}C$, $n_{\mathrm{FF}}=2.1323$, $n_{\mathrm{SH}}=2.1999$ and $d_{33}=12.9~$pm/V). In the simulations of the evolution of perturbed solutions, the $\delta$-functions were replaced by approximation (\[a\]) with $a\sim$ a few microns. Finally, taking into regard the experimentally measured value of the Kerr coefficient in this material, $n_{2}\approx14.6\times10^{-16}$ cm$^{2}$/W [@Japan], it is easy to check that, for the physical parameters adopted in this work, the $\chi^{(3)}$ nonlinearity is negligible in comparison with the $\chi^{(2)}$ effects.
Typical examples of stable symmetric, asymmetric and antisymmetric solitons are displayed in Figs. \[fig1\], \[fig2\], and \[fig3\], respectively. Additional simulations, with strong perturbations added to the input fields (not shown here), demonstrate that, as it might be expected, the symmetric solitons are stable before the SSB point and unstable past it. The simulations also demonstrate that the antisymmetric solitons are always stable. The stability of asymmetric solitons is discussed below.
![(Color online) Left: the double-barrier structure corresponding, in physical units, to separation $L=200$ $\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m between the two symmetric $\protect\chi ^{(2)}$ layers of width $a=0.92~\mathrm{\protect%
\mu }$m each. Right: a typical example of stable symmetric solitons. The red (taller) and blue (lower) continuous curves depict, respectively, the input for the FF and SH fields, taken as per analytical solution given by Eqs. (\[genu\])-(\[BB\]) and (\[symm\]). Chains of dots depict the output produced by simulations of Eqs. (\[2u\]), (\[2v\]), with the $\protect\delta $-functions approximated as per Eq. (\[a\]), over the propagation distance corresponding to $z=100$ cm. For this and other examples, the scaled wavenumber of the analytical solutions is taken as $k=1$. In the present case, the mismatch is $Q=0$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="50.00000%"}
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig1\], but for a stable asymmetric soliton, with $L=50$ $\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m, $a=1.06~%
\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m, and $z=10$ cm.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="50.00000%"}
![(Color online) The same as in Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\], but for a stable antisymmetric soliton, with $L=200$ $\mathrm{%
\protect\mu }$m, $a=1.4~\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m, and $z=100$ cm.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="50.00000%"}
Making use of Eqs. (\[AABB\])-(\[epsilon\]) to find the asymmetry $\epsilon$, and calculating the total power of the solutions as per Eq. (\[P\]), the bifurcation diagrams were drawn in the plane of $\left(P,\epsilon\right)$, at different values of mismatch $Q$. Typical examples of the diagrams, displayed in Fig. \[fig4\], clearly demonstrate the *subcritical* character of the SSB bifurcation, similar to what was found in model (\[2delta\]) with the cubic nonlinearity, which corresponds to the cascading limit of the present system. However, unlike that model, the present one, even with the ideal $\delta$-functions, is not degenerate, i.e., the branches of the asymmetric solutions go forward after reaching the turning point.
![(Color online) The asymmetry parameter of the solitons versus the total power [\[]{}defined as per Eq. (\[epsilon\])[\]]{}, for positive, zero, and negative mismatch; $Q=+1$ (a), $Q=0$ (b), and $Q=-1$ (c).[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In accordance with general properties of the symmetry-breaking bifurcations [@Iooss], one should expect that branches of the asymmetric solitons corresponding to $d\epsilon/dP>0$ and $d\epsilon/dP<0$ should be stable and unstable, respectively. This expectation was confirmed by direct simulations. In particular, all the asymmetric solitons belonging to the positive-slope branch of the $\epsilon(P)\ $dependence are stable (Fig. \[fig2\] shows an example of such a stable soliton), while a typical example of the instability of the branches with the negative slope is displayed in Fig. \[fig5\].
![(Color online) The evolution of an unstable asymmetric soliton belonging to the solution branch with $d\protect\epsilon /dP<0$ is displayed by means of contour plots of local powers of the FF and SH components in the $\left( z,x\right) $ plane. The corresponding physical parameters are: $%
a=1.4~\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m, $L=200$ $\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m, and the total propagation distance is $z=100$ cm. The rescaled mismatch and wavenumber are $Q=-1$ and $k=0.26$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5){width="50.00000%"}
The model with the double nonlinear layer
=========================================
A narrow double layer is formed by two adjacent monolayers with opposite signs of the $\chi^{(2)}$ coefficients. Accordingly, Eqs. (\[u\]) and (\[v\]) are replaced by$$\begin{aligned}
iu_{z}+(1/2)u_{xx}+\gamma\delta^{\prime}(x)u^{\ast}v & = & 0,\label{u'}\\
2iv_{z}+(1/2)v_{xx}-Qv+(\gamma/2)\delta^{\prime}(x)u^{2} & = & 0.\label{v'}\end{aligned}$$ An exact stationary solution to Eqs. (\[u’\]) and (\[v’\]) can be found in the form of antisymmetric discontinuous solitons, cf. expressions (\[exact\]) for the peakons:$$\begin{aligned}
u\left(z,x\right) & = & \pm\sqrt{2}\gamma^{-1}e^{ikz}\mathrm{sgn}(x)\exp\left(-\sqrt{2k}|x|\right),\nonumber\\
v\left(z,x\right) & = & -\gamma^{-1}e^{2ikz}\mathrm{sgn}(x)\exp\left(-\sqrt{2\left(4k+Q\right)}|x|\right).\label{solution'}\end{aligned}$$ Note that, unlike the peakons, the amplitudes of these solutions do not depend on $k$.
According to Eq. (\[P\]), the total power of the discontinuous soliton is$$P_{\mathrm{discont}}=\sqrt{2}\gamma^{-1}\left[k^{-1/2}+2\left(4k+Q\right)^{-1/2}\right].\label{T'}$$ Expression (\[T’\]) does not give rise to any* *existence threshold, unlike the peakon solutions [\[]{}cf. Eq. (\[min\])[\]]{}, because $P_{\mathrm{discont}}(k\rightarrow\infty)=0$. Obviously, Eq. (\[T’\]) leads to $dP/dk<0$, hence the VK criterion predicts that the family of the discontinuous solitons is completely *unstable*. This prediction was confirmed by simulations of the evolution of these solitons, see Fig. \[fig6\], where strong instability dominates the propagation of the soliton even over a relatively short propagation distance, $z=1$ cm.
![(Color online) The same as in Figs. \[fig1\]-[fig3]{}, but for an unstable antisymmetric nearly discontinuous soliton pinned to the double nonlinear layer of width $a=7.07~\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m, shown in the left panel. In this case, the mismatch is $Q=0$, the total propagation distance is $1$ cm, and the initial scaled wavenumber is $k=1$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6){width="50.00000%"}
Nonlinear layers embedded into a nonlinear host medium
======================================================
A single layer
--------------
If the host medium is itself nonlinear, Eqs. (\[u\]) and (\[v\]) are replaced by$$\begin{aligned}
iu_{z}+(1/2)u_{xx}+\left[\Gamma+\gamma\delta(x)\right]u^{\ast}v & = & 0,\label{unonlin}\\
2iv_{z}+(1/2)v_{xx}-Qv+(1/2)\left[\Gamma+\gamma\delta(x)\right]u^{2} & = & 0,\label{vnonlin}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ and $\gamma$ account for the bulk and localized $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinearities, respectively, which may have the same or opposite signs, the latter situation corresponding to the *competing* bulk and localized nonlinearities. Two particular exact solutions can be found in this model, following the pattern of the well-known Karamzin-Sukhorukov (KS) solutions for $\chi^{(2)}$ solitons in the uniform medium [@Moscow].
The first solution is a straightforward extension of the KS soliton, based on the following ansatz:$$u=e^{ikz}A~\mathrm{sech}^{2}\left(W\left(|x|+\xi\right)\right),v=e^{2ikz}B\mathrm{sech}^{2}\left(W\left(|x|+\xi\right)\right).\label{xicosh}$$ Substituting this ansatz into Eqs. (\[unonlin\]), (\[vnonlin\]) and taking into regard jump conditions (\[ju\]), (\[jv\]), it is easy to find parameters of the exact solution:$$\begin{aligned}
k=-Q/3,W=\sqrt{-Q/6},A=\pm\sqrt{2}B,~B=-\left(Q/2\Gamma\right),\label{aBA}\\
\sinh\left(2W\xi\right)=\sqrt{-3Q/2}\left(\gamma/\Gamma\right),\label{sinhcosh}\end{aligned}$$ With identical signs of $\gamma$ and $\Gamma$, Eq. (\[sinhcosh\]) yields $\xi>0$, i.e., a single-hump profile of the pinned soliton (\[xicosh\]). For opposite signs of $\gamma$ and $\Gamma$, Eq. (\[sinhcosh\]) produces $\xi<0$, hence the corresponding pinned profile (\[xicosh\]) features a local minimum at $x=0$, and two maxima at $x=\pm|\xi|$. The soliton is expected to be stable in the former case, and unstable in the latter one, when it is pinned by the repelling defect in an unstable position. Direct simulations of the evolution of the solitons slightly shifted from the equilibrium positions confirm these expectations. In particular, the instability of the double-humped soliton is illustrated by Fig. \[fig7\].
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig5\], but for the evolution of the unstable double-humped soliton, given by Eqs. ([xicosh]{})-(\[sinhcosh\]) with initial scaled wavenumber $k=1$ and $%
Q=-3$, pinned to the nonlinear layer of width $7.07~\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m.** **The corresponding total propagation distance is $z=100$ cm.[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7){width="50.00000%"}
Another type of the pinned soliton can be found in the following form:$$u=e^{ikz}A^{\prime}\left[\sinh\left(W\left(|x|+\xi^{\prime}\right)\right)\right]^{-2},v=e^{2ikz}B^{\prime}\left[\sinh\left(W\left(|x|+\xi^{\prime}\right)\right)\right]^{-2}.\label{xisinh}$$ The substitution of ansatz (\[xisinh\]) into Eqs. (\[unonlin\]), (\[vnonlin\]) and (\[ju\]), (\[jv\]) produces the following results, cf. Eqs. (\[aBA\]) and (\[sinhcosh\]):$$\begin{aligned}
k=-Q/3,W=\sqrt{-Q/6},A^{\prime}=\pm\sqrt{2}B^{\prime},~B^{\prime}=+Q/\left(2\Gamma\right),\label{aBAsinh}\\
\sinh\left(2W\xi^{\prime}\right)=-\sqrt{-3Q/2}\left(\gamma/\Gamma\right).\label{sinhsinh}\end{aligned}$$ The solution (\[xicosh\]) is nonsingular provided that Eq. (\[sinhsinh\]) yields $\xi^{\prime}>0$, which is the case for the *opposite signs* of $\Gamma$ and $\gamma$.
To better understand the meaning of these exact solutions, it is instructive to consider the NLS equation which corresponds to the cascading limit of Eqs. (\[unonlin\]) and (\[vnonlin\]):$$iu_{z}+(1/2)u_{xx}+\left[\tilde{\Gamma}+\tilde{\gamma}\delta(x)\right]|u|^{2}u=0,\label{NLS}$$ $\tilde{\Gamma}\equiv\Gamma^{2}/\left(2Q\right),~\tilde{\gamma}\equiv\gamma\Gamma/Q+\gamma^{2}/\left(2Q\right)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[\tilde{\delta}(x)\right]^{2}dx$ [\[]{}recall $\tilde{\delta}(x)$ is the regularized $\delta$-function (\[a\]), cf. Eq. (\[limit\])[\]]{}. In the case of $\tilde{\Gamma}>0$, i.e., $Q>0$, the exact solution to Eq. (\[NLS\]), which is the counterpart of solution (\[xicosh\]), is$$u=\sqrt{2k/\tilde{\Gamma}}e^{ikz}\mathrm{sech}\left(\sqrt{2k}\left(|x|+\xi\right)\right),\sinh\left(2\sqrt{2k}\xi\right)=2\left(\tilde{\gamma}/\tilde{\Gamma}\right)\sqrt{2k},\label{cosh}$$ where $k>0$ is the respective wave number. Solution (\[cosh\]) is valid for both positive and negative $\tilde{\gamma}$, i.e., respectively, the attractive and repulsive nonlinear defect in Eq. (\[NLS\]). The power of solution (\[cosh\]) is$$P=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left\vert u(x)\right\vert ^{2}dx=|\tilde{\gamma}|^{-1}\left[\left(2\left\vert \tilde{\gamma}\right\vert /\tilde{\Gamma}\right)\sqrt{2k}-\mathrm{sgn}\left(\Gamma\right)\sqrt{8\left(\tilde{\gamma}/\tilde{\Gamma}\right)^{2}k+1}+1\right].\label{Ncosh}$$ It immediately follows from this expression that, for either sign of $\tilde{\gamma}$, this soliton family satisfies the VK criterion, $dP/dk>0$, which suggests that solution (\[xicosh\]) (with identical signs of $\gamma$ and $\Gamma$) is stable in the general case too, when the cascading limit does not apply. As mentioned above, this expectation was corroborated by direct simulations (not shown here).
The cascading-limit counterpart of solution (\[xisinh\]) corresponds to $\tilde{\Gamma}<0$, $\tilde{\gamma}>0$. The respective exact solution to Eq. (\[NLS\]) and its power are$$u=\sqrt{2k/|\tilde{\Gamma}|}e^{ikz}\left[\sinh\left(\sqrt{2k}\left(|x|+\xi\right)\right)\right]^{-1},\sinh\left(2\sqrt{2k}\xi\right)=2\left(\tilde{\gamma}/|\tilde{\Gamma}|\right)\sqrt{2k},\label{sinh}$$ $$P=\tilde{\gamma}^{-1}\left[\sqrt{8\left(\tilde{\gamma}/\tilde{\Gamma}\right)^{2}k+1}-\left(2\tilde{\gamma}/\tilde{\Gamma}\right)\sqrt{2k}+1\right].\label{Nsinh}$$ Expression (\[Nsinh\]) *does not* satisfy the VK criterion, as it yields $dP/dk<0$, suggesting an instability of solution (\[xisinh\]) in the absence of the cascading limit. Indeed, direct simulations of Eqs. (\[unonlin\]) and (\[vnonlin\]) confirm that this solution is unstable, as shown in Fig. \[fig8\].
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig7\], but for the evolution of the unstable soliton, given by Eqs. (\[xisinh\])-(\[sinhsinh\]) with initial wavenumber $k=1$ and $Q=-3$, pinned to the nonlinear layer of width $7.07~\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m.** **The corresponding total propagation distance is $z=10$ cm.[]{data-label="fig8"}](fig8){width="50.00000%"}
A linear layer embedded into the self-defocusing nonlinear medium (the cascading limit)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existence of solution (\[sinh\]) to the asymptotic NLS equation (\[NLS\]) suggests to consider a similar solution for a *linear* attractive layer (i.e., a usual waveguiding channel) embedded into the medium with the uniform self-defocusing cubic nonlinearity (in previous works, solitons pinned by the attractive defect were considered in the NLS equation with the self-focusing nonlinearity [@Cao; @Weinstein]). In terms of the $\chi^{(2)}$ system, this solution corresponds to the narrow linear channel in the limit of the large *negative* mismatch. The respective version of the NLS equation is$$iu_{z}+(1/2)u_{xx}+\Gamma|u|^{2}u+\gamma_{0}\delta(x)u=0,\label{linear}$$ with $\Gamma<0$ and $\gamma_{0}>0$. In fact, we can fix $\Gamma\equiv-1$ in this case; then, an exact solution to Eq. (\[linear\]) for a mode pinned by the attractive layer, is [\[]{}cf. Eqs. (\[sinh\])[\]]{}$$u=\sqrt{2k}e^{ikz}\left[\sinh\left(\sqrt{2k}\left(|x|+\xi\right)\right)\right]^{-1},\tanh\left(\sqrt{2k}\xi\right)=\sqrt{2k}/\gamma_{0},\label{sinhlin}$$ with power $P=\gamma_{0}-\sqrt{2k}$, which features $dP/dk<0$, formally contradicting the VK criterion. However, this criterion is not relevant for models with the self-defocusing nonlinearity. Actually, an argument in favor of the stability of solution (\[sinhlin\]) is the fact that its energy is negative,$$\begin{aligned}
E & \equiv & \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[\left(u_{x}\right)^{2}-u^{4}\right]dx-\gamma_{0}u^{2}\left(x=0\right)\nonumber \\
& = & -\left(\sqrt{2}/3\right)k^{3/2}\left(\gamma_{0}/\sqrt{2k}-1\right)\left(2\gamma_{0}/\sqrt{2k}+1\right)^{2}\end{aligned}$$ (recall $\Gamma=-1$ was fixed), hence the solution has a good chance to represent the *ground state* of the system. Direct simulations of Eq. (\[linear\]) corroborate the stability of this pinned mode (not shown here).
Two embedded layers
-------------------
The extension of the model for the pair of symmetric layers is described by the following version of Eqs. (\[unonlin\]) and (\[vnonlin\]) [\[]{}cf. Eqs. (\[2u\]) and (\[2v\]) in the case of the linear host medium[\]]{}:$$\begin{aligned}
iu_{z}+\frac{1}{2}u_{xx}+\left\{ \Gamma+\gamma\left[\delta\left(x-\frac{L}{2}\right)+\delta\left(x+\frac{L}{2}\right)\right]\right\} u^{\ast}v & = & 0,\label{u2nonlin}\\
2iv_{z}+\frac{1}{2}v_{xx}-Qv+\frac{1}{2}\left\{ \Gamma+\gamma\left[\delta\left(x-\frac{L}{2}\right)+\delta\left(x+\frac{L}{2}\right)\right]\right\} u^{2} & = & 0.\label{v2nonlin}\end{aligned}$$ A particular exact solution to Eqs. (\[u2nonlin\]) and (\[v2nonlin\]) can be found, in the form of a symmetric *three-hump* structure [\[]{}with a maximum at $x=0$, on the contrary to the double-humped solution (\[genu\]), (\[genv\]), which has a minimum at $x=0$[\]]{}, for the competing nonlinearities, $\Gamma>0$, $\gamma<0$:$$u(x,z)=Ae^{-ikz}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\left[\cosh\left(\sqrt{-Q/6}\left(|x|-L\right)\right)\right]^{-2},~~\mathrm{at}~~|x|>L/2,\\
\left[\cosh\left(\sqrt{-Q/6}x\right)\right]^{-2},~~\mathrm{at}~~|x|<L/2,\end{array}\right.\label{u3hump}$$ $$v(x,z)=Be^{-2ikz}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\left[\cosh\left(\sqrt{-Q/6}\left(|x|-L\right)\right)\right]^{-2},~~\mathrm{at}~~|x|>L/2,\\
\left[\cosh\left(\sqrt{-Q/6}x\right)\right]^{-2},~~\mathrm{at}~~|x|<L/2,\end{array}\right.\label{v3hump}$$ where $k$, $A$ and $B$ are given by the same expressions (\[aBA\]) as in the case of solution (\[xicosh\]).
The highly degenerate nature of this solution is demonstrated by the fact that it satisfies the jump conditions (\[ju\]), (\[jv\]) at points $x=\pm L/2$ at a single value of the strength of the localized nonlinearity, $\gamma=\left(2\Gamma/\sqrt{-6Q}\right)\sinh\left(\sqrt{-Q/6}L\right)$ (recall that both $Q$ and $\gamma$ are negative, while $\Gamma$ is positive, in the present case). As for the stability of the three-hump mode, it may be expected that, with a maximum of the local power set between two *repulsive* nonlinear layers, it is definitely unstable at small distance $L$ between the layers (when they tend to merge into a single repulsive element, cf. the instability in Fig. \[fig7\]), but it may become stable at larger $L$, when the repulsion from the two separated layers traps the power maximum between them. These expectations have been corroborated by direct simulations of Eqs. (\[u2nonlin\]) and (\[v2nonlin\]). In particular, an example of the stable mode, for large separation $L=200~\mathrm{\mu}$m, is displayed in Fig. \[fig9\] (this solution is stable against large perturbations, which is not shown here in detail).
![(Color online) Left: the profile of the nonlinearity coefficient, for separation $L=200$ $\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m between two symmetric layers of width $a=1.77~\mathrm{\protect\mu }$m each. Right: a stable three-humped solution given by Eqs. (\[u3hump\]), (\[v3hump\]), for $%
Q=-3$, $k=1$, and $z=100$ cm.[]{data-label="fig9"}](fig9){width="50.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
We have produced several exact solutions for spatial solitons supported by the $\chi^{(2)}$ layers embedded into a linear or nonlinear planar waveguide. The most fundamental solution describes the full set of families of the symmetric, asymmetric, and antisymmetric double-humped modes supported by the symmetric pair of the nonlinear layers inserted into the linear medium. The exact solutions describe the subcritical symmetry-breaking bifurcation in this system. In addition, particular exact solutions of several types were found for nonlinear stripes running through the nonlinear medium, including the case of the competition between the uniform and localized $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinearities. The stability of the pinned solitons was tested by means of direct numerical simulations. In the case of the pair of nonlinear stripes embedded into the linear waveguide, the character of the (in)stability completely agrees with general principles of the bifurcation theory. For the layers embedded into the nonlinear host medium, the results for the stability were explained too, with the help of the consideration of the cascading limit.
The theoretical results reported in this paper call for an experimental realization. As an example, for a small phase mismatch $\triangle k=20$ m$^{-1}$ and a typical nonlinear coefficient of $13~$ pm/V, the input intensities required to observe the soliton in the case of the single embedded layer are about $10^{9}$ W/cm$^{2}$. Such intensities are feasible, as demonstrated in Ref. [@Saltiel], provided that the necessary nonlinear pattern can be fabricated.
N.V.B. is an Eshkol Scholar from the Israeli ministry of science, culture and sport.
[23]{} J. D. Joannopulos, S. G. Johnson, J. N. Winn, and R. D. Meade, *Manipulating light with strongly modulated photonic crystals: Molding the Flow of Light* (Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford, 2008).
A. N. Poddubny and E. L. Ivchenko, “Photonic quasicrystalline and aperiodic structures, Physica E **42**, 1871-1895 (2010).
F. Lederer, G. I. Stegeman, D. N. Christodoulides, G. Assanto, M. Segev, and Y. Silberberg, “Discrete solitons in optics, Phys. Rep. **463**, 1-126 (2008).
Y. V. Kartashov, B. A. Malomed, and L. Torner, “Solitons in nonlinear lattices, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 247-306 (2011).
B. A. Malomed, Z. H. Wang, P. L. Chu, and G. D. Peng, “Multichannel switchable system for spatial solitons, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B **16**, 1197-1203 (1999).
B. A. Malomed, D. Mihalache, F. Wise, and L. Torner, “Spatiotemporal optical solitons, J. Optics B: Quant. Semicl. Opt. **7**, R53-R72 (2005).
B. A. Malomed and M. Ya. Azbel, “Modulational instability of a wave scattered by a nonlinear center”, Phys. Rev. B **47**, 10402-10406 (1993).
M. Vakhitov and A. Kolokolov, “Stationary solutions of the wave equation in a medium with nonlinearity saturation, Radiophys. Quantum. Electron. **16**, 783-789 (1973).
N. Dror and B. A. Malomed, “Solitons supported by localized nonlinearities in periodic media”,Phys. Rev. A **83**, 033828 (2011).
T. Mayteevarunyoo, B. A. Malomed, and G. Dong, “Spontaneous symmetry breaking in a nonlinear double-well structure, Phys. Rev. A **78**, 053601 (2008).
A. A. Sukhorukov and Y. S. Kivshar, “Spatial optical solitons in nonlinear photonic crystals, Phys. Rev. E **65**, 036609 (2002).
Y. Kominis, “Analytical solitary wave solutions of the nonlinear Kronig-Penney model in photonic structures, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 066619 (2006).
P. G. Kevrekidis, *The Discrete Nonlinear Schredinger Equation: Mathematical Analysis, Numerical Computations, and Physical Perspectives* (Springer: Berlin and Heidelberg, 2009).
C. Etrich, F. Lederer, B. A. Malomed, T. Peschel, and U. Peschel, “Optical solitons in media with a quadratic nonlinearity, Progress in Optics **41**, 483-568 (2000).
A. V. Buryak, P. Di Trapani, D. V. Skryabin, and S. Trillo, “Optical solitons due to quadratic nonlinearities from basic physics to futuristic applications, Phys. Rep. **370**, 63-235 (2002).
A. A. Sukhorukov, Y. S. Kivshar, and O. Bang, “Two-color nonlinear localized photonic modes“, Phys. Rev. E **60**, R41-R44 (1999).
I. Dolev, A. Ganany-Padowicz, O. Gayer, A. Arie, J. Mangin and G. Gadret, Linear and nonlinear optical properties of MgO:LiTaO3, Applied Physics B **96**, 423-432 (2009).
S. Ashihara, J. Nishina, T. Shimura, and K. Kuroda, “Femtosecond measurement of nonlinear refraction in periodically poled lithium tantalate, in* OSA 2002 Nonlinear Guided Wave Conference*, paper NLMD41-1.
G. Iooss and D. D. Joseph, 1980, *Elementary stability and bifurcation theory* (Springer, New York, 1980).
Yu. N. Karamzin and A. P. Sukhorukov, “Nonlinear interaction of diffracted light beams in a medium with quadratic nonlinearity: mutual focusing of beams and limitation on the efficiency of optical frequency converters”, JETP Lett. **11**, 339-342 (1974).
X. D. Cao and B. A. Malomed, “Soliton-defect collisions in the nonlinear Schredinger equation, Phys. Lett. A **206**, 177-182 (1995).
R. H. Goodman, P. J. Holmes, and M. I. Weinstein, “Strong NLS soliton-defect interactions, Physica D **192**, 215-248 (2004).
S. M. Saltiel, D. N. Neshev, R. Fischer, W. Krolikowski, A. Arie, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Generation of second-harmonic conical waves via nonlinear Bragg diffraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 103902 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We experimentally implement a machine-learning method for accurately identifying unknown pure quantum states. The method, called single-shot measurement learning, achieves the theoretical optimal accuracy for $\epsilon = O(N^{-1})$ in state learning and reproduction, where $\epsilon$ and $N$ denote the infidelity and number of state copies, without employing computationally demanding tomographic methods. This merit results from the inclusion of weighted randomness in the learning rule governing the exploration of diverse learning routes. We experimentally verify the advantages of our scheme by using a linear-optics setup to prepare and measure single-photon polarization qubits. The experimental results show highly accurate state learning and reproduction exhibiting infidelity of $O(N^{-0.983})$ down to $10^{-5}$, without estimation of the experimental parameters.'
author:
- Sang Min Lee
- Hee Su Park
- Jinhyoung Lee
- Jaewan Kim
- Jeongho Bang
title: 'Experimental Learning of Pure Quantum States using Sequential Single-Shot Measurement Outcomes'
---
[*Introduction.*]{}—Recently, there has been increasing interest in applying machine learning to quantum information tasks [@Carleo2019]. This is apparent from the increased use of, for example, state identification and tomography methods based on a Bayesian model [@Huszar2012], neural networks [@Torlai2018; @Palmieri2020], and other learning approaches [@Mahler2013; @Ferrie2014; @Qi2017]. These machine-learning-based methods can retrieve critical information on the quantum state through stepwise data processing, even without *a priori* knowledge of the state. Importantly, the optimal accuracy can be achieved with Heisenberg-limited scaling, namely, the infidelity of $O(N^{-1})$ for a finite number $N$ of resources [@Kravtsov2013; @Lee2018]. Experimental implementation of learning-based state identification methods is generally challenging since the achievable accuracy is limited by imperfections in the learning apparatus, say ${\cal L}$. A set of measurement data ${\cal D} = \{ m(\{\alpha\}_{\cal L}) \}$ for experimental parameters $\{\alpha\}_{\cal L}$ are mapped to new parameters $\{\alpha^{\text{new}}\}_{\cal L}$ in each learning step. Algorithms determine the procedure to choose the next $\alpha^{\text{new}}$ during iterations. Under realistic conditions, the measurement datasets are affected by systematic errors [^1] and the resulting decision system shows the effect of accumulated errors. When original unknown states need to be reproduced, for example, in some cryptographic tasks [@Liang2003; @Bogdanov2010], their accuracy is further reduced by imperfections in the reproduction setup components.
We experimentally implement an error-robust and generally applicable learning algorithm, called single-shot measurement learning (SSML), in which decision-making is based on sequential single-shot measurement outcomes [@Lee2018]. The algorithm involves trial operator variations with weighted amounts of randomness. Conceptually, the magnitude of the random variation decreases according to the number of consecutive [*success*]{} events before encountering a [*failure*]{} event, after which the variation of the learning operator is applied to the experimental setup. The SSML estimator is applicable to arbitrary unknown pure states with minimal free parameters, and it can achieve $O(N^{-1})$ accuracy without procedures requiring extensive computational loads. Our algorithm adaptively identifies the unitary operator to inter-convert between a fixed initial state and an unknown state, and can reproduce highly accurate copies of the unknown state despite imperfections in the practical components. The experimental demonstration uses polarization qubits of single photons, ${\left|0\right>}={\left|H\right>}$ (horizontal) and ${\left|1\right>}={\left|V\right>}$ (vertical). The measured infidelities scale as $O(N^{-0.983})$ on average down to the accuracy level of $<10^{-5}$.
[*Method.*]{}—Our algorithm learns a unitary $\hat{U}$ that maps an unknown state ${\left|\psi\right>}$ to a known fiducial state ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$; ${\left|\psi\right>}$ is identified as ${\left|\psi\right>} \simeq {\left|\psi_\text{est}\right>} = \hat{U}^\dagger{\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$. The basic building blocks of the algorithm are preparation ($\mathbf{P}$), operation ($\mathbf{U}$), measurement ($\mathbf{M}$), and feedback ($\mathbf{F}$). The fiducial state ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$ is freely chosen as the most accurately detectable state. $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{M}$ constitute the learning apparatus ${\cal L}$, and $\mathbf{P}$ is regarded as a black box that repeatedly generates ${\left|\psi\right>}$ [^2]. $\mathbf{U}$ implements an arbitrary unitary operation $\hat{U}(\{ \alpha \}_\mathbf{U})$, where the experimental parameters $\{ \alpha \}_\mathbf{U}$ are updated in each learning step by using the measured data ${\cal D}=\{ m(\{\alpha\}_{\cal L} )\}$. ${\cal D}$ is the output of $\mathbf{M}$, which comprises “yes-or-no” questions on the desired target’s detection. If $\mathbf{M}$ projects the state onto ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$ in a trial, “success ($s$)” is tagged to the outcome $m$; otherwise, $m$ is labeled “failure ($f$).” The number of consecutive successes $M_S$ directly indicates the current learning status [^3].
{width="85.00000%"}
The learning rule for updating $\{ \alpha \}_\mathbf{U}$, which is the set of all experimental parameters used to control $\mathbf{U}$, are as follows: \[[**F.1**]{}\] if $m=s$, we retain $\{ \alpha \}_\mathbf{U}$ and set $M_S \leftarrow M_S +1$, and \[[**F.2**]{}\] if $m=f$, we change each $\alpha$ to $\alpha^{\text{new}} \leftarrow \alpha + \omega r$, where $r$ is a [*random*]{} number and $\omega = a ( M_S+1 )^{- b}$ is the weight for the random walk; $a$ and $b$ are free parameters chosen to optimize learning performance [^4]. The learning is complete when the halting condition $M_S = M_H$ is reached. From the learned parameters $\{ \alpha_\text{learn} \}_\mathbf{U}$, we identify ${\left|\psi\right>}$ such that ${\left|\psi_\text{est}\right>} = \hat{U}(\{ \alpha_\text{learn} \}_\mathbf{U})^\dagger {\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$ with a sufficiently small infidelity $\epsilon = 1- {\left|{\left<{\psi_\text{est}}|{\psi}\right>}\right|}^2 \ll 1$. This method is schematically summarized in Fig. \[fig:scheme\_n\_exp\](a). As the preset $M_H$ increases, the number of state copies $N$ increases and the final $\epsilon$ decreases. The resulting trade-off relation between $N$ and $\epsilon$ determines the overall learning efficiency. [*Experiments.*]{}—Figure \[fig:scheme\_n\_exp\](b) shows the experimental setup. We prepare heralded single photons through type-I spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in a BBO ($\beta$-BaB$_2$O$_4$) crystal pumped by mode-locked laser pulses (wavelength $390$ nm, repetition $76$ MHz, pulse width $150$ fs, average power $35$ mW). The down-converted photons are filtered by interference filters (half-maximum bandwidth $3$ nm) and coupled into single-mode fibers. The upward-propagating photons are detected by a trigger single-photon detector (SPD), and the downward-propagating photons are initialized by $\mathbf{P}$ and transformed by $\mathbf{U}$ before being measured by $\mathbf{M}$. The data are recorded as coincidence counts (time window $\simeq 2$ ns) of the two photons to minimize the effects of detector dark counts and stray light. An arbitrary polarization qubit ${\left|\psi\right>}$ is prepared (part $\mathbf{P}$) using a Glan-Thompson polarizer (extinction ratio $>10^5$), a half-wave plate (HWP), and a quarter-wave plate (QWP). Another QWP-HWP-QWP set constitutes a unitary operator (part $\mathbf{U}$), and the rotation angles $\{ \alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3 \}_\mathbf{U}$ of the three wave plates are the learning parameters updated according to \[[**F.1**]{}\] and \[[**F.2**]{}\]. The photons are finally split by a Wollaston prism (extinction ratio $>10^5$) into horizontal- and vertical-polarization modes, which are detected by two low-noise SPDs (Excelitas SPCM-AQRH-16). We define the detection of horizontal (vertical) polarization ${\left|H\right>}$ (${\left|V\right>}$) as success $s$ (failure $f$) (part $\mathbf{M}$). Procedures $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{M}$ are repeated with $\omega$-weighted random feedback to \[[**F.2**]{}\] until the halting condition is satisfied.
![\[fig:SNR\] (a) Arrival time distribution of output photons relative to the trigger signal (bin size is about $81$ ps, collection time: 10 h, quTAU). Photons are initialized to horizontal polarization and the wave plates in $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{U}$ are omitted during this measurement. The curves are Gaussian fits to the measured data. The center peak of the $f$ counts shows the (nonideal) extinction ratio of polarizers. (b) Dependence of the SNR of the measurement setup on the coincidence window. The window size (25 bins $\simeq$ 2 ns) sets an SNR of $1.55(24) \times 10^6$.](fig2sandf.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Experimental imperfections in all the procedures of $\mathbf{P}$, $\mathbf{U}$, $\mathbf{M}$ are suppressed to ensure high accuracy of the experiments. Since our scheme depends on every single detection of photons, false negative signals due to detector dark counts or finite extinction ratios of polarizers critically limit the eventual learning accuracy. $M_S$ exceeding the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) $\sim 1/q$, where $q$ is the probability to have a false negative (failure) signal, cannot be measured because the noises readily interfere the learning step before $M_S$ successes in a row can be collected. To raise the SNR, we first use polarizers with extinction ratio $> 10^5$ and SPDs with a low dark count rate $\simeq11$ cps. The time window size for coincidence detection of a signal photon and a trigger photon is chosen to compromise between the SNR and the overall detection efficiency. Figure \[fig:SNR\](a) shows the temporal distributions of success ($s$) and failure ($f$) signals with respect to trigger signals. For this measurement all the wave plates for $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{U}$ are removed not to perturb the initial state ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$ ideally leading to the $s$ detector. The ratio between the $s$ and $f$ counts according to the window size is plotted in Fig. \[fig:SNR\](b). As the SNR decreases in the large window size regime, we set the width as 2 ns that is close to the minimum to enclose the main peak in Fig. \[fig:SNR\](a). This yields an SNR ($s/f$) of $1.54(24) \times 10^{6}$.
To evaluate the infidelity $\epsilon = 1- {\left|{\left<{\psi_\text{est}}|{\psi}\right>}\right|}^2$ experimentally, we compare Stokes vectors of the auxiliary classical lights (sub-mW) whose center wavelength is same as the photons. We set ${\left|\psi\right>}=\hat{V}{\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$, where ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}={\left|H\right>}$ and $\hat{V}$ is given by the pre-aligned HWP and QWP of $\mathbf{P}$. The overlap ${\left<{\psi_\text{est}}|{\psi}\right>}$ after learning runs is ${\left<\mathbb{0}\right|}\hat{U}\hat{V}{\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$. A polarimeter (Thorlabs PAX1000IR1) measures the Stokes vectors $\vec{S}_{H'}$ and $\vec{S}_H$ of the classical light with and without passing through the wave plates in $\mathbf{U}\mathbf{P}$, respectively. We then obtain $\epsilon = \sin^2{\frac{\phi}{2}}$, where $\phi$ is the angle between $\vec{S}_{H'}$ and $\vec{S}_H$. Notably, $\epsilon$ is evaluated without estimating $\alpha_\text{learn}$ or identifying ${\left|\psi_\text{est}\right>}$. The standard deviation of the direction of Stokes vectors was $2$ mrad in our operation mode (50 Hz, 2048 pts FFT), and each measurement was repeated 100 times. Therefore the accuracy limit of $\epsilon$ owing to our experimental setup is estimated to be about $10^{-8}$ [^5]. Note that this direct comparison method avoid the errors caused by non-ideal retardation or angle offsets of the wave plates, in contrast to the evaluation of the infidelity using the experimentally obtained $\alpha_\text{learn}$.
{width="98.00000%"}
The experiments were repeated for $35$ random unknown input states. We set $M_H=6 \times 10^4$ as a halting condition. Whenever $M_S$ after detection of an $f$-signal exceeds the previous maximum of $M_S$, $\epsilon$ is experimentally measured and $N$ is recorded as the total copies consumed until that instant. At the moment $M_S$ passes $M_H$, a decision is made to stop the learning at the current $\mathbf{U}$ when the next $f$ is fired. The maximum $M_S$ observed in our experiment in this way was $451216$. The final halting condition was reached after $6$ to $18$ renewals of $M_S$. Data for $N$ and $\epsilon$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig:EXP\_results\](a) and they fit a curve $\epsilon = C (N+N_0)^{-\gamma}$ on a log-log scale, with $\gamma \simeq 0.983(19)$ (blue solid line), implying that our learning accuracy was $O(N^{-0.983})$ for $N$ unknown state copies. Remarkably, this tendency is maintained under the level of $10^{-5}$. The standard uncertainty (SU) of $\epsilon$ is smaller than the point size (except for the two at the bottom right). The minimum of observed $\epsilon$ was $2.4(4) \times 10^{-7}$. Our experimental precision excels the previous methods as summarized in Table \[tab:comparison\].
=0.1in
[max width=]{}
Method $\gamma$ $\epsilon_\text{min}$ Dim
------------------------ ----------- -------------------------- ------------
ABQT [@Kravtsov2013] 0.98(1) $> 6$$\times$$10^{-5}$ 2
SAQST [@Mahler2013] 0.90(4) $> 5$$\times$$10^{-5}$ 2
SGQT [@Chapman2016] NA$^{1)}$ $ 7(2)$$\times$$10^{-3}$ 2
RAQST [@Qi2017] NA$^{2)}$ $> 3$$\times$$10^{-4}$ 2$\times$2
ABQT [@Struchalin2018] 0.703(16) $> 2$$\times$$10^{-3}$ 9$\times$9
SSML (This work) 0.983(19) $< 1 \times 10^{-5}$ 2
: \[tab:comparison\] Comparison with the previous learning-based schemes. ABQT: adaptive Bayesian quantum tomography, SAQST: single adaptive quantum state tomography, SGQT: self-guided quantum tomography, RAQST: recursively adaptive quantum state tomography. $\gamma$ is the scaling factor of the accuracy defined as $\epsilon = O(N^{-\gamma})$. $\epsilon_\text{min}$ is the minimum infidelity achieved in the experiment. Dim denotes the Hilbert-space dimension of the unknown state. $^{1)}$Not calculated. $^{2)}$Multiple slopes.
We next consider state reproduction based on our scheme. Usually, an unknown state is reproduced by sequentially split procedures for identification and reconstruction. However, our SSML method does not require information on the learned state to configure a state preparation unit since $\mathbf{U}$ learns the unitary corresponding to an experimental setup used for transforming a fiducial state ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$ to the unknown state ${\left|\psi\right>}$. Therefore, reproduction is realized directly by applying $\mathbf{U}^{-1}$ to ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$, i.e. sending a photon in ${\left|\mathbb{0}\right>}$ through $\mathbf{U}$ [*backward*]{}, after the learning. The accuracy of reproduction can be estimated from the $M_S$ value. Figure \[fig:EXP\_results\](b) plots the reproduction accuracy $(1+M_S)^{-1}$ on a log-log scale. Figures \[fig:EXP\_results\](a) and \[fig:EXP\_results\](b) agree with each other as shown in the inset. Adoption of $(1+M_S)^{-1}$ as the learning accuracy is useful because the infidelity of ${\left|\psi_\text{est}\right>}$ needs not be independently estimated. This benefits extension to higher dimensions or multiple particles where standard quantum state tomography becomes more costly.
We compare the infidelities simply deduced from the wave plate angles comprising $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{U}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:EXP\_results\](c). Experimentally, the rotation angles of the wave plates were calibrated using an auxiliary laser light with an accuracy of $0.02^\circ$. The data in Fig. \[fig:EXP\_results\](c) show that it is difficult to maintain $\epsilon = O(N^{-1})$ below $10^{-2}$. Considering the rotational accuracy of the wave plates, we expect that a finite accuracy ($<\lambda/300$) and incidence angle sensitivity of phase retardations in the zero-order Quartz wave plates limit the estimation accuracy of the polarization states in this indirect method.
[*Summary and discussions.*]{}—We have experimentally realized single-shot-based learning of unknown pure states with an unprecedented level of precision. The linear-optics setup has exploited the merits of the proposed scheme over its fullest potential, to our belief. The fidelities of the learned states with various input states were verified by a devised method using auxiliary classical light. Experimentally achieved infidelities decreased as $O(N^{-0.983})$ almost reaching the theoretical accuracy limit, below $10^{-5}$. We have also verified that the learning accuracy calculated by the number of consecutive successes agrees with the independently measured fidelity between the input and output states. These results suggest that adaptive or machine-learning methods operated by shot-by-shot feedbacks can have practical merits for quantum measurement applications at the highest precision regime.
[*Acknowledgments.*]{}—S.M.L. and H.S.P. acknowledge the support of the R&D Convergence program of NST of Republic of Korea (CAP-15-08-KRISS), the KRISS project (GP2020-0010-02, -0013-30) and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants (No. 2019M3E4A1079894). J.K. was supported in part by KIAS Advanced Research Program (CG014604). J.B. was supported by a KIAS Individual Grant (CG061003). J.L. and J.B. acknowledge the support of NRF grants (2019R1A2C2005504 and NRF-2019M3E4A1079666). J.B. also acknowledge the research project on developing quantum machine learning and quantum algorithm (No. 2019-100) by the ETRI affiliated research institute.
[18]{}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 [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.052120) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.183601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.190404) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062122) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.98.052302) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.040402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032330)
[^1]: For example, systematic errors can arise due to non-ideal $\pi/2$ or $\pi$-pulse in (quasi-)atomic system. In optical system, non-exact phase retardation of waveplates and finite extinction ratio of polarizers can cause these errors.
[^2]: The only given information about $\mathbf{P}$ is the Hilbert-space dimension $d$ of ${\left|\psi\right>}$. Such an assumption is commonly used by estimation problems.
[^3]: Let us consider the probability $p$ to have $M_S$ consecutive $s$ signals for a learned state ${\left|\psi_\text{est}\right>}$. With the infidelity being $\epsilon = 1 - {\left|{\left<{\psi}|{\psi_\text{est}}\right>}\right|}^2$, the probability $p$ is $\epsilon(1-\epsilon)^{M_S}$, and the expectation value of the number of successes $\overline{M_S}$ is $\sum_{m = 0}^{\infty } m \epsilon (1-\epsilon)^m = \epsilon^{-1}-1$. We thus have $\epsilon = (1+\overline{M_S})^{-1}$, and can estimate $\epsilon$ by counting $M_S$.
[^4]: In the current experiments, we set $a=0.3$, $b=0.5$, and $r \in [-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2}]$. The $a$ value was found by trial and error. The $b$ value was chosen by noting that $\epsilon$ is a quadratic function of $\{\alpha\}$ near the optimal solution $\{\alpha_\text{sol}\}$).
[^5]: The $\epsilon$-estimation limit from uncertainty of polarimeter is $\sin^2\frac{u(\phi)}{2} \simeq \frac{s(\phi)^2}{4n} \simeq \frac{(2 \times10^{-3})^2}{4 \times 100}=10^{-8}$, where $u(\phi)$ and $s(\phi)$ denote the standard uncertainty and the standard deviation, respectively. It can be further improved by increasing the number $n$ of samples
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This talk reviews the progress made in the determination of the light quark masses using lattice QCD and QCD sum rules. Based on preliminary calculations with three flavors of dynamical quarks, the lattice estimate is $m_s = 75(15)$ MeV, a tantalizingly low value. On the other hand the leading estimates from scalar and pseudo-scalar sum rules are $99(16)$ and $100(12)$ MeV respectively. The $\tau$-decay sum rule estimates depend very sensitively on the value of $|V_{us}|$. The central values from different analyses lie in the range $115-120$ MeV if unitarity of CKM matrix is imposed, and in the range $100-105$ MeV if the Particle Data Group values for $|V_{us}|$ are used. I also give my reasons for why the lattice result is not yet in conflict with rigorous lower bounds from sum rule analyses.'
address: 'Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA'
author:
- 'Rajan Gupta [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Estimates of Light Quark Masses from Lattice QCD and QCD Sum rules
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Quark masses are important fundamental parameters of the standard model. Our ability to extract them from first principle calculations of QCD will signal the onset of quantitative control over the non-perturbative aspects of QCD. In this talk I will summarize the current status of the extraction of light quark masses. All results for quark masses will be in the $\overline {\rm MS}$ scheme at scale 2 GeV. Most of the time will be devoted to a review of the lattice results. A brief summary of sum-rule calculations will also be presented. A more detailed version of this review is being prepared in collaboration with Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Kim Maltman [@qm:revBGM:03].
Of the light quark masses, I will concentrate entirely on the strange quark mass. The reason is that, at present, estimates of the ratios from chiral perturbation theory $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2 m_s}{m_u + m_d} &=& 24.4(1.5) \nonumber \\
\frac{m_u}{m_d} &=& 0.553(43)
\label{eq:cptratios}\end{aligned}$$ are more accurate than the lattice results. Using them to extract $m_u$ and $m_d$, once $m_s$ is known, avoids some of the uncertainties due to chiral extrapolations in lattice calculations, and of ignoring electromagnetic effects in the simulations.
There is a recent result on the charm quark mass that deserves mention. I mention this to also highlight the fact that current lattice calculations indicate that the the whole interval $m_{u,d} -
m_c$ can be handled by the techniques used for light quarks. Consequently, charm quark can be simulated on the lattice with small discretization errors. Following this approach, the ALPHA collaboration has presented, in the quenched approximation, the ratio [@alpha:mc:02] $$\frac{m_c}{m_s} = 12.0(5) \,.
\label{eq:mcmsratio}$$ The advantage of their calculation, based on the Schrödinger functional approach and using the fully $O(a)$ improved theory, is that they convert lattice masses to renormalization group invariant masses using a non-perturbative method, thus avoiding the problem of the perturbative determination of the scale dependent renormalization constant $Z_m^0 $ at scales $1/a =2-4 $ GeV and the subsequent matching of the lattice to a continuum regularization scheme at these scales. They find $m_c^{\overline {\rm MS}}(2 {\rm GeV})= 1.301(34)$ GeV, which compares well with the recent estimate $m_c^{\overline {\rm MS}}(2
{\rm GeV})= 1.26(4)(12)$ GeV by the SPQcdR collaboration [@ROME:mc:01].
Lattice QCD {#sec:LQCD}
===========
A self-consistent determination of quark masses using lattice QCD will be equivalent to the validation of QCD as the correct theory of strong interactions. In ideal lattice QCD simulations we need to dial six input parameters in the generation of background gauge configurations and then calculate quark propagators on them. These are the gauge coupling $g$, and the masses for up, down, strange, charm, and bottom quarks. The top quark is neglected because it is too heavy and too short lived. If we had petaflop scale computers we could carry out simuations with three light and two heavy flavors of dynamical quarks with masses tuned to roughly their physical values $m_u$, $m_d$, $m_s$, $m_c$, and $m_b$. The inclusion of heavier quarks, charm and bottom, in the generation of background gauge configurations, however, are unlikely to significantly affect the vacuum structure and can therefore be safely neglected in the update for $Q^2$ much less than $9$ (or $100$) GeV${}^2$. To study their interactions, charm and bottom quarks are incorporated at the stage of calculating quark propagators on these background gauge configurations. Thus simulations with three light dynamical flavors are the goal of lattice calculations.
Correlation functions in Euclidean space-time, from which various properties of hadrons are extracted, are constructed by tying together these quark propagators and gauge link variables in appropriate combinations. For example the hadronic spectrum and associated decay constants are extracted from two-point correlation functions with the appropriate quantum numbers. The masses of hadrons, at least of the stable ones and of those with very narrow widths, are determined from the rate of fall-off of these correlation functions at large Euclidean time. If QCD is the correct theory, these should agree with experiments up to electromagnetic corrections which are neglected in current simulations.
Unfortunately, today’s computers are not powerful enough to carry out calculations with physical values of up and down quark masses. Instead, quarks heavier than their physical values, $i.e.$ in the range $m_s/8 - m_s$, have been studied. Also, isospin breaking and electromagnetic effects have been neglected, $i.e.$, simulations have been done with $m_u=m_d$ and electric charge turned off. From these simulations one extracts physical results by extrapolation in the up and down quark masses. The calculated hadron masses or decay constants are expressed as an expansion in quark masses using expressions derived from chiral perturbation theory. Once the coefficients of these chiral expansions, which are related to the low energy constants in the chiral Lagrangian, are determined then one has an overcomplete set of relations (because the number of hadronic observables are much larger than the input parameters) between experimentally measurable quantities and quark masses. Using these relations, extrapolations to the physical values of hadron masses or decay constants specify the physical quark masses. A self-consistent determination of the quark masses in terms of hadron masses or vice versa would validate QCD.
The success of this program requires that three conditions be met. First, the simulations should be done with three flavors of dynamical quarks and the input masses for all three quarks (both in the update and in the construction of external quark propagators, $i.e.$, sea and valence quarks) should be light enough to lie within the range of validity of the $O(p^4)$ chiral Lagrangian [@sharpe:pqqcd:00; @sharpe:pqqcd:01; @Sharpe:pqqcd:03]. This condition guarantees that the extracted chiral coefficients are the same as in QCD and reliable. Second, the simulations should be done at lattice scales small enough that discretization errors can be neglected or can be removed by a reliable extrapolation of the data to $a = 0$. Third, simulations should be done on large enough lattices so that finite volume effects are negligible.
There are two ways in which the renormalized quark mass at scale $\mu$ is defined using lattice simulations done at scale $1/a$: $$\begin{aligned}
m_R(\mu) &=& Z_m(\mu,a) \ m(a) \\
(m_1 + m_2)_R(\mu) &=& \frac{Z_A}{Z_P(\mu, a)} \frac
{\langle 0 \mid \partial_4 A_4 (t) J(0) \mid 0 \rangle}
{\langle 0 \mid P_a (t) J(0) \mid 0 \rangle} \,.
\label{eq:mdefn}\end{aligned}$$ The first method is based on the vector Ward identity and $m(a)$ is the bare lattice mass. The second method exploits the axial Ward identity and uses two-point correlation functions with source $J$ having pseudoscalar quantum numbers. For lattice formulations with an exact chiral symmetry, $e.g.$ staggered fermions, the two methods are identical. The connection between results obtained in the lattice regularization scheme and some continuum scheme like $\overline {\rm MS}$ used by phenomenologists is contained in the $Z's$. Their calculation introduces an additional source of systematic error in all quantities whose renormalization constants are different in the two schemes; spectral quantities (hadron masses) which do not get renormalized are an exception. I later discuss the quantitative effect on quark masses of the renormalization factors needed to connect lattice results to those in the $\overline {\rm MS}$ scheme.
In this talk I will analyze the state-of-the-art lattice data and discuss their reliability with respect to the following sources of systematic errors.
- The number and masses of dynamical quarks used in the update of gauge configurations.
- Chiral extrapolations to physical quark masses.
- Continuum extrapolations to $a=0$.
- The uncertainty in the calculation of the renormalization constant. In particular I will discuss the difference in estimates of masses between using 1-loop perturbative estimate, the one obtained in the RI/MOM scheme, and the fully non-perturbative one using the Schrödinger functional method.
State-of-the-art quenched results {#sec:discussQ}
=================================
The state-of-the-art quenched results are summarized in Table \[tab:mq\]. Two recent results deserve some elaboration (I have not included results from domain wall [@Dawson:mq0:03] or overlap [@Hernandez:mq0:02] fermions as they are still preliminary and do not include a continuum extrapolation).
[*(i) Results from the SPQcdR collaboration*]{} [@SPQcdR:mq:02] supercede all previous estimates from the ROME group [@ROME:mq:98; @ROME:mq:00], which is why the latter are not included in Table \[tab:mq\]. The new calculations improve on previous results in the following ways. (i) The SPQcdR calculations have been done using the non-perturbative $O(a)$ improved Sheikholeslami-Wohlert action at four values of the coupling, $\beta=6.0$, $6.2$, $6.4$ and $6.45$. Over this range the lattice scale changes roughly by a factor of two ($0.1 \to 0.051$ fermi), so a reliable extrapolation to the continuum limit has been carried out. (ii) The N${}^3$LO (4-loop) relation is used to connect the RI/MOM scheme to the $\overline {\rm MS}$ scheme for the renormalization constants, as well as in the running of the masses to the final scale $2$ GeV. (iii) Results using both the vector and axial Ward identity method have been computed and compared.
------------------------ ------------ -------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------
Action $\bar m$ $m_s(M_K)$ $m_s(M_\phi)$ scale $1/a$
Renorm. $=(m_u+m_d)/2$
JLQCD Staggered $4.23(29)$ $106(7)$ $129(12)$ $M_\rho$
(1999)[@JLQCD:mq:99] RI/MOM
CPPACS Wilson $4.57(18)$ $116(3)$ $144(6)$ $M_\rho$
(1999)[@CPPACS:mq:99] 1-loop TI
CP-PACS Iwasaki+SW $4.37^{+13}_{-16}$ $111^{+3}_{-4}$ $132^{+4}_{-5}$ $M_\rho$
(2000)[@CPPACS:mq:00E] 1-loop TI
ALPHA-UKQCD O(a) SW $ 97(4)$ $f_K$
\(1999) [@ALPHA:mq:99] SF
QCDSF O(a) SW $4.4(2)$ $105(4)$ $r_0 $
(1999)[@QCDSF:mq:99] SF
QCDSF Wilson $3.8(6)$ $87(15)$ $r_0 $
(1999)[@QCDSF:mq:99] RI/MOM
SPQcdR O(a) SW $4.4(1)(4)$ $106(2)(8)$ $r_0 $
(2002)[@SPQcdR:mq:02] RI/MOM
------------------------ ------------ -------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------
[*(ii) The QCDSF collaboration*]{} is in the process of updating their 1999 estimates of the strange quark mass [@QCDSF:mq:99]. They use the same methodology and the same values of coupling, $\beta=6.0$, $6.2$, and $6.4$, as the SPQcdR collaboration [@SPQcdR:mq:02], so their results will provide a detailed consistency check. Their latest unpublished quenched estimate is $r_0 m_s^{RGI}=0.341(2)$ which translates to $m_s^{\overline {\rm MS}}\approx 100$ MeV.
[**Discussion:**]{} The estimates in Table \[tab:mq\] show a wide range of values that seem to depend on the lattice action, the quantity used to set the scale and the quark masses, and the renormalization constant. What I would like to emphasize is that this spread does not imply that the lattice calculations are in conflict, simply that in the quenched approximation one does not expect consistent results and the spread is a manifestation of that.
Within the lattice community it has been known for some time that, in the quenched approximation, there is a roughly $10\%$ variation in estimates of the quark masses depending on the quantity used to set the lattice scale $a$ ($r_0$ or $M_\rho$ or $f_K$ or $M_N$ etc.). This was quantitatively demonstrated by Wittig at LATTICE 2002 [@wittig:rev:lat02] who converted the results from the four best simulations by SPQcdR, JLQCD, CP-PACS, and ALPHA-UKQCD collaborations to a common scale set by $r_0$. The result, shown in Table \[tab:wittig\], is that these four estimates of $m_s$, when extracted using a common scale setting quantity, i.e., evaluating $m_s/r_0$ in the continuum limit, show a much smaller variation and agree within errors. This indicates that the dependence on the fermion action, fitting procedures, statistics, and renormalization constants (perturbative versus non-perturbative) used in the calculations are much smaller effects.
The other lessons we have learned from quenched simulations are:
- Quenched simulations do not give consistent estimates of quark masses. Estimates depend on the hadronic states used to set the quark masses. For example $m_s$ set using $M_K$ differs by $15-20\%$ from that set using $M_{K^*}$ or $M_{\phi}$ when the scale is set by $M_\rho$. Thus, quark masses are sensitive probes of the effects of dynamical quarks.
- With non-perturbative results for $Z's$ in hand we can evaluate how well 1-loop tadpole improved perturbation theory works to convert lattice results to $\overline {\rm MS}$ scheme. We find that 1-loop estimates work to within $5\%$ for VWI method, $i.e.$ $Z_m$ for Wilson like fermions, and at about $10\%$ for the AWI method . Given that the rest of the errors, once a common scale setting quantity is used, are of this order, the collapse of results in Table \[tab:wittig\] to a roughly common value is not surprising.
The bottom line is that quenched simulations have allowed us to refine the numerical methods, and to understand and quantify all other sources of errors to within $5\%$. So removing this approximation becomes the next step in obtaining precise estimates.
------------- ---------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------------------
JLQCD $106(7)$ $M_\rho$ $0.90(1)$ $95(6)$
CP-PACS $114(2)(^{+6}_{-3})$ $M_\rho$ $0.86(2)$ $98(2)(^{+6}_{-3})$
SPQcdR $106(2)(8)$ $M_{K^*}$ $0.87(3)$ $92(2)(7)$
ALPHA-UKQCD $\phantom{1}97(4)$ $f_K$ $1.02(2)$ $99(4)$
------------- ---------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------------------
------------------------ ------------ ------------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -------------
Action $\bar m$ $m_s(M_K)$ $m_s(M_\phi)$ scale $1/a$
Renorm (GeV)
JLQCD Wilson+SW $3.22(4)$ $84.5(1.1)$ $96.4(2.2)$ $M_\rho$
(2002)[@JLQCD:mq2:02] 1-loop TI (2.22)
CP-PACS Iwasaki+SW $3.45^{+0.14}_{-0.20}$ $89^{+3}_{-6}$ $90^{+5}_{-11}$ $M_\rho$
(2000)[@CPPACS:mq2:01] 1-loop TI ($a\to 0$)
QCDSF-UKQCD O(a) SW $3.5(2)$ $90^{+5}_{-10}$ $r_0$
(2003)[@QCDSF:mq2:00] 1-loop TI $[1.9-2.2]$
QCDSF-UKQCD O(a) SW $85(1)$ $r_0$
(2003)[@QCDSF:mq2:03] RI-MOM $[1.9-2.2]$
------------------------ ------------ ------------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -------------
Discussion of $N_f=2$ results {#sec:discuss2}
=============================
The CP-PACS collaboration [@CPPACS:mq2:01; @CPPACS:mq2:01E] set the stage for large scale simulations with dynamical fermions by providing results that are of comparable quality to quenched simulations with respect to statistics, number of quark masses used in the simulations, and in the number of values of lattice spacings used in the continuum extrapolations. Their estimates displayed a number of desired features. The most striking was that estimates of the strange quark mass from four different methods $--$ using the axial and vector Ward identity definition of the quark mass and using either $M_K$ or $M_\phi$ to fix $m_s$ $--$ were in agreement. The numbers ranged from $86.9(2.3)$ to $90.3(4.9)$.
[*The JLQCD collaboration*]{} [@JLQCD:mq2:02] has provided another measurement of quark masses with two dynamical flavors that complements results by the CP-PACS collaboration [@CPPACS:mq2:01]. There are, however, a number of technical differences in the two sets of calculations. The CP-PACS calculation used the 1-loop mean field improved value of $c_{SW}$ in the fermion action, whereas the JLQCD uses the non-perturbative value. CP-PACS used the Iwasaki improved gauge action whereas JLQCD uses the unimproved Wilson (plaquette) action. CP-PACS had results at three values of the lattice scale ($a
\approx 0.22$, $0.16$, and $0.11$ fermi) while JLQCD provide data at a single point at $a=0.0887(11)$ fermi. (The fourth point in the CP-PACS calculation at $a=0.0865$ fermi was used only as a consistency check because it has small statistics.)
The JLQCD estimates spoil some of the nice consistency shown by the CPPACS analysis. In particular if one combines data from the two calculations, the extrapolations of AWI($M_K$) and AWI($M_\phi$) estimates give $\approx 88$ MeV, whereas those from VWI($M_K$) and VWI($M_\phi$) extrapolate to $\approx 93$ MeV as shown in Fig. \[fig:CPPACS\_mq\]. JLQCD quotes their AWI($M_K$) value, $84.5{}^{+12.0}_{-1.7}$, as their best estimate assuming this method has the smallest $a$ dependence. The difference between the AWI($M_K$) and VWI($M_K$) values is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty. I discuss these data further below.
![Estimates of $m_s$ from the $N_f=2$ simulations by the CP-PACS and JLQCD (points on the finest lattice with $a \approx 0.09$ fermi) collaborations. Linear extrapolation to the continuum limit are shown for all four definitions of the quark mass.[]{data-label="fig:CPPACS_mq"}](CPPACS_mq){width="0.99\hsize"}
[*The QCDSF collaboration*]{} [@QCDSF:mq:03] is in the process of updating their $N_f=2$ estimate given in [@QCDSF:mq2:00]. The piece of the calculation still missing is a non-perturbative evaluation of the renormalization constants. They should be finishing this calculation soon, meanwhile their unpublished estimate, using perturbative estimates of renormalization constants, is $m_s^{\overline {\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV}) = 85(11)$ MeV.
Continuum extrapolation {#sec:context}
=======================
I will use the data and fits in Figure \[fig:CPPACS\_mq\] to illustrate the systematic uncertainty associated with the continuum extrapolation and the associated issues of renormalization constants and the partially quenched approximation. Even though, as mentioned above, the point at $a \approx 0.09$ fermi is obtained with a different gauge and fermion action and therefore expected to have a different coefficient for the $O(a)$ errors, nevertheless, I have taken the liberty of making a common fit to qualitatively illustrate how \[in\]sensitive the conclusions are to current errors in individual points and to a linear fit that extends all the way to $a = 0.22$ fermi.
The extrapolated values are based on a linear fit to four points. Keeping a linear term is appropriate since $O(a)$ errors have not been fully removed from the action or the currents, however this does not mean that higher order corrections are unimportant. Looking at the fits it clear that more high precision data at smaller values of $a$ are required to include/exclude higher order terms with a reasonable degree of confidence. Given the spread, JLQCD choose $84.5{}^{+12.0}_{-1.7}$ as their best estimate of $m_s$ since $AWI(M_K)$ values show very little $a$ dependence. The different extrapolations are accommodated by associating a large positive systematic uncertainty to the central value.
It is interesting to note that the two estimates using $AWI$ extrapolate to $\approx 88$ MeV, whereas those using the $VWI$ to $\approx 93$ MeV. This suggests that the difference is not due to using $M_K$ versus $M_\phi$ but due to $AWI$ versus $VWI$ methods. There are two differences between these methods that could account for this discrepancy. First, the renormalization constants are different for lattice actions that do not preserve chiral symmetry (one needs $Z_A/Z_P$ in the $AWI$ and $Z_m=1/Z_s$ for the $VWI$); and second, there is an extra complication, in the case of the $VWI$ method, coming from having to determine $\kappa_c$, the critical value of the hopping parameter corresponding to zero quark mass. The problem of the determination of $\kappa_c$ using VWI from partially quenched simulations leads to an additive shift in estimates of quark masses. A comparative analysis of $m_{u,d}$ suggests that this issue leads to no more than $1$ MeV uncertainty in estimate of quark masses, so I concentrate on the $Z's$ for the explanation.
Repeating the CP-PACS and JLQCD analysis shows that most of the difference comes from the renormalization factor that connects lattice results to those in the $\overline {\rm MS}$ scheme at 2 GeV, i.e. $
Z_{VWI} \approx 1.1 Z_{AWI}$. Another way of stating this is that the lattice values of $m_s$ are roughly the same for the two methods; it is the connection between the two schemes which leads to majority of the difference. What we know from non-perturbative calculations of renormalization constants in the quenched approximation is that $Z_P$ is significantly (by about $10\%$) overestimated by tadpole-improved 1-loop perturbation theory, whereas $Z_S$ and $Z_A$ are much better approximated. If we assume that the same is true in the $N_f=2$ case, then correcting for this in the CP-PACS/JLQCD data would boost the $AWI$ results by about $10\%$ since $m_R = (Z_A/Z_P) m$, and explain the difference between $AWI$ and $VWI$ results. In that case all four fits would extrapolate to $m_s(\overline {\rm MS}, {\rm 2\
GeV}) \approx 93$ MeV. In the absence of non-perturbative estimates for the renormalization constants, my conclusion, based on the CP-PACS and JLQCD results, is to take a flat distribution between $84-93$ MeV as the best estimate for $m_s$. This range also incorporates the QCDSF-UKQCD estimates.
Note that my reservation of $\sim 10\%$ uncertainty due to the 1-loop $Z$’s does not apply to the four sets of quenched data analyzed by Wittig because none of those calculations use, simultaneously, the AWI method and 1-loop estimates for $Z$’s.
$N_f=3$ results {#sec:Nf3}
===============
Simulations with three flavors of dynamical quarks, all with masses $\le m_s$, represent a qualitatively big step forward. The reason for this favorable situation is that the coefficients of the chiral Lagrangian determined by fitting data for observables obtained at different masses to the corresponding chiral expansions are the same as QCD [@sharpe:pqqcd:00; @sharpe:pqqcd:01; @Sharpe:pqqcd:03]. Thus, as long as the simulations are done within the region of validity of $O(p^4)$ $\chi$PT, we can extract physical results even from simulations done at $3-18$ times $m_d$.
Very recently preliminary results from simulations with three flavors were reported by the MILC [@Bernard:mq3:03] and CP-PACS/JLQCD [@JLQCD:mq3:03] collaborations at LATTICE 2003. These are summarized in Table \[tab:mq3\].
----------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- --
Action $\bar m$ $m_s(M_K)$ scale $1/a$
Renorm AWI (GeV)
JLQCD Iwasaki+SW $2.89(6)$ $75.6(3.4)$ $M_\rho$
(2003)[@JLQCD:mq3:03] 1-loop TI ($2.05(5)$)
MILC AsqTad $2.5(1)$ $66(1)$ $M_\rho$
(2003)[@MILC:mq3:03] 1-loop TI ($1.6$)
MILC AsqTad $2.6(1)$ $68(1)$ $M_\rho$
(2003)[@MILC:mq3:03] 1-loop TI ($2.2$)
----------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- --
The CP-PACS/JLQCD collaboration [@JLQCD:mq3:03] employ the same analysis as in their $N_f=2$ study [@CPPACS:mq2:01] and use an improved gauge action as well as an $O(a)$ improved Wilson quark action. Analysis of the AWI data give $m_s = 75.6(3.4)$, and the analysis of the VWI data is not complete as the determination of $\kappa_c$ is not yet under control. Their most accurate number is from the AWI($M_K$) method and AWI($M_\phi$) gives a consistent value but with much larger errors. The difference between the two estimates is folded into the error estimate.
Two major issues remain with the CP-PACS/JLQCD results. These are (i) residual discretization errors as the calculation has been done at only one lattice scale and (ii) the use of 1-loop tadpole improved $Z$’s. To address the first requires more data which is a matter of time. On the second issue my reservation, that the 1-loop perturbation theory overestimates $Z_P$ by $\sim 10\%$, resurfaces. If this reservation holds up then their estimate could be as high as $85$ MeV. Based on these reservations, their numbers suggest the rather large range $m_s = 70-90$ MeV.
The MILC Collaboration results [@Bernard:mq3:03] are obtained using improved staggered fermions. (An older estimate, based on an independent analysis of a sub-set of this MILC data, was reported by Hein [@Hein:mq3:02] at LATTICE 2002.) I have listed the results under AWI even though for staggered like fermions (lattice fermions with a chiral symmetry) the AWI and VWI methods are identical. A major step forward in the MILC analysis is they perform a combined fit to data for $M_K^2$ at two sets of lattices (coarse and fine) using a staggered $\chi$PT expression that includes discretization and taste symmetry violating corrections $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& \hspace{-0.4in} \frac{(M_{K^+_5}^{1-loop})^2}{\mu\,(m_x+m_y)} \nonumber \\
&=& 1 + \frac{1}{16\pi^2f^2} \Big(
[ -\frac{2 a^2 \delta_V^\prime}{M^2_{\eta_V^\prime} - M^2_{\eta_V}}
( l(M^2_{\eta_V}) - l(M^2_{\eta_V^\prime}) ) ] \nonumber \\
&{}& \hphantom{+++++1} + [ V \to A ] + \frac{2}{3} l(M^2_{\eta_I}) \Big) \nonumber \\
&{}& \hphantom{1} + \frac{16\mu}{f^2}(2L_8-L_5)(m_x+m_y) \nonumber \\
&{}& \hphantom{1} + \frac{32\mu}{f^2}(2L_6-L_4)(2m_q+m_s) \ + \ a^2 C \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $m_x+m_y$ is the sum of the masses of the two valence quarks. Even though fit to a complicated S$\chi$PT expression with 44-46 parameter, having very precise data allows them to extract the central values and the associated errors estimates reliably. Their best estimates are $m_{u,d}=2.7(6)$ and $m_s=70(15)$ MeV. A very large part of the error comes from the fact that to the 1-loop estimate for $Z_m$ they assign an overall $\sim 20\%$ uncertainty due to the neglected $O(\alpha^2)$ terms. In my opinion this is a conservative estimate of the $O(\alpha_s^2)$ uncertainty, especially since the 1-loop coefficient for the improved (AsqTad) staggered fermions is small, ($\lsim 0.12\alpha_s$) [@Hein:mq3:02]. The authors are clearly keeping in mind the lesson learned from quenched unimproved staggered fermions where that 1-loop perturbation theory underestimated $Z_m$ (and thus $m_s$) by almost $30\%$.
A concern with the MILC simulation is the lack of a “proof” that the staggered fermion action describes four degenerate flavors in the continuum limit. Furthermore, there is the potential problem of loss of locality of the action when taking the square root and the fourth root of the staggered determinant to simulate two plus one dynamical flavors. These issues are being investigated [@Kenchtli:locality:03] now that all other sources of errors are understood, and the community is moving towards providing precision results. Unfortunately, as of now there is no airtight argument that settles these issues.
Based on these two preliminary calculations, and if forced to quote a single number, my choice is $m_s = 75(15)$ MeV. This estimate is certainly very exciting and provocative. Furthermore, with simulations at more values of the lattice spacing and with different fermion formulations coming on line, this exciting result will soon be refined.
As mentioned before, the power of $N_f=3$ analysis, provided all quark masses are small such that 1-loop $\chi$PT applies, is that the chiral parameters are those of physical QCD. Thus, in addition to estimates for quark masses the MILC collaboration [@Bernard:mq3:03] extract the Gasser-Leutwyler constants from their fit. In particular they find that $$2L_8 - L_5 = - 0.1(1)({}^{+1}_{-3}) \times 10^{-3} \,.$$ This is significantly outside the range $$-3.4\times 10^{-3} \ \lsim\ 2L_8 - L_5 \ \lsim\ -1.8 \times 10^{-3}$$ acceptable for $m_u=0$. The same conclusion has been reached by the OSU group [@Kilcup:mu3:03]. In short, lattice results do not favor the possibility that $m_u = 0$ is the solution of the strong CP problem.
$m_s$ from QCD Sum Rules {#sec:sumrules}
========================
Three types of sum-rules have commonly been employed to determine light quark masses. They are (i) Borel (Laplace) transformed sum rules (BSR’s); (ii) finite energy sum rules (FESR’s); and (iii) Hadronic $\tau$ decay sum rules (these $\tau$-decay SR are a special case of FESR) .
The starting point for the pseudoscalar and scalar QCD sum rules are the axial and vector Ward identities $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^\mu A^{us}_\mu &=& (m_s+m_u)\ i :\bar s \gamma_5 u: \nonumber \\
\partial^\mu V^{us}_\mu &=& (m_s-m_u)\ i :\bar s u:\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding integrated 2-point correlation functions, $e.g.$ $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& \hspace{-0.4 in} \Psi_{5}(q^2) \\
&\equiv& \hphantom{(m_{d})^2} i\int\,d^4 x e^{iq\cdot x}
\langle 0\vert T\{\partial^{\mu}A_{\mu}^{\dag}(x),
\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}(0)\}\vert 0\rangle , \\
&=& (m_{d}+m_{u})^2 i\int\,d^4 x e^{iq\cdot x}
\langle 0\vert T\{P^{\dag}(x),P(0)\}\vert 0\rangle \,.\end{aligned}$$ $\Psi(q^2)$ and $\Psi_{5}(q^2)$ are analytic on the complex $q^2$ plane with poles and cuts along the positive real axis. They can be calculated using OPE and perturbation theory for large $|q^2|$ (say $q^2 >
s_0$) and away from the cut. They are related, through dispersion relations, to spectral functions, for example, $\rho_5(s) = {\rm Im}
\Psi_5(s)/\pi$.
Finite energy sum rules are based on the observation that the spectral function has singularities (poles and cuts) only along the real axis as shown in Fig. \[fig:contour\]. The contour integral shown in Fig. \[fig:contour\] is zero so $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{s_0} w(s) \rho_{hadronic}\ ds = \frac{-1}{2\pi i} \oint_{|s|=s_0} w(s) \Pi_{PQCD}\ ds\end{aligned}$$ The left hand side (discontinuity along the real axis) is evaluated using a combination of experimental input and modeling for the spectral function. The right hand side is evaluated using the OPE and perturbation theory for the dominant mass-dimension $D=0$ term. The scheme and scale ($s_0$) used for the perturbation defines the scheme and scale in which the quark mass is defined. $w(s)$ are conveniently chosen weights designed to improve convergence. Since the OPE is expected to break down near the real axis at $s_0$, recent analyses have employed “pinched” weights like $w(s)=(1 - s/s_0)^n$ that have a zero at $s=s_0$. The resulting sum rules are called pinched FESR.
![The contour integral used in finite energy sum rules. The poles and cuts are along the real axis. Duality refers to the matching, on average, between the perturbative and hadronic ansätze.[]{data-label="fig:contour"}](contour){height="0.25\vsize"}
In the Borel transformed sum rule one integrates the spectral function of the vector current along the real axis $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal B} [\Pi]_{OPE} &=& \hphantom{+} \int_0^{s_0} e^{-s/M^2} \rho_{hadronic} ds \nonumber \\
&{}& + \int_{s_0}^\infty e^{-s/M^2} \rho_{OPE} ds \,.\end{aligned}$$ For the strange scalar channel the $l.h.s.$ is proportional to $(m_s -
m_u)^2$. In the OPE, the dominant $D=0$ term is evaluated using perturbation theory and defines the scheme and scale at which the mass is evaluated. The breakup of the integral on the $r.h.s$ depends on a suitable choice of $s_0$. It has to be large enough that the integral of the perturbative estimate of the OPE (second term) is reliable and yet small enough that there is experimental data on the spectral function up to that point. Otherwise there is a large gap in which $\rho$ can, at best, be modeled. Second, the answer should be independent of the Borel Mass $M$. One cannot choose M too small as the transform gives more weight to the low $s/M^2$ region. This is good on the $r.h.s.$ but unfortunately on the $l.h.s.$ it enhances the uncertainty of the higher dimensional operators. At the same time we want $s_0/M^2 > 1$ so that the unknown contribution of the “continuum” to $\rho_{hadronic}$ is suppressed.
There are three important questions central to the reliability of all sum rules analyses.
- How well does the operator product expansion converge? Furthermore, are the non-perturbative corrections, like quark and gluon condensates, instanton effects, and neglected higher order terms in the OPE small?
- How well is the perturbative expansion for the leading terms in the OPE known and how well does it converge at the scale $s_0$?
- How well is the hadronic spectral function determined through a combination of experimental data and modeling?
With respect to these points two major improvements have occurred over the last five years. These include
- The perturbative series for the scalar and the pseudo-scalar sum-rules are now known up to $\alpha_s^3$ (four loops) [@Chetyrkin:4loop:97].
- Better models of the hadronic spectral function have been developed that satisfy a number of consistency checks.
A number of hurdles, mainly in our ability to determine the phenomenological spectral function, remain.
- In the pseudoscalar sum rule for $m_u+m_d$, the hadronic spectral function includes the masses and widths of the kaon, $K(1460)$, and $K(1830)$ resonances (to extract $m_u+m_d$ from the pion channel the corresponding states are $\pi, \pi(1300), \pi(1770)$). What are not known are the decay constants of the $K(1460)$, and $K(1830)$ and their relative phase. Also, the $K\pi\pi$ continuum is modeled using resonant forms with or without chiral perturbation theory modifications. The prospects of new data to improve the spectral function are small.
- In the scalar sum rule for $m_s$, the spectral function starts at the $K\pi$ threshold. Also known are the masses and widths of the $K_0^\ast(1430) $ and $K_0^\ast(1950) $ resonances. Below the $K_0^\ast(1430) $ threshold, the spectral function is fairly well determined using the $K_{e3}$ data and the $K\pi$ scattering phases. What is not known is whether there is significant phase variation near and above the $K_0^\ast(1950) $ resonance. Prospects of improving $\rho(s)$ from B-factories are marginal.
Without going into details which will be presented in [@qm:revBGM:03], my conclusion, based on the Borel and finite energy sum rules, is that the most complete analysis for $m_s$ from the scalar channel gives $m_s= 99(16)$ MeV [@sr:msJOP:01]. For the pseudo-scalar channel it is $m_s= 100(12)$ [@Maltman:ms:02].
The $\tau$-decay sum rules utilizes data for the ratio of semi-hadronic to leptonic decay rate $$\begin{aligned}
R_\tau^{V/A,ij} = \frac{\Gamma [ \tau^- \to \nu_\tau {\rm hadrons}_{V/A,ij} (\gamma) ] }
{\Gamma [ \tau^- \to \nu_\tau e^- \bar\nu_e(\gamma) ]}\end{aligned}$$ where $V/A,ij$ denotes the flavor ($ud$ or $us$) of the Vector $(V)$ or Axial $(A)$ current. Experimental data gives access to the $u,d$ and $u,s$ spectral functions. The perturbative series for the $1+0$ part of the $D=2$ $\tau$-decay sum rule are known only up to $\alpha_s^2$ (three loops). The $0$ part of the $\tau$-decay series is known to $\alpha_s^3$. Here $0$ and $1$ refer to the angular momentum of the hadronic part. A summary of current estimates of $m_s$ from hadronic $\tau$-decay sum rules is given in Table \[tab:taudecay\] [@qm:revDPF00:00].
--------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- -------------
[Reference]{} [Original]{} CKMU input CKMN input
CKP98 [@tsr:msCKP:98] $145\pm 36$ ($|V_{us}|=.2213$) $116\pm 31$ $99\pm 34$
KKP00 [@tsr:msKKP:00] $125\pm 28$ ($|V_{us}|=.2218$) $120\pm 28$ $106\pm 32$
KM00 [@tsr:msKM:00] $115\pm 17$ ($|V_{us}|=.2196$) $110\pm 16$ $100\pm 18$
CDGHPP01 [@tsr:CDGHPP:01] $116^{+20}_{-25}\ \ $ ($|V_{us}|=.2215$)
GPJSP03 [@tsr:GPJSP:03] $117\pm 17$ $103\pm17$
--------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- -------------
.01 in\[tab:taudecay\]
The interesting feature to note, notwithstanding the many improvements, are that the results in Table \[tab:taudecay\] have been fairly constant over the last three years. The central value of $m_s$ has stayed in the range $115-120$ MeV if unitarity of CKM matrix is imposed, and $m_s = 100-105$ MeV if the Particle Data Group values for $|V_{us}|$ are used. Both estimates have errors of about $20$ MeV. In short, the results are very sensitive to the value of $|V_{us}|$, and the difference between the two estimates is of the same size as all the other uncertainties combined.
Drawbacks of the $\tau$-decay sum rule are: (i) The Cabibbo suppressed hadronic $\tau$-decay data has not been separately resolved into $J=0$ and $J=1$ contributions and (ii) there is large uncertainty in the perturbative behavior of the scalar component. Some progress in reducing a sub-set of these uncertainties was recently reported by the GPJSP collaboration [@tsr:GPJSP:03] where they used a phenomenological parameterization for the scalar and pseudoscalar spectral function in the OPE. These new results, shown in Table \[tab:taudecay\], are, nevertheless, consistent with previous estimates.
In terms of future prospects, we expect significant improvement in the measured $\tau$-decay spectral function, especially above the $K^\ast$. Meanwhile, it is clear that, at least as far as the central value of $m_s$ is concerned, pushing it significantly below $100$ MeV is disfavored by the sum-rules analyses.
Lower bounds on quark masses
============================
Even though the sum rule and Lattice QCD estimates overlap within combined uncertainties, the current best estimate of the lattice result ($75\pm15$) MeV is tantalizingly small. The following question is often raised. Does this lattice number violate rigorous lower bounds predicted from a sum-rule analysis? My answer is NO and I give a brief justification for this [@qm:revBGM:03].
The most stringent bound predicted is the “quadratic” bound obtained by Lellouch, de Rafael and Taron [@sr:quadbound:98]. It predicts, assuming perturbation theory becomes reliable by $Q=2 $ GeV, that $m_s({\overline {\rm MS}}, 2\ {\rm GeV}) > 100$ MeV. The Achilles’ heel of this analysis is that the perturbative expression that enters into the quadratic bound has very large coefficients [@Maltman:ms:02]: $$\begin{aligned}
3 {\cal F}_0 {\cal F}_2 - 2 ({\cal F}_1)^2 &=& 1 + \frac{25}{3} a(Q^2) + 61.79 a^2(Q^2) \nonumber \\
&{}& \hphantom{0} +\ 517.15 a^3(Q^2) + \ldots \nonumber \\
&=& 1 + 0.83 + 0.61 + 0.51 + \ldots \,.\end{aligned}$$ where the second expression has been evaluated at $Q = 2$ GeV with $a
\equiv \alpha_s/\pi \approx 0.1$. Pushing $Q \ge 2.5$ GeV already lowers the bound to $m_s({\overline {\rm MS}}, 2\ {\rm GeV}) > 80$ MeV and going to a still safer value of $Q = 3 $ GeV where $\alpha_s/\pi =
0.086$ gives $m_s({\overline {\rm MS}}, 2\ {\rm GeV}) > 60$ MeV. With such a poorly behaved series it becomes an article of faith as to what $Q$ is considered safe, and therefore what value to take as the lower bound.
There are two other bounds for which the perturbation theory is reasonable even for $Q \ge 1.4$ GeV. These are the $\Sigma_0 \ge 0$ given in [@sr:quadbound:98], and the “ratio” bound given in [@sr:BGM:98]. Assuming that perturbation theory is reliable at $Q = 1.4$, both these bounds provide a much lower value, $i.e.$, $m_s({\overline {\rm MS}}, 2\ {\rm GeV}) > 80$ MeV.
My bottom line on these bounds is that we should be concerned only if lattice results go significantly below $m_s = 70 MeV$. So, the interesting question is which estimate will change over time? Will the sum rule estimate come down to match the lattice value of $\approx 75$ MeV, or will the lattice result rise to match the sum-rule value $m_s
\gsim 100$ MeV? Or will both change within their errors and come together in the middle? And finally, it will be interesting to understand which, if any, systematic error is being underestimated in the two methods.
[^1]: It is a pleasure to thank Patricia Ball, Jonathan Flynn, and Laurent Lellouch for the opportunity to present this review, and to Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Kim Maltman for many discussions. I also thank S. Aoki, T. Kaneko, C. Bernard, V. Lubicz, H. Wittig, and G. Schierholz for discussions of their calculations. The work of R.G. was, in part, supported by DOE grant KA-04-01010-E161.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study thermodynamics in $f(R)$ gravity with the disformal transformation. The transformation applied to the matter Lagrangian has the form of $\g_{\m\n} = A(\phi,X)g_{\m\n} + B(\phi,X)\pa_\m\f\pa_\n\f$ with the assumption of the Minkowski matter metric $\g_{\m\n} = \e_{\m\n}$, where $\phi$ is the disformal scalar and $X$ is the corresponding kinetic term of $\phi$. We verify the generalized first and second laws of thermodynamics in this disformal type of $f(R)$ gravity in the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) universe. In addition, we show that the Hubble parameter contains the disformally induced terms, which define the effectively varying equations of state for matter.'
author:
- 'Chao-Qiang Geng'
- 'Wei-Cheng Hsu'
- 'Jhih-Rong Lu'
- 'Ling-Wei Luo'
title: 'Thermodynamics of $f(R)$ Gravity with Disformal Transformation'
---
Introduction
============
The connection between thermodynamics and general relativity (GR) has been found by studying black hole entropy. In 1972, Bekenstein stated that this entropy is proportional to the area of the event horizon [@Bekenstein:1973ur]. The thermodynamical behavior of black holes was also examined in 1974 by Bardeen, Carter, and Hawking in Ref. [@Bardeen:1973gs], showing that black hole entropy and temperature are associated with the corresponding area, $A$, and surface gravity, $\kappa_s$, on the horizon, respectively. In 1975, Hawking further presented that the proportionality of black hole temperature and surface gravity is equal to $1/{2\pi}$, i.e., $T=\kappa_s/{2\pi}$, by considering matter near the black hole horizon as quantum matter [@Hawking:1974sw]. In 1995, Jacobson pointed out that the Einstein equation can be deduced from the thermodynamic properties of spacetime together with the proportional relation of the entropy and horizon area, which gives a deeper connection between thermodynamics and gravity [@Jacobson:1995ab]. Later, this idea was applied to cosmology. In particular, in 2005, Cai and Kim [@Cai:2005ra] demonstrated that the Friedmann equations can be derived by applying thermodynamic properties to the apparent horizon of the universe. Upon replacing different entropy formulae of the black hole in different gravity theories, such as Gauss-Bonnet and Lovelock gravity, one can obtain the corresponding modified Friedmann equations [@Cai:2005ra; @Akbar:2006er].
It is generally believed that studies of the connections between thermodynamics and gravity theories would give us some insight into the real nature of gravity. In particular, gravity theories, such as scalar-tensor [@Akbar:2006er; @Wu:2008ir; @Cai:2006rs], $f(R)$ [@Akbar:2006er; @Eling:2006aw; @Akbar:2006mq; @Wu:2008ir; @Bamba:2009id; @Bamba:2009ay; @Bamba:2010kf], Gauss-Bonnet and Lovelock gravity [@Cai:2006rs; @Cai:2008mh; @Paranjape:2006ca] and braneworld [@Wu:2007se; @Sheykhi:2007zp; @Sheykhi:2007gi; @Wu:2007em] models have been widely discussed for this purpose. It is known that $f(R)$ gravity, which takes the gravity part of the LaGrangian as a function of the Ricci scalar $R$ rather than the LaGrangian given by Hilbert, is one of the popular modified gravity theories for understanding dark energy in cosmology. The field equation for $f(R)$ has also been derived by considering spacetime as a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system such that an entropy production term is added in the Clausius relation, i.e., $d\hat{S}=dQ/T +d_i \hat{S}$. [@Eling:2006aw]. Here, the horizon entropy is defined by $\hat{S}= F(R)A/(4G)$ with $F(R)=\partial f/
\partial R$ and $d_i \hat{S}$ a bulk viscosity entropy production term. However, in the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) universe, the Friedmann equation can be viewed both in equilibrium and non-equilibrium thermodynamic descriptions [@Bamba:2009id]. In addition to thermodynamical properties, $f(R)$ gravity has been investigated in a wide variety of aspects. For example, the effect deviated from GR can be identified as the effective dark energy, which could lead to the accelerating universe [@Riess:1998cb; @Perlmutter:1998np]. In addition, by choosing $f(R)=R^N$, one can show that there is a correspondence between the Einstein-conformally invariant Maxwell solutions and the solutions of $f(R)$ gravity without matter field [@Hendi:2009sw]. Considering the trace anomaly as the source in $f(R)$ gravity, it can be demonstrated that there exist different (Schwarzschild-AdS (dS), Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordström) black hole solutions in different models [@Hendi:2012nj]. Furthermore, $f(R)$ gravity has instanton solutions in 4-dimension Eguchi-Hanson space, and soliton solutions in 5-dimension Eguchi-Hanson-like spacetimes [@Hendi:2012zg]. After performing a conformal transformation on $f(R)$ gravity or a scalar-tensor theory, the two theories both become GR with a dynamical scalar field. In this sense, the two frames are mathematically equivalent. However, the intriguing question is whether these two frames are physically equivalent or not. Capozziello [*et al*.]{} have showed that the two frames are physically non-equivalent by considering specific $f(R)$ models in cosmology and found that their Hubble parameters are different [@Capozziello:2010sc]. Similar situation happens when considering the finite time cosmological singularities of $f(R)$ gravity. The singularities change from one type to another when transforming from one frame to the other [@Bahamonde:2016wmz]. The equivalence of both frames for the scalar-tensor theory have also been studied from the thermodynamics viewpoint [@Bhattacharya:2017pqc]. Another alternative of modified gravitational theories is to modify Riemannian geometry into Finslerian one [@Lammerzahl:2018lhw; @Lammerzahl:2012kw; @Itin:2014uia; @Girelli:2006fw]. Within this framework, physical equations such as Maxwell’s equations, and Dirac equations should be rewritten into a flat Finslerian spacetime rather than a Minkowskian one [@Lammerzahl:2018lhw; @Itin:2014uia]. In [@Bekenstein:1992pj], Bekenstein considered a kind of gravitational theories, which contains two geometries. He allowed the physical geometry ($\gamma_{\mu\nu}$) with the matter dynamics could be Finslerian. To respect the weak equivalence principle and causality, Finsler geometry must go back to Riemannian one, and the corresponding matter metric, $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$, must be related to the gravitational metric ($g_{\mu\nu}$) by the so-called disformal transformation $$\g_{\m\n} = A(\phi, X)g_{\m\n} + B(\phi, X)\pa_\m\f\pa_\n\f \label{disformal Def.}\,,$$ where $\f$ and $X$ are the disformal field and corresponding kinetic term, while $A$ and $B$ are functions of $\phi$ and $X$, respectively. This kind of the theory applied to relativistic cosmology for the early universe was first done by Kaloper [@Kaloper:2003yf], in which the disformal field is considered to be the source of inflation. The transformation can only couple to matter. Motivated by the work in Ref. [@Bekenstein:1992pj], we consider the situation that the flat Finslerian spacetime is reduced to the Minkowskian one, and examine thermodynamic properties in $f(R)$ gravity. That is, in our study, we explore thermodynamic properties in $f(R)$ gravity by including the disformal transformation with the assumption of the Minkowski matter metric, $\g_{\m\n}=\eta_{\m\n}$. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. , we first calculate the equations of motion of our model in the Jordan frame. Then, we derive the generalized first and second laws of thermodynamics in both equilibrium and non-equilibrium descriptions. We also show the relation between the two pictures. In Sec. , we explore the cases in the Einstein frame. Finally, we conclude in section .
Thermodynamics in Jordan Frame
==============================
The action of $f(R)$ gravity with matter is given by $$\label{A:FR}S = \frac{1}{2\kappa}\int \mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{-g}\, f(R) + \sum_i S^{(i)}_{\text{M}}\,,$$ where $\kappa\equiv8\pi G$ with $G$ the Newton’s constant, $f(R)$ is a function of the scalar curvature $R$, and $S^{(i)}_{\text{M}}=\int \mathrm{d}^4x\, \la_i$ correspond to the non-interacting matter actions with $i=(\text{m}$,$\text{r})$, representing non-relativistic matter and radiation, respectively. We use the disformal transformation of (\[disformal Def.\]) in $f(R)$ gravity, with $X := -(1/2)g^{\m\n}\pa_\m\f\pa_\n\f$ the kinetic term of the $\phi$ field. According to the disformal transformation by Bekenstein, the matter fields directly couple to the background field $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$, while the matter action must be identified as $S^{(i)}_{\text{M}}[\g_{\m\n}]$, in which the model can be regarded as a special kind of the bimetric theory [@Magueijo:2010zc]. In this work, we will concentrate on the simple case with an assumption that matter is described on the Minkowski spacetime with metric given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MinkmatterMetric}
\eta_{\mu\nu} = A(\f,X)g_{\m\n} + B(\f,X)\pa_\m\f\pa_\n\f\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_{\m\n} = \text{diag} (-1,+1,+1,+1)$ in our notation. To examine how the disformal transformation will affect the $f(R)$ gravity theory in cosmology, we assume our space to be homogeneous and isotropic. As a result, the disformal field, $\phi$, only depends on time now. More precisely, the equation $\pa_{\mu}\phi=(\dot{\phi},0,0,0)$ holds at present. Subsequently, one can obtain $\d(\f,_\rho)$ in terms of $\d\gumn$ and $\d \f$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\d(\pa_{\beta}\f)= \bar{V}_\beta A_{\m\n} \delta g^{\m\n}
+\bar{V}_{\beta} \delta \f\,, \label{keyeqn01}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{V}_{\b} &= (\pa_{\b}\f)\frac{4\pa_{\f}A-2X\pa_{\f}B}
{(2X)(-4A,_X+2B+2XB,_X)}\,, \nonumber\\
A_{\m\n} &= \frac{-Ag_{\m\n}-2A,_X\pa_\m\f \pa_\n\f
+ XB,_X\pa_\m\f \pa_\n\f}{4\pa_{\f}A-2X\pa_{\f}B}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The equations of motion from the variations with respect to $g^{\mu\nu}$ and $\phi$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
FG_{\mu\nu} &= \kappa\sum_i\Big(T^{(i)}_{\m\n} + t^{(i)}_{\m\n}\Big)
+ \kappa\hat{T}^{(\text{d})}_{\m\n}\,, \label{eom_fr01} \\
0 &= \frac{\pa\la_i}{\pa\f}
+ \frac{(\pa_\a\f)(4\pa_\f A-2X\pa_\f B)}{(2X)(-4A,_X+2B+2XB,_X)}
\frac{\pa\la_i}{\pa (\pa_\a\f)}\,, \label{eom_phi01}\end{aligned}$$ where $F:=d{f(R)}/d{R}$ and the comma denotes as the partial derivative. The terms in the right-handed side of (\[eom\_fr01\]) correspond to the energy-momentum tensors of matter, disformally induced matter, and effective dark energy, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(i)}_{\m\n}
&= \frac{-2}{\sqrt{-g}}
\frac{\delta\la_i}{\delta \gumn}\,,\nonumber\\
t^{(i)}_{\m\n}
&= \frac{-2}{\sqrt{-g}}
\bigg(\frac{-Ag_{\m\n}-2A,_X\pa_\m\f \pa_\n\f+XB,_X\pa_\m\f \pa_\n\f}
{(2X)(-4A,_X+2B+2XB,_X)}\bigg)(\pa_\a \f)
\frac{\pa\la_i}{\pa (\pa_\a \f)}\,, \nonumber\\\hat{T}^{(\text{d})}_{\m\n}
&= \frac{1}{8\pi G}\bigg(\frac{1}{2}\gmn(f(R) - FR)
+ \na_\mu\na_\nu{F} - \gmn\Box{F}\bigg),\label{Tdmn}\end{aligned}$$ which are all assumed to be perfect fluids, given by $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(i)\,}_{\m\n}
&= (\r_{i} + P_{i})u_\m u_{\n} + P_{i}\,g_{\m\n}\,, \nonumber\\t^{(i)\,}_{\m\n}
&= (\r^{\text{(in)}}_{i} + P^{\text{(in)}}_{i})u_\m u_\n
+ P^{\text{(in)}}_{i}g_{\m\n}\,,\nonumber\\\hat{T}^{\text{(d)}\,}_{\m\n}
&= (\hat{\r}_{\text{d}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}})u_\m u_\n
+ \hat{P}_{\text{d}}\,g_{\m\n}\,, \label{E:matter energy sress}\end{aligned}$$ where $\square F:=(1/\sqrt{-g})
\partial_{\mu}(\sqrt{-g} g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}F)$, $u^\m = dx^\m/d\tau$ is the unit four-vector with $\gumn u_\m u_\n = -1$, $\r_{i}$ $(\r^{\text{(in)}}_{i})$, $\hat{\r}_{\text{d}}$ are the energy density for the $i$th content of matter (induced matter) and dark energy, and $P_{i}$ $(P^{\text{(in)}}_{i})$, and $\hat{P}_{\text{d}}$ are the corresponding pressures, respectively. In this article, we will only focus on the *flat* FLRW universe ($k=0$) in (\[A:FR\]). The corresponding metric is given by $$\label{FLRW}
ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t)
\big( dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 \big)\,,$$ with $a(t)$ the scale factor. By comparing the components of $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, the relations
$$\begin{aligned}
A(\phi,X) &= 2XB(\phi,X)+1\label{pphi00}\,,\\
A(\phi,X) &=\frac{1}{a^2(t)} \label{pphi01}\end{aligned}$$
can be derived, where $X=\dot{\phi}^2/2$ with the dot denoting the derivative with respect to t. As a result, the induced energy-momentum tensor in (\[Tdmn\]) can be read as $$\begin{aligned}
t^{(i)}_{\m\n}
= \frac{1}{a^3}\frac{g_{\m\n}a \dot{\phi}\ddot{\phi}
-[3\dot{a}+(a^2 - 1)a \ddot{\phi} \dot{\phi}^{-1}]
(\pa_\m \phi)(\pa_\n \phi)}{3 \dot{a} \dot{\phi}}
\bigg(\frac{\pa \la_i}{\pa \dot{\phi}}\bigg)\,.\label{tmn00}\end{aligned}$$ By taking the trace of (\[tmn00\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
3P^{\text{(in)}}_{i}-\rho^{\text{(in)}}_{i}
= \frac{3 a \ddot{\phi} + 3\dot{a} \dot{\phi}
+ a^3 \ddot{\phi}}{3 a^3 \dot{a}}
\bigg(\frac{\pa \la_i}{\pa \dot{\phi}}\bigg)\,.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the matter LaGrangian $\mathcal{L}_{i}$ is independent of the derivative of metric tensor, leading to the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}_{i}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}
= \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{i}}{\partial g^{\mu\nu}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ One also finds that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\pa \la_i}{\pa \f}
= \frac{\pa \la_i}{\pa g_{\mu\nu}}\frac{\pa g_{\mu\nu}}{\pa \f}
=\bigg[ \frac{a^2 \dot{a} \dot{\phi} -a^2\dot{a} \dot{\phi}
-a^3\ddot{\phi}(1-a^2)}{\dot{\phi}^2}\bigg]\rho_{i}
+ \bigg(\frac{6a^2\dot{a}}{\dot{\phi}}\bigg)P_{i}\,,\end{aligned}$$ along with the equation of motion in (\[eom\_phi01\]) to be $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg[\frac{a^2 \dot{a} \dot{\phi} -a^2\dot{a} \dot{\phi}
-a^3\ddot{\phi}(1-a^2)}{\dot{\phi}}\bigg]\rho_{i}
+ 6a^2\dot{a} P_{i}
+ \frac{a^3[a \dot{\phi}^{-1}\ddot{\phi}^2 (1-a^2)
- 3 \dot{a}\ddot{\phi}]}{3 a \ddot{\phi}
+ 3\dot{a} \dot{\phi}+a^3 \ddot{\phi}}
(3P^{\text{(in)}}_{i}-\rho^{\text{(in)}}_{i}) = 0\,. \label{EOM for phi}\end{aligned}$$ Since the energy-momentum tensors of matter and induced matter in (\[Tdmn\]) all contain the derivative terms in the matter LaGrangian $\la_i$, we can connect matter and induced matter and derive the relations of energy densities and pressures between them. From the $tt$-components in (\[Tdmn\]) and (\[E:matter energy sress\]), the induced energy density can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\r_{i}^{(\text{in})} = \lambda\,\r_{i}\label{rhophi01}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:Disformal coupling}
\lambda = \frac{(1-a^2)(3 \dot{a} \dot{\phi} + a^3 \ddot{\phi})}{3 \dot{a} \dot{\phi}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is related to the disformal field $\phi$ as expected. Similarly, one can write the induced pressure in terms of the energy density by $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(\text{in})}_{i}
= -\frac{a \ddot{\phi}(1-a^2)}
{3 \dot{a} \dot{\phi}}\rho_i\,.\label{induced pressure}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, the equations of state (EoS) of matter and induced matter are given by $w_i := P_i/\r_i$ and $w_{i}^{(\text{in})}
:= P_{i}^{(\text{in})}/\r_{i}^{(\text{in})}$, respectively.
By using (\[rhophi01\]) and (\[induced pressure\]), one can describe $P^{(\text{in})}_i$ in terms of $\rho_i$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_{i}^{(\text{in})} &=w_{i}^{(\text{in})} \lambda \r_i\,, \label{pphi01}\end{aligned}$$ with the induced EoS of $w_{i}^{(\text{in})}$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:Induced EoS}
w_{i}^{(\text{in})} = - \frac{a \ddot{\phi}}{3 \dot{a} \dot{\phi} + a^3 \ddot{\phi}}
\equiv w^{(\text{in})}\,,\end{aligned}$$ independent of the ordinary matter content. Please note that (\[pphi01\]) can also be presented as $P^{(\text{in})}_i=(w^{(\text{in})}/w_i) \lambda P_{i}\,$. The induced matter can be totally written in terms of ordinary matters, implying the modification of the matter contents of the universe through the disformal coupling.
The reason that the induced matter content is related by the ordinary matter content in (\[rhophi01\]) and (\[pphi01\]) can be understood in a sense that the disformal field, $\phi$, is always generated to offset the gravitation field, $g_{\m\n}$, to force the physical metric, which governs the equation of motion of ordinary matter [@Bekenstein:1992pj], to Minkowski one. Therefore, once the ordinary energy and pressure, $\rho_i$ and $P_i$, are given, one can obtain (\[Eq:Disformal coupling\]) and (\[Eq:Induced EoS\]), so that $\r_{i}^{(\text{in})}$ and $P_{i}^{(\text{in})}$ can be found by (\[rhophi01\]) and (\[pphi01\]), respectively.
We assume that there contain non-relativistic matter(m) and radiation(r) in our model. For non-relativistic matter, the pressure is zero, $P_{\text{m}} = 0$, which gives the vanished matter EoS of $w_\text{m}=0$, while $w_{\text{r}} = 1/3$ for radiation. The resulting induced energy density and pressure are given by $$\label{E: induce m}
\r_{\text{m}}^{(\text{in})} = \lambda \r_\text{m} \,,
\quad P_{\text{m}}^{(\text{in})} = \lambda\, w^{(\text{in})} \, \r_\text{m}\,.$$ Similarly, one has $$\label{E: induce r}
\r_{\text{r}}^{(\text{in})} = \lambda\, \r_\text{r}\,,
\quad P_{\text{r}}^{(\text{in})} =\lambda\,w^{(\text{in})}\, \r_{\text{r}}\,.$$ According to (\[E: induce m\]), (\[E: induce r\]) and (\[FLRW\]), we obtain the modified Friedmann equations as $$\begin{aligned}
3FH^2 &= 8\pi G\Big((1 + \l )\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}}\Big)
- 3H\dot{F} - \frac{1}{2}(f - FR),\nonumber\\
-2F\dot{H} &= 8\pi G\Big(\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}}+P_r
+ \l \big(1+w^{(\text{in})}\big)\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}}\Big)
+ \ddot{F} - H\dot{F}\label{eomfrhdot_01}\,.\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}} = \r_\text{m}+\r_\text{r}$.
By simply rearranging the $H^2$ and $\dot{H}$ terms to the left-hand side (LHS) and the others to the right-hand side (RHS) in (\[eomfrhdot\_01\]), one obtains that $$\begin{aligned}
H^2 &= \frac{8\pi G_{\text{eff}}}{3}
\bigg(\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}} +\hat{\r}_{\text{d}}
+ \l\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}}\bigg)\,,\nonumber\\
\dot{H} &= -4\pi G_{\text{eff}}
\bigg(\big(\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}}
+ \hat{\r}_{\text{d}} + P_{\text{r}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1+w^{(\text{in})}\big)\bar{\rho}_{\text{M}}\bigg)\,,\label{noneq01}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\r}_{\text{d}} &= \frac{1}{8\pi G}
\bigg(\frac{1}{2}(FR - f) - 3H\dot{F}\bigg)\,,\nonumber\\
\hat{P}_{\text{d}} &= \frac{1}{8\pi G}
\bigg( \ddot{F} +2H\dot{F} - \frac{1}{2}(FR - f)\bigg) \label{noneqDE},
\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\text{eff}}=G/F$. The subscript “d” in represents the effective dark energy component of $f(R)$ in the non-equilibrium picture. In addition, one can express (\[eomfrhdot\_01\]) in terms of the following by adding $H^2$ and $\dot{H}$ terms on the both sides of the two equations, respectively, given by $$\begin{aligned}
H^2 &= \frac{8\pi G}{3}\bigg((\bar{\rho}_\text{M}+\r_{\text{d}})
+\l\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\bigg),\nonumber\\ \dot{H} &= -4\pi G\bigg(\big(\bar{\rho}_\text{M}
+\r_{\text{d}} + P_{\text{r}} + P_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1+ w^{\text{(in)}}\big)\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\bigg)\,,\label{eq01}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\r_\text{d} &= \frac{1}{8\pi G}\bigg[ \frac{1}{2}(FR - f)
- 3H\dot{F} + 3H^2(1-F)\bigg],\nonumber\\
P_\text{d} &= \frac{1}{8\pi G}\bigg[ \ddot{F} +2H\dot{F}
- \frac{1}{2}(FR - f) - (1-F)(2\dot{H} + 3H^2 )\bigg]\,.\label{eqDE}
\end{aligned}$$ with $G$ the ordinary Newtonian constant. It will be shown in the later context that (\[noneq01\]) corresponds to the non-equilibrium description of thermodynamics, whereas (\[eq01\]) the equilibrium one.
Non-Equilibrium Description of Thermodynamics in $f(R)$ Gravity
----------------------------------------------------------------
### First Law in Non-Equilibrium Description
To study thermodynamics, we start with the non-equilibrium picture. [color[red]{}According to and ]{}, it is clear that the extra terms in the RHSs of (\[noneq01\]) arise from the assumption that the matter metric is related to the gravitational one through the disformal transformation. We can put Friedmann equations (\[noneq01\]) in more compact forms, $$\begin{aligned}
H^2 &= \frac{8\pi G}{3F} \hat{\r}_t \,, \nonumber\\
\dot{H} &= -\frac{4 \pi G}{F} (\hat{\r}_t + \hat{P}_t)\,.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\r}_t &= \rho_{\text{M}}+\hat{\r}_{\text{d}}
= \bar{\rho}_{\text{M}} + \l \bar{\rho}_{\text{M}}
+ \hat{\r}_{\text{d}}\,, \nonumber\\
\hat{P}_t &= P_{\text{M}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}}
= P_{\text{r}} + \l w^{\text{(in)}} \bar{\r}_{\text{M}}
+ \hat{P_{\text{d}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\rho_{\text{M}}$ is represented as the total matter density including induced matter.
Please note that the energy-momentum tensors from matter and radiation obey $\na_\m({T}^{(\text{m})}{}^\m{_\n} + {T}^{(\text{r})}{}^\m{_\n}
+ t^{(\text{m})\m}{_\n} + t^{(\text{r})\m}{_\n}) =0$, resulting in the continuity equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_\text{M}+3H(\rho_\text{M}+P_\text{M}) = 0\label{contieq01}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the continuity equation for dark energy is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\hat\r}_\text{d} + 3H(\hat{\r}_{\text{d}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}})
= \frac{3H^2\dot{F}}{8\pi G}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the non-equilibrium picture, the theory requires $\dot{F} \neq 0$, so that the above equation does not vanish. This leads to the non-equilibrium description of thermodynamics in $f(R)$ gravity in the Jordan frame. The four-dimensional FLRW metric in (\[FLRW\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = h_{ab}dx^a dx^b + \rb^2 d\O^2,\label{flrw2}\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{ab} = \text{diag}(-1, a^2(t))$ is the two-dimensional metric with $a$, $b=(0,1)$, while $x^0 = t$, and $x^1=r$. To examine the thermodynamic properties in $f(R)$, we require the apparent horizon $\rb_A$ to satisfy the condition $h^{ab}(\pa_{a}\rb)(\pa_{b}\rb) = 0$ [@Cai:2005ra]. In the FLRW spacetime, it is given by $\rb_A = H^{-1}$, so that $d\rb_A = - \rb_{A}^{2} \dot{H}dt$. Combining with (\[noneq01\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{Fd\rb_A}{4\pi{G}}
= \rb_A^2\bigg(\big(\bar{\rho}_\text{M} + \hat{\r}_{\text{d}}
+ P_{\text{r}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1+w^{(\text{in})}\big)\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\bigg)dt\,.\end{aligned}$$
We use the dynamical entropy $\hat{S} = A/(4G_{\text{eff}})$ in the $f(R)$ gravity theory at a given horizon, where $A = 4\pi\rb_A^2$ is the area of the apparent horizon and $G_{\text{eff}}$ is the effective Newton’s constant. The dynamical entropy was first discussed by Wald [@Wald:1993nt], who proposed that the entropy of the black hole in GR is a Noether charge [@Wald:1993nt; @Iyer:1994ys]. It was also shown that this entropy is associated with the effective gravitational coupling, which depends on the variation of gravity LaGrangian with respect to the Riemann curvature tensor [@Brustein:2007jj]. For $f(R)$ gravity, in the non-equilibrium picture, since $G_{\text{eff}} = G/F$ is the effective gravitational coupling, we have the entropy [@Briscese:2007cd; @Bamba:2010kf; @Jacobson:1993vj; @Iyer:1994ys; @Cognola:2005de] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{S} = \frac{FA}{4G}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The associated temperature at the apparent horizon is proportional to the surface gravity $\k_s$, given by [@Bardeen:1973gs] $$\begin{aligned}
T = \frac{|\k_s|}{2\pi}\,.\end{aligned}$$ By substituting $\kappa_s = 1/(2\sqrt{-h})\pa_\a
\big( \sqrt{-h}h^{\a\b}\pa_\b\rb\big)|_{\rb=\rb_A}$ in the above equation, we get $$\begin{aligned}
T = \frac{1}{2\pi\rb_A}\bigg(1-\frac{\dot\rb_A}{2H\rb_A}\bigg)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which should be positive [@Bamba:2010kf]. As a result, $Td\hat{S}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
Td\hat{S} = 4\pi \rb_A^2\Big((\bar{\rho}_\text{M}
+ \hat{\r}_{\text{d}} + P_{\text{r}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}})
+ \l(1+w^{(\text{in})})\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\Big)
\Big(1+\frac{\dot{H}\rb_A^2 }{2}\Big)dt
+ \frac{T}{G}\pi\rb_A^2dF\,. \label{tempdS}\end{aligned}$$ The Misner-Sharp energy within the apparent horizon in $f(R)$ gravity is given by [@Wu:2007se; @Wu:2008ir; @Bamba:2010kf; @Gong:2007md] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{E} = \frac{\rb_A}{2G_{\text{eff}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which can be regarded as the total energy within the apparent horizon, i.e., $ \hat{E}=V\hat{\rho}_t$, where $V = 4\pi\rb_A^3/3$ is the volume of the horizon.
Differentiating the Misner-Sharp energy, we have $$\begin{aligned}
d\hat{E}
&= 4 \pi \rb_A^2
\big(\bar{\rho}_\text{M}
+\hat{\r}_{\text{d}} +\l\bar{\rho}_\text{M} \big)
d\rb_A+\frac{\rb_A}{2G}dF \nonumber\\
& \quad-4 \pi H \rb_A^3\Big(\big(\bar{\rho}_\text{M}
+ \hat{\r}_{\text{d}} + P_{\text{r}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1+w^{(\text{in})}\big)\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\Big)dt\,. \label{eqndE}\end{aligned}$$ By introducing the work density [@Cai:2005ra; @Bamba:2010kf] $\hat{W} = -\frac{1}{2} \big(T^{(\text{m})ab} + T^{(\text{r})ab}
+ t^{(\text{m})ab} + t^{(\text{r})ab}
+ \hat{T}^{(\text{d})ab}\big)h_{ab}$, with the perfect fluids, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{W} = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\big(\bar{\rho}_\text{M} + \hat{\r}_{\text{d}}
- P_{\text{r}} - \hat{P}_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1-w^{(\text{in})}\big)\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ and the new quantity $$\begin{aligned}
d_i\hat{S} &= -\frac{1}{T}\frac{\rb_A}{2G}(1 + 2\pi\rb_A T)dF\,,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Td\hat{S} + Td_i\hat{S} = -d\hat{E} + \hat{W}dV\,,\label{neq1stlaw}\end{aligned}$$ which is the first law in the non-equilibrium picture. We can see that it is similar to the result in $f(R)$ gravity [@Akbar:2006mq; @Bamba:2009ay]. The first law of thermodynamics is still valid when we introduce a disformal relation in (\[MinkmatterMetric\]).
### Second Law in Non-Equilibrium Description
To describe the second law of thermodynamics in the non-equilibrium picture, we write down the Gibbs function in terms of the total energy $\hat{\r}_t$ pressure $\hat{P}_t$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
Td\hat{S}_t = d(\hat\r_t V) + \hat{P}_tdV
= Vd\hat\r_t + (\hat\r_t + \hat{P}_t)dV\,.\end{aligned}$$ The time derivatives of entropies lead to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dS/dt}
\frac{d\hat{S}}{dt} + \frac{d_i\hat{S}}{dt} + \frac{d\hat{S}_t}{dt}
= -\frac{48\pi^2 \dot{H}}{R H^3}\bigg((\bar{\rho}_\text{M}
+ \hat{\r}_{\text{d}} + P_{\text{r}} + \hat{P}_{\text{d}})
+ \l\big(1 + w^{(\text{in})}\big)\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\bigg)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the relations of $R = 6(\dot{H} + 2H^2)$ and $T^{-1}=24 \pi H/R$ have been used. It can be seen that the influence of the disformal transformation on the rate of the entropy change is the corrections of the energy densities and pressures. By using the Friedmann equations (\[noneq01\]), (\[dS/dt\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:entropy rate in j-frame}
\frac{d\hat{S}}{dt} + \frac{d_i\hat{S}}{dt} + \frac{d\hat{S}_t}{dt}
= \frac{12 \pi F \dot{H}^2}{GR H^3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Please note that for our current accelerating expansion of the universe, the Hubble parameter $H$ and Ricci scalar $R$ are positive. On the other hand, to avoid the ghost and instability problems, the positive condition of $F=df/dR$ and $d^2f/dR^2$ should be satisfied. It can be checked that the equation (\[Eq:entropy rate in j-frame\]) is positive for all viable $f(R)$ gravity theories due to the viable condition of $F=df/dR>0$ [@Nunez:2004ji; @Faraoni:2007yn]. As a result, (\[Eq:entropy rate in j-frame\]) is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\hat{S}}{dt} + \frac{d_i\hat{S}}{dt} + \frac{d\hat{S}_t}{dt}
\geq 0\,, \label{2ndlawneq}\end{aligned}$$ when considering the disformal transformation with the Minkowski matter metric. This conclusion is the same as that in $f(R)$ gravity without the disformal transformation [@Bamba:2009ay]. It is clear that our results in (\[neq1stlaw\]) and (\[2ndlawneq\]) are reduced to those in $f(R)$ without the disformal transformation in the non-equilibrium picture in the limit of $\l \rightarrow 0$.
Equilibrium Description of Thermodynamics in $f(R)$ Gravity
-----------------------------------------------------------
### First Law in Equilibrium Description
In the equilibrium picture, we use (\[eq01\]) and as modified Friedmann equations. The energy-momentum tensor of dark energy is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(\text{d})}_{\m\n}
= \frac{1}{8\pi G}\Big(\frac{1}{2}\gmn(f(R)
- FR) +\na_\mu\na_\nu{F} - \gmn\Box{F} - (1-F)G_{\m\n}\Big)\label{tdmn}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since dark energy in the equilibrium picture is treated as a perfect fluid, $T^{(\text{d})}_{\m\n}$ can be written in the form of $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(\text{d})}_{\m\n}
&= (\r_{\text{d}} + P_{\text{d}})u_\m u_\n + P_{\text{d}}\,g_{\m\n}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the modified Einstein equation in (\[eom\_fr01\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\m\n} = 8 \pi G\Big(T^{(\text{m})}_{\m\n} + T^{(\text{r})}_{\m\n}
+ t^{\text{(m)}}_{\m\n} + t^{\text{(r)}}_{\m\n}
+ T^{(\text{d})}_{\m\n} \Big)\,. \label{Einsteineq_equil}\end{aligned}$$
Since the left-handed side of (\[Einsteineq\_equil\]) has the property of $\na_\mu G^{\mu\nu}=0$, the total energy-momentum should obey the continuity equation $\na_\mu(T^{(\text{m})}{}^\m{}_\n+T^{(\text{r})}{}^\m{}_\n
+ t^{(\text{m})}{}^{\m}{}_{\n} + t^{(\text{r})}{}^{\m}{}_{\n}
+ T^{(\text{d})}{}^\m{}_\n) = 0$. After applying the FLRW metric to the continuity equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\r_t + 3H(\r_t + P_t) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ with $\rho_t = (\bar{\rho}_\text{M}+\r_{\text{d}}) +\l\bar{\rho}_\text{M}$ and $P_t = P_{\text{r}} + P_{\text{d}} + \l w^{(\text{in})}\bar{\rho}_\text{M}$, one finds that dark energy also obeys its own continuity equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\r_\text{d} + 3H(\r_\text{d} + P_\text{d})= 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ along with the one for matter and radiation, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\na_\m\big(T^{(\text{m})}{}^{\mu}{_\nu} + T^{(\text{r})}{}^{\mu}{_\nu}
+ t^{(\text{m})}{}^{\mu}{_\nu} + t^{(\text{r})}{}^{\mu}{_\nu}\big) = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
\na_\mu\big(T^{(\text{m})}{}^\m{}_\n+T^{(\text{r})}{}^\m{}_\n
+ t^{(\text{m})}{}^{\m}{}_{\n} + t^{(\text{r})}{}^{\m}{}_{\n}
+ T^{(\text{d})}{}^\m{}_\n\big)
= 0\end{aligned}$$ for the total energy-momentum. Hence, the equilibrium description of thermodynamics can be advocated. Using the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $S=A/4G$ and Hawking temperature $T=|\kappa_s|/2\pi$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
TdS = 4\pi\rb_A^2
\bigg(\big(\bar{\r}_\text{M}
+ \r_{\text{d}} + P_{\text{r}} + P_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1 + w^{(\text{in})}\big)\bar{\r}_\text{M}\bigg)
\bigg(1+\frac{\dot{H}\rb_A^2 }{2}\bigg)dt\,. \label{1steqp01}\end{aligned}$$ Defining the Misner-Sharp energy within the apparent horizon as $E = \rb_A/2G = V\rho_t$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
dE &= 4\pi\rb_A^2\bigg((\bar{\r}_{\text{M}}+\r_{\text{d}})
+ \l\bar{\r}_{\text{M}}\bigg)d\rb_A \nonumber\\
&\quad -4\pi\rb_A^2\bigg(\big(\bar{\rho}_\text{M}+\r_{\text{d}}
+ P_{\text{r}} + P_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1+ w^{\text{(in)}}\big)\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\bigg)dt\,. \label{MSEeqp01}\end{aligned}$$ With (\[1steqp01\]) and (\[MSEeqp01\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
TdS = -dE + WdV\,.\label{1stlaweqp}\end{aligned}$$ where $W$ is the work density, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
W &= -\frac{1}{2}
\bigg(T^{(\text{m})ab} + T^{(\text{r})ab}
+ t^{(\text{m})ab} + t^{(\text{r})ab}
+ T^{(\text{d})ab}\bigg)h_{ab} \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{2}
\bigg(\big(\bar{\rho}_\text{M} + \r_{\text{d}}
- P_{\text{r}} - P_{\text{d}}\big)
+ \l\big(1 - w^{\text{(in)}}\big)\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\bigg)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Please note that (\[1stlaweqp\]) is the first law of thermodynamics in the equilibrium picture of $f(R)$ gravity, in which there is no other entropy contribution. It is because dark energy satisfies its own continuity equation in the equilibrium picture, whereas the non-equilibrium one does not.
### Second Law in Equilibrium Description
To describe the second law in the equilibrium picture, we take the Gibbs function in terms of the total energy $\r_t$ and pressure $P_t$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
TdS_t = d(\r_t V) + P_tdV = Vd\r_t + (\r_t + P_t)dV\,.\end{aligned}$$ The time derivatives of the entropies can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}(S + S_t)
= -\frac{48 \pi^2 \dot{H}}{R H^3}
\bigg((\bar{\rho}_\text{M}+\r_{\text{d}}
+ P_{\text{r}} + P_{\text{d}})
+ \l(1+ w^{\text{(in)}})\bar{\rho}_\text{M}\bigg)\,.\end{aligned}$$ By using (\[eomeqphdot\_01\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}(S + S_t)
= \frac{12\pi\dot{H}^2}{GRH^3}\geq 0\,,\label{2ndlaweq}\end{aligned}$$ which is the second law of thermodynamics. We see that the difference between the two descriptions is related to the function $F$. In the limit $\l \rightarrow 0$, the results in (\[1stlaweqp\]) and (\[2ndlaweq\]) can be also reduced to those in $f(R)$ gravity without the disformal transformation in the equilibrium picture.
### Entropy Difference Relation of Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Descriptions
Comparing the definitions of the effective dark energy in two frames (\[Tdmn\]) and (\[tdmn\]), we find that $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(d)}_{\m\n} = \hat{T}^{(d)}_{\m\n} - \frac{1 - F}{8 \pi G}G_{\m\n}\,.\end{aligned}$$ As a result, we relate the entropies in the two descriptions as $$\begin{aligned}
dS = d\hat{S} + d_i\hat{S} + \frac{\rb_A}{2GT}
- \frac{2\pi\rb_A^4}{G}H\dot{H}(1-F)dt\,.\end{aligned}$$ After some calculations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
dS = \frac{1}{F}d\hat{S} + \frac{1}{F}
\frac{2H^2 + \dot{H}}{4H^2 + \dot{H}}d_i\hat{S}\,.\label{eqvsnoneq}\end{aligned}$$
Thermodynamics in Einstein Frame
================================
To discuss thermodynamics in the Einstein frame, we apply the conformal transformation to $f(R)$ gravity. The metric tensor transforms as $\ti{g}_{\a\b}(x^\m) = \O^2(x^\m)g_{\a\b}(x^\m)$ which leads to $\eta_{\mu\nu}=\O^{-2}A\ti{g}_{\mu\nu}+B\pa_\m\phi\pa_\n\phi$. Due to the conformal transformation, it can be found that the matter LaGrangian densities are non-minimally coupled by $\O$ through the disformal transformation.
The action in the Einstein frame can be achieved by the constraint of $\O^{-2}F = 1$, which is read as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{actionEF01}S = \int \mathrm{d^4}x \sqrt{-\ti{g}}\bigg[\frac{1}{2\kappa}\ti{R}
-\frac{1}{2}\ti{g}^{\m\n}\pa_\m \o \pa_\n \o - V(\o)\bigg]
+ \sum_i S^{(i)}_{\text{M}}[\o,\ti{g}_{\mu\nu},\phi, \Psi_{\text{M}}]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the conformal scalar is defined as $\o = \a\ln\O$ with $\a=\sqrt{3/(4\pi{G})}$ and $V(\o)=(FR-f)/{2 \kappa F^2}$. Since the thermodynamic behavior does not affected by the magnitude of time interval, we can define $d\ti{t} = \O\, dt$ and $\ti{a}(\ti{t}) = \O\, a(t)$ in the Einstein frame for simplicity. Thus, the FLRW metric becomes [@DeFelice:2010aj] $$\begin{aligned}
d\ti{s}^2
= -d\ti{t}^2 + \ti{a}^2(\ti{t})\bigg(dr^2
+ r^2d\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2{\theta}d\varphi^2\bigg)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Again, we have used the constraint $\d\emn = 0$ to give the relation of $$\begin{aligned}
\d(\pa_{\beta}\f)
&= (\pa_{\beta}\f)
\bigg(\frac{4\pa_\f A-2X\pa_\f B}
{(2X)(-4\pa_XA+2B+2X\pa_X B)}\bigg)
\delta \f \nonumber \\
&\quad + (\pa_{\beta}\f)
\bigg(\frac{-\O^{-2}A\ti{g}_{\m\n}
- 2\pa_XA\,\pa_\m\f\,\pa_\n\f
+ X\pa_XB\,\pa_\m \f\,\pa_\n \f}
{(2X)(-4\pa_XA+2B+2X\pa_XB)}\bigg)
e^{\frac{2\o}{\alpha}} \,\delta \tilde{g}^{\m\n} \nonumber \\
&\quad + \frac{2}{\alpha}
\bigg(\frac{-\O^{-2}A\ti{g}_{\m\n}-2\pa_X A\pa_\m\f\,\pa_\n\f
+ X\pa_X B\pa_\m \f\,\pa_\n\f}{(2X)(-4\pa_X A+2B+2X\pa_X B)}\bigg)
g^{\m\n}(\pa_{\beta}\f) \, \delta\o\,.\end{aligned}$$ Varying the action (\[actionEF01\]) with respect to $\ti{g}^{\mu\nu}$, $\phi$ and $\o$, we obtain the field equations $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{G}_{\m\n} &= \kappa\bigg(\sum_i \Big(\ti{T}^{(i)}_{\m\n}
+ \ti{t}^{(i)}_{\m\n}\Big)
+ \ti\mft_{\m\n}\bigg),\nonumber \\0 &= \frac{\pa\la_{i}}{\pa\phi} + \frac{(\pa_{\beta}\f)(4\pa_\f A
- 2X\pa_\f B)}{(2X)(-4\pa_XA+2B+2X\pa_X B)}
\frac{\pa\la_i}{\pa (\pa_\b \f)} ,\nonumber \\0 &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{-\ti{g}}}\pa_\m\Big(\sqrt{-\ti{g}} \,
\ti{g}^{\m\n} \pa_\n \o\Big) - \frac{\pa V}{\pa \o}
+ \sum_i\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\ti{g}}}\frac{\delta\la_i}{\delta\o}
- \frac{1}{\alpha}\,\ti{g}^{\m\n} \ti{t}^{(i)}_{\m\n}\bigg)\,, \label{eomEFomega01}\end{aligned}$$ where the quantities $\ti{T}^{(i)}_{\m\n}$, $\ti{t}^{(i)}_{\m\n}$ and $\ti\mft_{\m\n}$ are the energy-momentum tensors for matter, induced matter and the conformal scalar in Einstein frame, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{T}^{(i)}_{\m\n}
&= \frac{-2}{\sqrt{-\ti{g}}}
\frac{\delta\la_{i}}{\delta\tgumn}\,, \nonumber\\\ti{t}^{(i)}_{\m\n}
&= \frac{-2}{\sqrt{-\ti{g}}}\frac{\pa \la_{i}}{\pa(\pa_\a\f)}
\bigg(\frac{A\O^{-2}\ti{g}_{\m\n}+2\pa_X A\pa_\m\f\,\pa_\n\f-X\pa_X B\pa_\m \f\,\pa_\n\f}
{(2X)(-4\pa_X A+2B+2X\pa_X B)}\bigg)
e^{\frac{2\o}{\a}}\pa_{\a}\f\,, \nonumber\\\ti\mft_{\m\n}
&= \ti{g}_{\m\n}\bigg(-\frac{1}{2}\ti{g}^{\a\b}\pa_\a\o\pa_\b\o
- V(\o)\bigg) + \pa_\m\o\pa_\n\o\,,\label{ti_ttmn01}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. With the perfect fluid assumption, the above equations in (\[ti\_ttmn01\]) are written as $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{T}^{(i)}_{\m\n}
&= (\ti\r_{i} + \ti{P}_{i})\ti{u}_\m\ti{u}_\n
+ \ti{P}_{i}\tgmn\,, \nonumber\\\ti{t}^{(i)}_{\m\n}
&= (\ti\r^{\text{(in)}}_{i} + \ti{P}^{\text{(in)}}_{i})\ti{u}_\m\ti{u}_\n
+ \ti{P}^{\text{(in)}}_{i}\,\tgmn\,, \nonumber\\ \ti\mft_{\m\n}
&= (\ti\r_\o + \ti{P}_\o)\ti{u}_\m\ti{u}_\n + \ti{P}_\o\tgmn\,, \label{PFti_ttmn01}\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $\ti{u}^\m=d x^\m/d \ti{\tau}$ is defined with $\ti{\tau}$ the conformal proper time.
Please note that the equation of motion for $\phi$ in the Einstein frame (\[eomEFomega01\]) is the same as that in the Jordan one (\[eom\_phi01\]), and the relation between $\ti{t}^{(i)}_{\m\n}$ and $t^{(i)}_{\m\n}$ only differs a factor, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{t}^{(i)}_{\m\n} = \O^{-2} t^{(i)}_{\m\n}\,. \label{relation1}\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, (\[relation1\]) can be expressed in terms of quantities in the Einstein frame with the same form $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{a^2 a' \phi' -a^2 a' \phi'
- a^3\phi''(1-a^2)}{\phi'}\ti{\rho}_{i}
+ 6a^2 a' \ti{P}_{i} \nonumber\\
&\quad +\frac{a^3[a \phi'^{-1}\phi''^2 (1-a^2)
- 3 a'\phi'']}{3 a \phi'' +3a' \phi'+a^3 \phi''}
(3\ti{P}^{\text{(in)}}_{i}-\ti{\rho}^{\text{(in)}}_{i}) = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ where the prime “ $\prime$ ” denotes the derivative with respect to $\ti{t}$. For the $\o$ field, we have $\o = \o(F(t)) = \o(t)$. From (\[ti\_ttmn01\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\ti\r_\o &= \ti{\mft}_{00}
=\frac{1}{2}\o'^2 + V(\o)\,, \nonumber\\\ti{P}_\o &= \ti{\mft}^{1}{}_{1}
= \ti{g}^{11} \ti{\mft}_{11}
= \frac{1}{2}\o'^2 - V(\o)\,.\label{solomega02}\end{aligned}$$
In addition, $\ti{\l} = \ti{\rho}^{\text{(in)}}_{i}/\ti{\rho}_i$ is the proportionality between ordinary matter and induced matter, and $\ti{\o}^{\text{(in)}} = \ti{P}^{\text{(in)}}_{i}/\ti{\rho}^{\text{(in)}}_{i}$ is the equation of state for induced matter in the Einstein frame. They are related to the corresponding quantities in the Jordan frame by $\ti{\l}=\O^2 \l$ and $\ti{\o}^{\text{(in)}}_{i}=\o^{\text{(in)}}_{i}$. The EoS of non-relativistic matter and radiation are given by $\ti{w}_{\text{m}}=0$ and $\ti{w}_{\text{r}} = 1/3$, respectively. Therefore, we can write down the modified Friedmann equations in the Einstein frame from (\[eomEFomega01\]) to be $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{H}^2 &= \frac{8 \pi G}{3}\big((\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}+ \ti\r_\o)
+ \ti{\l}\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}\big)\,, \nonumber\\\ti{H}' &= -4 \pi G\big((\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}+ \ti\r_\o + \ti{P}_{\text{r}} +\ti{P}_\o )
+ \ti{\l}(1 + \ti{w}^{(\text{in})})\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}\big)\,,
\label{FrieqEF02}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}
= \ti{\rho}_{\text{m}}+\ti\r_{\text{r}}$ and $\ti{H}'
= \ti{a}'/\ti{a}$ is the Hubble parameter in the Einstein frame.
First Law in Einstein Frame
---------------------------
Using $\ti\r_\o$ and $\ti{P}_\o$ in (\[solomega02\]), the third equation in (\[eomEFomega01\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\ti\r_\o' + 3\ti{H}(\ti\r_\o + \ti{P}_\o)
= \frac{1}{\a}\o'(\ti{\rho}_{\text{M}}
- 3\ti{P}_{\text{M}})\,, \label{contiEFomega01}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ti{\rho}_{\text{M}}$ and $\ti{P}_{\text{M}}$ are the energy density and pressure of ordinary matter and disformally induced matter in the Einstein frame, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{\rho}_{\text{M}} &= \ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}
+ \ti{\l}\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}\,, \nonumber\\
\ti{P}_{\text{M}} &= (\ti{P}_{\text{r}} +\ti{P}_\o )
+\ti{\l} \ti{w}^{(\text{in})}\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Since the continuity equation for matter and induced matter in the Jordan frame holds, the equation $\ti{\na}_\m(\ti{T}^{(i)}{}^\m{_\n} + \ti{t}^{(i)\m}{_\n})$ is no longer zero. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{\rho}_{\text{M}}'+3\ti{H}(\ti{\rho}_\text{M}+\ti{P}_\text{M})
= -\frac{1}{\a}\o'(\ti{\rho}_\text{M}-3\ti{P}_\text{M})\,. \label{contiEFmf01}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ti{\rho}_\text{M}=\O^{-4}\rho_\text{M}$ and $\ti{P}_\text{M}=\O^{-4}P_\text{M}$. As (\[contiEFomega01\]) and (\[contiEFmf01\]) have the opposite sign, we can combine them to form a total conserved continuity equation, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\ti\r_t' + 3\ti{H}(\ti\r_t + \ti{P}_t) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\ti\r_t =\ti{\rho}_\text{M} + \ti\r_\o$ and $\ti{P}_t
= \ti{P}_\text{M} + \ti{P}_\o$. The relations in the Einstein frame are very similar to those in the Jordan frame in the equilibrium picture. Hence, thermodynamics in the Einstein frame should be considered as an equilibrium description.
To investigate the first law of thermodynamics in the Einstein frame, we can follow the similar steps shown in the Jordan one. The apparent horizon in the new frame is $$\begin{aligned}
\rt_A = \ti{H}^{-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ As a result, the surface area and horizon volume become $\ti{A} = 4\pi\rt_A^2$ and $\ti{V} = 4\pi\rt_A^3/3$, respectively. Defining the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $\ti{S} = \ti{A}/4G$ and Hawking temperature $\ti{T} = |\ti\k_s|/2\pi$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{T}d\ti{S}
= 4\pi\rt_A^2\Big(\big(\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}
+ \ti\r_\o + \ti{P}_{\text{r}} +\ti{P}_\o \big)
+ \ti{\l}\big(1 +\ti{w}^{(\text{in})}\big)\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}\Big)
\Big(1 + \frac{\ti r_A^2 \ti{H}'}{2}\Big) d\ti{t}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Using the Misner-Sharp energy $\ti{E} = \rt_A/2G$ within the apparent horizon, we get $$\begin{aligned}
d\ti{E} = - 4\pi\rt_A^2\bigg[
\Big((1+\ti{H}'\ti{r}^2_A)(\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}
+ \ti\r_\o) + \ti{P}_{\text{r}} +\ti{P}_\o\Big)
+ \ti{\l}\Big(\big(1+\ti{H}'\ti{r}^2_A
+ \ti{w}^{(\text{in})}\big)\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}\Big) \bigg] d \ti t\,.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these two equations together with the introduction of the work density $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{W} = \frac{1}{2}\bigg(\ti{T}^{(\text{m)}ab}
+ \ti{T}^{(\text{r)}ab} + \ti{t}^{(\text{m)}ab}
+ \ti{t}^{(\text{r)}ab} + \ti\mft^{ab} \bigg) \ti{h}_{ab}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\ti{h}_{ab}=\text{diag}(-1,\ti{a}^2)$ with $a, b=0, 1$, the first law in the Einstein frame is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{T}d\ti{S} = -d\ti{E} + \ti{W}d\ti{V}\label{1stlawEF}\end{aligned}$$
Second Law in Einstein Frame
----------------------------
In the Einstein frame, we can also construct the Gibbs function $$\begin{aligned}
\ti{T}d\ti{S}_t
= d(\ti\r_t V) + \ti{P}d\ti{V}
= \ti{V}d\ti\r_t + (\ti\r_t + \ti{P}_t)d\ti{V}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\ti{t}}(\ti{S} + \ti{S}_t)
= -\frac{48 \pi^2 \ti{H}'}{\ti{R} \ti{H}^3}\bigg(\big(\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}
+ \ti\r_\o + \ti{P}_{\text{r}} +\ti{P}_\o \big)
+ \ti{\l}\big(1+ \ti{w}^{(\text{in})}\big)
\ti{\bar{\r}}_{\text{M}}\bigg)\,.\label{Eq:entropy rate in e-frame}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[FrieqEF02\]) into the above equation, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\ti{t}}(\ti{S} + \ti{S}_t) = \frac{12 \pi \ti{H}'^2}{G \ti{R} \ti{H}^3}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is obviously always positive for the accelerating expansion of the universe, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\ti{t}}(\ti{S} + \ti{S}_t)
= \frac{12 \pi \ti{H}'^2}{G \ti{R} \ti{H}^3}
\geq 0\,,\label{2ndlawEF}\end{aligned}$$ as expected by the second law of thermodynamics. We can see that the solution is similar to that of the equilibrium picture in the Jordan frame. By replacing all the variables in terms of those in the Einstein frame, they both describe the same picture but in the different frames. In the limit of $\ti{\l} \rightarrow 0$, the results in (\[1stlawEF\]) and (\[2ndlawEF\]) can also be reduced to those in $f(R)$ gravity without the disformal transformation in the Einstein frame.
Thermodynamics Relation Between Two Frames
------------------------------------------
As the thermodynamic properties in the two frames are derived, we can find the relations between the frames. First, the Hubble parameter has the form $$\begin{aligned}
H = \sqrt{F}\bigg(\ti{H} - \frac{1}{2F}\frac{dF}{d\ti{t}}\bigg)
= \exp^{\o/\a}\bigg(\ti{H} - \frac{\o'}{\a}\bigg)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the thermodynamics quantities in terms of $H$ are expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
dE &= -\frac{dH}{2GH^2} \nonumber\\
WdV &= \bigg(3 + \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\bigg)dE,\nonumber\\
TdS & = \bigg(2 + \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\bigg)dE\,.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we obtain the relations between the Einstein and Jordan frames to be $$\begin{aligned}
dE &= \mu \,d\ti E\,,\nonumber\\
WdV &= \frac{\mu}{3+\ti H'/\ti{H}^2}
\bigg(3+\frac{(\o'/\a)(\ti{H}
-\o'/\a)+(\ti{H}'-\o''/\a)}{(\ti H - \o'/\a)^2}\bigg)
\ti{W}d\ti{V}\,,\nonumber\\
TdS &= \frac{\mu}{{2+\ti H'/\ti{H}^2}}
\bigg(2+\frac{(\o'/\a)(\ti{H}
-\o'/\a)+(\ti{H}'-\o''/\a)}{(\ti H - \o'/\a)^2}\bigg)
\ti{T}d\ti{S}\,.\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu = -{\ti{H}^2}/{\O(\ti{H}-\o'/\a)^2}d\ti{E}$
Conclusions
===========
We have studied thermodynamics in $f(R)$ gravity with the disformal transformation of $\eta_{\m\n} = A(\phi, X)g_{\m\n} + B(\phi, X)\pa_\m\f\pa_\n\f$, where $\f$ and $X$ are the disformal field and corresponding kinetic term, while $A$ and $B$ are functions of $\phi$ and $X$, respectively. Under the assumption of the Minkowski matter metric, we have given the Friedmann equations including the disformal field. Particularly, we have shown that the induced EoS of $w^{(\text{in})}$ depends on the disformal field (\[Eq:Induced EoS\]).
We have verified the first and second laws of thermodynamics for $f(R)$ gravity with the disformal transformation in the FLRW universe in the both equilibrium and non-equilibrium pictures. In the equilibrium picture, dark energy obeys the continuity equation, whereas it does not in the non-equilibrium one. In addition, the disformal $\l$-dependent terms appearing in the first and second laws arise from the disformal field, which are absent in the standard $f(R)$ gravity theory. To demonstrate these contributions, we connect our model to that of the $f(R)$ theory without the disformal relation. We show that with the absence of the disformal relation by setting $\l \rightarrow 0$, our equations describing the first and second laws of thermodynamics can be reduced to those in the ordinary $f(R)$ gravity theory.
We have also confirmed the first and second laws of thermodynamics for $f(R)$ gravity with the disformal transformation in the Einstein frame. By finding the relations between quantities in the Jordan and Einstein frames, we have shown that the contributions from the disformal field in the Einstein frame can be expressed as the disformal $\ti{\l}$-dependent terms with $\ti{\l}=\O^{2} \l$. Similarly, when taking the limit of $\ti{\l} \rightarrow 0$, the equations of the first and second laws of thermodynamics go back to the ordinary ones in $f(R)$ gravity in the Einstein frame.
We remark that in the Jordan frame, we have both non-equilibrium and equilibrium descriptions. As shown in Equation , the change of the horizon entropy $S$ in the equilibrium picture includes the information of both $d\hat{S}$ and $d_{i}S$ in the non-equilibrium one. Clearly, the existence of the non-equilibrium description in the Jordan frame but not in the Einstein frame also gives us an implication that two frames are inequivalent. In this paper, we only consider the case that the disformal metric couples to matter. Thus, the effect of this coupling can be interpreted as an additional matter (disformally induced matter). The first law of thermodynamics will be modified by adding additional matter contents in the both Jordan and Einstein frames. Also, calculations show that the second law of thermodynamics depends on the total energy density and pressure, and hence, can also be verified by taking into account additional matter contents. Finally, it is worth noting that the equation of state, defined in (\[Eq:Induced EoS\]), is independent of the matter contents, implying the *unique* phase of the induced matter. Furthermore, if the matter metric is not the Minkowski one, it should be interesting to study how the thermodynamic properties will change in both frames.
We would like to thank Yong Tian for useful discussions. The work was partially supported by National Center for Theoretical Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST-104-2112-M-007-003-MY3 and MoST-107-2119-M-007-013-MY3) and Academia Sinica Career Development Award Program (AS-CDA-105-M06).
[2]{}
Bekenstein, J.D. Black holes and entropy. *Phys. Rev. D* **1973**, *7*, 2333. Bardeen, J.M.; Carter, B.; Hawking, S.W. The four laws of black hole mechanics. *Commun. Math. Phys.* **1973**, *31*, 161–170. Hawking, S.W. Particle creation by black holes. *Commun. Math. Phys.* **1975**, **43**, 199–220. Erratum: \[*Commun. Math. Phys.* **1976**, [*46*]{}, 206\]. Jacobson, T. Thermodynamics of spacetime: The einstein equation of state. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **1995**, *75*, 1260. Cai, R.-G.; Kim, S.P. First law of thermodynamics and friedmann equations of friedmann-robertson-walker universe. *J. High Energy Phys.* **2005**, *2005*, 050. Akbar, M.; Cai, R.-G. Friedmann equations of frw universe in scalar–tensor gravity, $f (R)$ gravity and first law of thermodynamics. *Phys. Lett. B* **2006**, *635*, 7–10.
Wu, S.-F.; Wang, B.; Yang, G.-H.; Zhang, P.-M. The generalized second law of thermodynamics in generalized gravity theories. *Class. Quant. Grav. * **2008**, *25*, 235018. Cai, R.-G.; Cao, L.-M. Unified first law and the thermodynamics of the apparent horizon in the frw universe. *Phys. Rev. D* **2007**, *75*, 064008.
Eling, C.; Guedens, R.; Jacobson, T. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of spacetime. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2006**, *96*, 121301.
Bamba, K.; Geng, C.-Q.; Tsujikawa, S. Equilibrium thermodynamics in modified gravitational theories. *Phys. Lett. B* **2010**, *688*, 101–109.
Akbar, M.; Cai, R.-G. Thermodynamic behavior of field equations for $f (R)$ gravity. *Phys. Lett. B* **2007**, *648*, 243–248.
Bamba, K.; Geng, C.-Q. Thermodynamics in $f (R)$ gravity with phantom crossing. *Phys. Lett. B* **2009**, *679*, 282–287.
Bamba, K.; Geng, C.-Q. Thermodynamics in $f (R)$ gravity in the palatini formalism. *J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.* **2010**, **2010**, 014.
Cai, R.-G.; Cao, L.-M.; Hu, Y.-P.; Kim, S.P. Generalized vaidya spacetime in lovelock gravity and thermodynamics on the apparent horizon. *Phys. Rev. D* **2008**, *78*, 124012.
Paranjape, A.; Sarkar, S.; Padmanabhan, T. Thermodynamic route to field equations in lanczos-lovelock gravity. *Phys. Rev. D* **2006**, *74*, 104015.
Wu, S.-F.; Wang, B.; Yang, G.-H. Thermodynamics on the apparent horizon in generalized gravity theories. *Nucl. Phys. B* **2008**, *799*, 330–344.
Sheykhi, A.; Wang, B.; Cai, R.-G. Thermodynamical properties of apparent horizon in warped dgp braneworld. *Nucl. Phys. B* **2007**, *779*, 1–12.
Sheykhi, A.; Wang, B.; Cai, R.-G. Deep connection between thermodynamics and gravity in gauss-bonnet braneworlds. *Phys. Rev. D* **2007**, *76*, 023515.
Wu, S.-F.; Yang, G.-H.; Zhang, P.-M. Cosmological equations and thermodynamics on apparent horizon in thick braneworld. *Gen. Relativ. Gravitation* **2010**, *42*, 1601–1622.
Riess, A.G.; Filippenko, A.V.; Challis, P.; Clocchiatti, A.; Diercks, A.; Garnavich, P.M.; Gilliland, R.L.; Hogan, C.J.; Jha, S.; Kirshner, R.P.; et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. *Astron. J.* **1998**, *116*, 1009.
Perlmutter, S. Measurements of $\Omega$ and $\Lambda$ from 42 high-redshift supernovae. *Astrophys. J.* **1999**, *517*, 565.
Hendi, S. The relation between $f (R)$ gravity and einstein-conformally invariant maxwell source. *Phys. Lett. B* **2010**, *690*, 220–223.
Hendi, S.; Momeni, D. Black-hole solutions in $f (R)$ gravity with conformal anomaly. *Eur. Phys. J. C* **2011**, *71*, 1823.
Hendi, S.; Mann, R.; Riazi, N.; Panah, B.E. Eguchi-hanson-like space-times in $f (R)$ gravity. *Phys. Rev. D* **2012**, *86*, 104034.
Capozziello, S.; Martin-Moruno, P.; Rubano, C. Physical non-equivalence of the jordan and einstein frames. *Phys. Lett. B* **2010**, *689*, 117–121.
Bahamonde, S.; Odintsov, S.; Oikonomou, V.; Wright, M. Correspondence of $f (R)$ gravity singularities in jordan and einstein frames. *Ann. Phys.* **2016**, *373*, 96–114.
Bhattacharya, K.; Majhi, B.R. Fresh look at the scalar-tensor theory of gravity in jordan and einstein frames from undiscussed standpoints. *Phys. Rev. D* **2017**, *95*, 064026.
Lammerzahl, C.; Perlick, V. Finsler geometry as a model for relativistic gravity. *Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.* **2018**, *15*, 1850166.
Lämmerzahl, C.; Perlick, V.; Hasse, W. Observable effects in a class of spherically symmetric static finsler spacetimes. *Phys. Rev. D* **2012**, *86*, 104042.
Itin, Y.; Lämmerzahl, C.; Perlick, V. Finsler-type modification of the coulomb law. *Phys. Rev. D* **2014**, *90*, 124057.
Girelli, F.; Liberati, S.; Sindoni, L. Planck-scale modified dispersion relations and finsler geometry. *Phys. Rev. D* **2007**, *75*, 064015.
Bekenstein, J.D. Relation between physical and gravitational geometry. *Phys. Rev. D* **1993**, *48*, 3641.
Kaloper, N. Disformal inflation. *Phys. Lett. B* **2004**, *583*, 1–13.
Magueijo, J.; Noller, J.; Piazza, F. Bimetric structure formation: Non-gaussian predictions. *Phys. Rev. D* **2010**, *82*, 043521.
Wald, R.M. Black hole entropy is the noether charge. *Phys. Rev. D* **1993**, *48*, R3427. Iyer, V.; Wald, R.M. Some properties of the noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy. *Phys. Rev. D* **1994**, *50*, 846.
Brustein, R.; Gorbonos, D.; Hadad, M. Wald’s entropy is equal to a quarter of the horizon area in units of the effective gravitational coupling. *Phys. Rev. D* **2009**, *79*, 044025.
Cognola, G.; Elizalde, E.; Nojiri, S.i.; Odintsov, S.D.; Zerbini, S. One-loop $f (R)$ gravity in de sitter universe. *J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.* **2005**, *2005*, 010.
Briscese, F.; Elizalde, E. Black hole entropy in modified-gravity models. *Phys. Rev. D* **2008**, *77*, 044009.
Jacobson, T.; Kang, G.; Myers, R.C. On black hole entropy. *Phys. Rev. D* **1994**, *49*, 6587. Gong, Y.; Wang, A. Friedmann equations and thermodynamics of apparent horizons. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2007**, *99*, 211301.
Nunez, A.; Solganik, S. The content of $f (R)$ gravity. *arXiv preprint* **2004**, hep-th/0403159.
Faraoni, V. De sitter space and the equivalence between f (r) and scalar-tensor gravity. *Phys. Rev. D* **2007**, *75*, 067302.
De Felice, A.; Tsujikawa, S. $F(R)$ theories. *Living Rev. Relativ.* **2010**, *13*, 3.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We examine applications of polynomial Lie algebras $sl_{pd}(2)$ to solve physical tasks in $G_{inv}$-invariant models of coupled subsystems in quantum physics. A general operator formalism is given to solve spectral problems using expansions of generalized coherent states, eigenfunctions and other physically important quantities by power series in the $sl_{pd}(2)$ coset generators $V_{\pm}$. We also discuss some mappings and approximations related to the familiar $sl(2)$ algebra formalism. On this way a new closed analytical expression is found for energy spectra which coincides with exact solutions in certain cases and, in general, manifests an availability of incommensurable eigenfrequencies related to a nearly chaotic dynamics of systems under study.'
---
-10mm
[**POLYNOMIAL LIE ALGEBRAS $sl_{pd}(2)$ IN ACTION: SMOOTH $sl(2)$ MAPPINGS AND APPROXIMATIONS**]{}\
V.P. KARASSIOV\
[*Lebedev Physical Institute, Leninsky prospect 53, 117924 Moscow, Russia\
Internet: [email protected]*]{}
Introduction. General remarks
=============================
Recently, in a series of our papers /1-4/ a new efficient Lie-algebraic approach has been suggested to solve both spectral and evolution problems for some nonlinear $G_{inv}$-invariant models of coupled subsystems in quantum physics. It was based on exploiting a formalism of polynomial Lie algebras $g_{pd}$ as dynamic symmetry algebras $g^{DS}$ of models under study, and besides generators of these algebras $g_{pd}$ can be interpreted as $G_{inv}$-invariant “essential collective dynamic variables” in whose terms model dynamics are described completely. Specifically, this approach enabled to develop some efficient techniques for solving physical tasks in the case $g^{DS}=sl_{pd}(2)$ when model Hamiltonians $H$ are expressed as follows $$H = aV_0 +g V_+ + g^* V_- +C= {\bf A V}+C ,\quad [V_{\alpha}, C]=0,
\quad V_- =(V_+)^+, \eqno (1.1)$$ where $C$ is a function of $G_{inv}$-dependent model integrals of motion $R_i$ and $V_0, V_{\pm}$ are the $sl_{pd}(2)$ generators satisfying the commutation relations $$[V_0, V_{\pm}]= \pm V_{\pm}, \quad [V_-, V_+] = \psi_n(V_0+1) -
\psi_n(V_0), \eqno (1.2)$$ with the structure function $\psi_n(V_0)$ being a polynomial $\psi_n(V_0)=
A(\{R_j\})\prod_{i=1}^{n} (V_0- \lambda_i(\{R_j\}))$ of the degree $n$ in $V_0$.
For example, the three-boson model Hamiltonian $$H_2 = \omega_1 a^+_1 a_1 +\omega_2 a^+_2 a_2 +\omega_3 a^+_3 a_3 +
g(a^+_1a^+_2) a_3 + g^*(a_1a_2) a_3 ^+ \eqno (1.3)$$ can be expressed in the form (1.1) if using the substitutions $$V_0 =(N_1+N_2-N_3)/3,\; V_+ =(a^+_1a^+_2) a_3, \quad a= \omega_1 +\omega_2-
\omega_3, \quad N_i=a^+_i a_i,$$ $$2C =R_1(\omega_1 -\omega_2) +R_2(\omega_1+\omega_2 +2\omega_3),
\; R_1= N_1-N_2,\;3R_2= N_1+N_2+2N_3 \eqno (1.4a)$$ In this case the structure function $\psi_n(V_0)\equiv\psi_3(V_0)$ is given as follows $$\psi_3(V_0)=\frac{1}{4} (2V_0 +R_2-R_1)(2V_0 +R_1+R_2)(-V_0 +R_2+1)
\eqno (1.4b)$$ All techniques developed were based on using expansions of physically important quantities (evolution operators, generalized coherent states (GCS), eigenfunctions etc.) by power series in the $sl_{pd}(2)$ coset generators $V_{\pm}$. Besides, in the Schroedinger picture one has exploited decompositions $$L(H) =\sum_{\oplus}L([l_i]), \quad (V_+V_- -\psi_n(V_0))|_{L([l_i])}=0
\eqno (1.5)$$ of Hilbert spaces $L(H)$ of quantum states of model in direct sums of the subspaces $L([l_i])$ which are irreducible with respect to joint actions of algebras $sl_{pd}(2)$ and groups $G_{inv}$ and describe specific “$sl_{pd}(2)$-domains” evolving independently in time under action of the Hamiltonians (1.1). The subspaces $L([l_i])$ are spanned by basis vectors $$|[l_i];v\rangle=[(\psi_n(l_0+v))^{(v)}]^{-1/2}V_+^v|[l_i]\rangle,
\quad (\psi_n(x))^{(v)}\equiv \prod_{r=0}^{v-1}\psi_n (x-r),$$ $$V_0|[l_i];v\rangle=(l_0+v)|[l_i];v\rangle, \; R_i|[l_i];v\rangle
=l_i|[l_i];v\rangle, \; \psi_n(R_0)\equiv \psi_n (V_0)-V_+V_-
\eqno (1.6)$$ where $|[l_i]\rangle$ is the lowest vector ($ V_-|[l_i]\rangle=0,
\psi_n(l_0)=0$) of $L([l_i])$.
Then, using Eqs. (1.1)-(1.2) one may get Jacobi-type three-term recurrence relations for amplitudes $Q_v(E_f) \equiv\langle [l_i]; v|E_f\rangle$ of expansions of energy eigenstates $|E_f\rangle$ in bases $\{|[l_i]; v
\rangle\}$. Besides, energy spectra $\{E_f\}$ of bound states are given by roots of certain spectral functions (polynomials for the compact version $sl_{pd}(2)=su_{pd}(2)$) which are determined for given structure functions $\psi_n(x)$ with the help of similar recurrence relations /1-3/. Another way, exploiting the Bargmann-type representation of the $sl_{pd}(2)$ generators, $$V_+=z,\; V_0=zd/dz+l_0,\; V_-= z^{-1}\psi_n(zd/dz+l_0), \eqno (1.7a)$$ reduces these tasks to solving some singular differential equations /1-3/. When using a conjugate to (1.7a) representation of the $sl_{pd}(2)$ generators, $$V_-=d/dz,\; V_0=zd/dz+l_0,\; V_+=\psi_n(zd/dz+l_0)(d/dz)^{-1}
\eqno (1.7b)$$ this way leads to solving the Riccati-type equations for structure functions $\psi_3(x)$ of the degree $n=3$ (that is the case for the Hamiltonian (1.3)). In the paper /4/ some integral expressions were found for amplitudes $Q_v(E)$, eigenenergies $\{E_a\}$ and evolution operators $U_{H}(t)$ with the help of a specific “dressing” (mapping) of solutions of some auxiliary exactly solvable tasks with the dynamic algebra $sl(2)$.
However, all these and other results do not yield simple working formulas for analysis of models (1.1) and revealing different physical effects (e.g., collapses and revivals of the Rabi oscillations /5/) at arbitrary initial quantum states of models. Besides, solutions /4/ of spectral tasks manifest so-called “quantum discontinuities” /6/: a disappearence of wave functions when attaining the limit of auxiliary $sl(2)$ Hamiltonians that makes difficult to compare completely quantum models with their semi-classical analogs. Therefore, it is necessary to develop some simple techniques enabling to display important physical peculiriaties of models (1.1)-(1.2). In the case $g^{DS}=sl(2)$, when the structure functions $\psi_n(x)\equiv\psi_2(x)$ are quadratic functions $\psi_2(x)=(j\pm x)(\mp j+1-x),\; l_0=\mp j$), the GCS formalism of the group orbit type /7/ is known to be an efficient tool for analyzing both linear /7/ and non-linear /7-9/ models. This formalism based on properties of the $SL(2)$ group displacement operators $S_V(\xi)=\exp(\xi V_+-\xi^* V_-),\;\xi
=r\exp(-i\theta)$ yields exact solutions /7/ for linear models and variational schemes (corresponding to the Ehrenfest theorem) to obtain effective mean-field approximate solutions for non-linear models /8-9/.
Below we examine some possibilities of generalizations of this formalism for solving spectral problems of models (1.1)-(1.2) (Section 2) and give a variational scheme to find “smooth” $sl(2)$-approximations of these solutions (Section 3) using an isomorphism of the $sl_{pd}(2)$ algebras to special subalgebras of the extended enveloping algebra ${\cal U}(sl(2))$ of the familiar algebra $sl(2)$. This isomorphism is established via a generalized Holstein-Primakoff mapping given as follows /1-3/ $$Y_0 = V_0-l_0\mp j,\; j=\frac{s}{2}, \; Y_+= V_+
\sqrt{\frac{(j\mp Y_0)(\pm j+1+Y_0)}{\psi_n(V_0+1)}},\; Y_-=(Y_+)^+,
\eqno (1.8)$$ where $ Y_{\alpha}$ are the $sl(2)$ generators, upper and lower signs correspond to the $su(2)$ and $su(1,1)$ algebras respectively. In Section 4 some prospects of further studies along these lines are briefly outlined.
A general operator formalism to solve spectral problems
=======================================================
As is known /7/, the Hamiltonians (1.1) are simply diagonalized with the help of operators $$S_V(\xi)=\exp(\xi V_+-\xi^* V_-)=\exp[t(r)e^{i \theta} V_+]
\exp[-2\ln c(r) V_0]\exp[-t(r)e^{-i\theta} V_-],\quad \xi=re^{i \theta}
\eqno (2.1)$$ when $V_{\alpha}$ are generators of the familiar $sl(2)$ algebra ($t(r)=
\tan r, c(r)=\cos r$ for $su(2)$ and $t(r)=\tanh r, c(r)=\cosh r$ for $su(1,1)$). Indeed, using the well-known $sl(2)$ transformation properties of operators $V_{\alpha}$ one finds the transformation $$H\longrightarrow \tilde{H}(\xi)=S_V(\xi)H S_V(\xi)^{\dagger}= C +
V_0 A_0(a,g;\xi)+V_+ A_+(a,g;\xi) +V_- A^*_+(a,g;\xi) \eqno (2.2a)$$ of the Hamiltonians (1.1) under the action of operators $S_V(\xi)$. Then, supposing $A_+(a,g;\xi)=0$ we find a value $\xi_0$ of the parameter $\xi$ diagonalizing the Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}(\xi)$. For example, in the case of the $su(2)$ algebra we have /7/ $$\tilde{H}(\xi_0)=S(\xi_0)H S(\xi_0)^{\dagger}= C + V_0\sqrt{a^2+4 |g|^2},
\quad \xi_0=\frac{g}{2|g|}arctg\frac{2|g|}{a}, \eqno (2.2¡)$$ and the corresponding eigenenergies $E([l_i];v;\xi_0)$ and eigenfunctions $|[l_i];v;\xi_0 \rangle$ are expressed as follows $$a)\;E([l_i];v;\xi_0)= C + (-j+v)\sqrt{a^2+4 |g|^2}, \eqno (2.3a)$$ $$b)\;|[l_i];v;\xi_0\rangle= S_V(\xi_0)^{\dagger}|[l_i];v; \rangle=
\exp(-\xi_0 V_++ \xi_0^*V_-)|[l_i];v; \rangle=(\cos^2 r)^{j-v} \times$$ $$\sum_{f\geq 0} \frac{(-e^{i \theta}tg r)^{f-v}}{(f-v)!}
{F(-v,-v+2j+1;f-v+1; \sin^2 r)} [\frac{(2j-v)!f!}{(2j-f)!v!}]^{1/2}
|[l_i];f;\rangle \eqno(2.3b)$$ where $F(...)$ is the Gauss hypergeometric function. An equivalent way /8/ to obtain the results (2.3) is based on using the stationarity conditions $$\frac{\partial E([l_i];v;\xi)}{\partial \theta}=0,\quad
\frac{\partial E([l_i];v;\xi)}{\partial r}=0
\eqno (2.4)$$ for the energy functional $E([l_i];v;\xi)=\langle[l_i];v;\xi|H|[l_i];v;\xi
\rangle$ defined with the help of the $SL(2)$ GCS $|[l_i];v;\xi\rangle=
S_V(\xi)^{\dagger}|[l_i];v; \rangle$ as trial functions.
Both ways above essentially exploit the finite-dimensionality of the $sl(2)$ adjoint (vector) representation (cf. Eq. (2.1a)) and well-known (due to Eq. (2.1)) explicit expansions of the $SL(2)$ GCS in orthonormalized basis states. However, for polynomial Lie algebras $sl_{pd}(2)$ the situation is more complicated since their adjoint representations defined by repeated commutations of arbitrary elements are infinite-dimensional as it follows from Eq. (1.2). Furhtermore, GCS exponential operators $S_V(\xi)=
\exp(\xi V_+-\xi^* V_-)$ have not explicit expressions for matrix elements in orthonormalized bases (1.6) as these exponentials are not elements of Lie groups but only correspond to quasigroups (pseudogroups) /10/ which have no simple analogs of the “disentangling theorem” (2.1) providing expansions of operators $S_V(\xi)$ in finite products of one-parameter subgroups /10, 11/. Therefore, in this case a direct generalization of results (2.3) is impossible.
Nevertheless, taking into account Eqs. (1.2), (1.8) one may apply the diagonalizing scheme (2.2) using repres¥ntations of diagonalizing operators $S(\xi)$ by power series $$S(\xi)=\sum_{f=-\infty}^{\infty}
V_+^f S_f(V_0;\xi), \quad V_+^{-k}\equiv V_-^k([\psi_n(V_0)]^{(k)})^{-1},
\; k>0 \eqno (2.5)$$ with undetermined (unlike those for the $sl(2)$ algebra - cf. (2.1) and (2.3)) coefficients $S_f(V_0;\xi)$ (which, when being known, provide possibilities of explicit calculations of any physical quantities with the help of Eqs. (1.2), (1.6)). For diagonalizing operators $S(\xi)=S_V(\xi)=
\exp(\xi V_+-\xi^* V_-)$ (if they exist) these coefficients may be taken in the form $S_f(V_0;\xi)= \exp(i f\theta)\sigma_f(V_0;r),\;\xi=r
\exp(i\theta),$ and satisfy the equations $$\frac{\partial \sigma_f(V_0;r) }{\partial r} -\sigma_{f-1}(V_0;r)+
\psi_n(V_0+f)\sigma_{f+1}(V_0;r)=\delta(r) \delta_{f,0}, \quad f=0,1,...
\eqno (2.6)$$ whose solutions may be represented by power series in $r$ (via direct expansions of exponents $S_V(\xi)$) or obtained in an integral form with the help of the “$sl(2)$ dressing” procedure /4/. In general cases these coefficients satisfy the equations $$\sum_{f=-\infty}^{\infty} [\psi(V_0)]^{(f)} S_{k+f}(V_0-f;\xi)
S_f^*(V_0-f;\xi) =\delta_{k,0}
\eqno (2.7)$$ following from the unitarity conditions $SS^{\dagger} =S^{\dagger}S=I$.
Then, substituting Eq. (2.5) in the scheme (2.2) one gets after some algebra nonlinear analogs of Eqs. (2.2) $$a)\,\tilde{H}(\xi)=S_V(\xi)H S_V(\xi)^{\dagger}= C +
\sum_{f=-\infty}^{\infty}V_+^f \tilde{h}_f(V_0;\xi),\quad V_+^{-k}
\equiv V_-^k([\psi(V_0)]^{(k)})^{-1}, \; k>0,$$ $$\tilde{h}_f(V_0;\xi)= \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}[\psi(V_0)]^{(k-f)}
S_k(V_0+f-k;\xi) [a(V_0+f-k) S_{k-f}^*(V_0+f-k;\xi) +$$ $$g\psi(V_0+f-k)S_{k+1-f}^*(V_0+f-k-1;\xi)+ g^*S_{k-1-f}^*(V_0+f-k+1;\xi)],$$ $$\tilde{h}_{-f}(V_0;\xi)=\tilde{h}^*_f(V_0-f;\xi)[\psi(V_0)]^{(f)},
\quad[\psi(V_0)]^{(-f)}\equiv([\psi(V_0+f)]^{(f)})^{-1},\quad f>0,
\eqno (2.8a)$$ $$b)\,\tilde{H}(\xi_0)=S(\xi_0)H S(\xi_0)^{\dagger}= C +
\tilde{h}_0(V_0;\xi_0),\; E([l_i];v;\xi)= C+\langle[l_i];v|
\tilde{h}_0(V_0;\xi)|[l_i];v\rangle \eqno (2.8b)$$ expressed in terms of the coefficients $S_f(V_0;\xi)$ (hereafter the subscript $n$ in $\psi_n(V_0)$ will be omitted for the sake of the notation simplicity). As is seen from Eq. (2.8b) the diagonalized Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}(\xi_0)$ has (unlike (2.2b)) an essentially non-linear dependence in $V_0$ determined by coefficients $S_f(V_0;\xi_0)$ which satisfy (additionally to Eqs. (2.7)) the operator recurrence relations following from the condition $S(\xi_0)H=\tilde{H}(\xi_0)S(\xi_0)$), $$S_f(V_0;\xi_0)[aV_0 - \tilde{h}_0(V_0+f;\xi_0)] +g S_{f-1}(V_0+1;\xi_0) +
g^* S_{f+1}(V_0-1;\xi_0)=0, \; f=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,..,$$ $$\tilde{h}_0(V_0;\xi_0)=aV_0+ \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}[\psi(V_0)]^{(n)}
S_n(V_0-n;\xi_0) [-n S_{n}^*(V_0-n;\xi_0) +$$ $$g\psi(V_0-n)S_{n+1}^*(V_0-n-1;\xi_0) + g^*S_{n-1}^*(V_0-n+1;\xi_0)]
\eqno (2.9a)$$ or the operator equations $$0 =\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}[\psi(V_0)]^{(n-f)}
S_n(V_0+f-n;\xi_0) [a(V_0+f-n) S_{n-f}^*(V_0+f-n;\xi_0) +$$ $$g\psi(V_0+f-n)S_{n+1-f}^*(V_0+f-n-1;\xi_0) + g^*S_{n-1-f}^*(V_0+f-n+1;
\xi_0)],\; f=\pm 1,\pm 2,..
\eqno (2.9b)$$ resulting from the condition $\tilde{h}_f(V_0;\xi_0)=0,\; f=\pm 1,\pm 2,..$ (a direct generalization of the condition $A_+(a,g;\xi)=0$ in (2.2)). Note that Eqs. (2.9), in general, determine both a suitable functional form of $S_f(V_0;\xi)$ and a value $\xi_0$ of the parameter $\xi$ diagonalizing the Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}(\xi)$.
So, the formalism of the $sl_{pd}(2)$ algebras enabled to to get a general operator scheme of diagonalizing the Hamiltonians (1.1) with the help of solving the (infinite) set of algebraic operator equations (2.7)-(2.9). Evidently, without using some specifications of diagonalizing operators $S(\xi)$ the task of solving these equations is equivalent to that for finding amplitudes $Q_v(E_f)=\langle [l_i]; v|S^{\dagger}|[l_i]; f \rangle=
[(\psi_n(l_0+f))^{(f)}/(\psi_n(l_0+v))^{(v)}]^{1/2} S_{f-v}^*(l_0+v;\xi_0)$ as Eqs. (2.9b) resemble those for $Q_v(E_f)$. Note that in the case of the compact $su_{pd}(2)$ algebra, having finite-dimensional (with dimensions equal to $d([l_i])$) irreducible subspaces $L([l_i])$, it is possible to simplify the task restricting oneself by the consideration of Eqs. (2.7)-(2.9) on each $L([l_i])$ [**independently**]{}. Then, due to the relation $(V_{\pm})^{d([l_i])+1}|_{L([l_i])} =0$ all series in Eqs. (2.5), (2.7)-(2.9) are terminating. Specifically, wave eigenfunctions $|E_f \rangle=S^{\dagger}|[l_i];f \rangle$ may be represented by polynomials $|E_f \rangle= A(V_0)\prod_j (V_+ -\Lambda _j(V_0))$ and the energy functionals $E([l_i]; f)_S\equiv \langle [l_i];f |S H
S^{\dagger}|[l_i]; f \rangle$ are written down in the form of a sum of $d([l_i])$ spectral functions as it is prescribed for such classes of models by the algebraic Bethe ansatz /12/. (In essence, we obtain in such a manner a new formulation of this ansatz for a wide class of models in terms of the $su_{pd}(2)$ algebras which is simpler and more efficient (cf. /3/) in comparison with its initial version /12/.)
However, even such simplifications enable us to get simple closed expressions only for little dimensions $d([l_i])$ of the $su_{pd}(2)$ irreducible subspaces $L([l_i])$. At the same time many physical quantum states of models (1.1), e.g., such as coherent and squeezed states in models (1.3), have non-zero projections on all subspaces $L([l_i])$. Therefore, for physical applications it is necessary to get some closed expressions like Eqs. (2.3) for energy eigenvalues and wave eigenfunctions which would describe main features of model dynamics with a good accuracy. One exampl¥ of such analytical approximations was obtained in /1-3/ by mapping (with the help of the change $V_{\alpha}\rightarrow Y_{\alpha}$) Hamiltonians (1.1) in Hamiltonians $H_{sl(2)}$ which are linear in $sl(2)$ generators $Y_{\alpha}$ and have on each fixed subspace $L([l_i])$ equidistant energy spectra given by formulas like Eq. (2.3a) (but with modified constants $a,g$). However, this (quasi)equidistant approximation is suitable for little or very big dimensions $d([l_i])$ and does not enable to display many peculiarities (e.g., availability and a fine structure of collapses and revivals of the Rabi oscillations) of models (1.1). Therefore, below we describe an alternative approximation applying the variational scheme (2.4) with $SL(2)$ GCS as trial functions to Hamiltonians (1.1) expressed with the help of Eqs. (1.8) as functions of $sl(2)$ generators $Y_{\alpha}$.
A variational scheme of determining energy spectra with the help of $SL(2)$-coherent states
===========================================================================================
Hamiltonians (1.1) re-written in terms of $Y_{\alpha}$ have the form $$H = aY_0 +g Y_+\sqrt{\frac{\psi_n(V_0+1)}{(j\mp Y_0)(\pm j+1+Y_0)}} +
g^* \sqrt{\frac{\psi_n(V_0+1)}{(j\mp Y_0)(\pm j+1+Y_0)}}Y_- +
C+a(\pm j+l_0) \eqno (1.1')$$ which is essentially non-linear in $sl(2)$ generators $Y_{\alpha}$. Therefore, in general, it is unlikely to diagonalize them with the help of operators $S_Y(\xi)=\exp(\xi Y_+-\xi^* Y_-)$. However, it is natural to apply associated with these operators $SL(2)$ GCS $$|[l_i];v;\xi\rangle= S_Y(\xi)^{\dagger}|[l_i];v; \rangle= \exp(-\xi Y_+
+ \xi^*Y_-)|[l_i];v; \rangle, \eqno (3.1)$$ as trial functions in the variational scheme (2.4) that results in non-linear analogs of Eq. (2.3a) for approximate energy eigenvalues. Such an approximation may be called as a “smooth” $sl(2)$ approximation since it, in fact, corresponds to picking out a “smooth” (due to analytical nature of $SL(2)$ group elements) $sl(2)$ factor $\exp(\xi Y_+-
\xi^* Y_-)$ in the exact diagonalizing operators $S(\tilde{\xi})$.
Specifically, application of this procedure to Hamiltonians with the $su_{pd}(2)$ dynamic symmetry yields after some algebra the following expressions $$E([l_i];v;\xi_0) =C+a(l_0+j)+a(-j+v)\cos 2r-2|g|(\cos^2 r)^{2(j-v)}
\frac{(2j-v)!}{v!}\sum_{f\geq 0} E_v^{\psi}(l_0,j;f),$$ $$E^{\psi}_v(l_0,j;f)=\frac{(tg r)^{2(f-v)+1}(f+1)!}
{(f-v)!(f+1-v)!(2j-f-1)!}\sqrt{\frac{\psi(l_0+1+f)}{(2j-f)(f+1)}}\times$$ $$F(-v,-v+2j+1;f-v+1; \sin^2 r)F(-v,-v+2j+1;f-v+2; \sin^2 r) \eqno (3.2)$$ for energy eigenvalues $E([l_i];v;\xi_0=re^{i\theta})$ where $e^{i\theta}= g/|g|$ due to the second condition (2.4) and diagonalizing values of the parameter $r$ are determined from solving the equations $$0 = \sum_{f\geq 0}\frac{\alpha^{2f}}{(2j-1-f)!f!} \{\frac{a \alpha}{|g|}-
[4\alpha^2 j -(1+\alpha^2)(2f+1)]\sqrt{\frac{\psi(l_0+1+f)}{(2j-f)(f+1)}}\},
\;\alpha =-tg r \eqno (3.3)$$ resulting from the first condition (2.4).
As is seen from Eq. (3.2), spectral functions $E^{\psi}_v(l_0,j;f)$ are non-linear in the discrete variable $v$ labeling energy levels that provides a non-equdistant character of energy spectra within fixed subspaces $L([l_i])$ at $d([l_i])>3$; besides, due to the availability of square roots in expressions for these functions different eigenfrequencies $\omega_v\equiv E_v/\hbar$ are incommensurable: $m\omega_{v_1}\neq n\omega_{v_2}$ that is an indicator of an origin of collapses and revivals of the Rabi oscillations /5/ as well as of prechaotic dynamics. We also note that Eqs. (3.2)-(3.3) give exact results at little dimensions $d([l_i])$.
Conclusion
==========
So, we have obtained a general operator scheme for diagonalizing Hamiltonians (1.1) and a smooth approximation for solutions of its defining equations with the help of the mapping (1.8) and the variational scheme (2.4) using the $SL(2)$ GCS as trial functions. This approximation may be used as an initial one in iterative schemes of solving Eqs. (2.9) (re-written in “the $sl(2)$ languauge”) which are similiar to those developed to examine non-linear problems of classical mechanics and optics /11/. Further investigations along this line may be also related to a search of suitable specifications of the operators $S(\xi)$ (besides the form $S(\xi)=S_V(\xi)$) reducing solutions of Eqs. (2.9) to determining a value $\xi_0$ providing an exact or a sufficiently accurate approximation for diagonalization of the Hamiltonian (1.1) in scheme (2.3a). Another way to develop the results above concerns some simplifications of the formulas (3.2) via using different properties, including integral representations, of the hypergeometric functions $F(a,b;c;x)$. For the case of $\psi_3(x)$ it is also of interest to compare results of such approximations with exact calculations obtained by considering exactly solvable cases of the Riccati equations yielded by the $sl_{pd}(2)$ representation (1.7b).
Finally, general ideas of the analysis above may be extended to solve evolution problems. Specifically, a version of general operator formalism for these tasks was formulated in /4/, and a version of obtaining a variational dynamics in the mean-field approximation can be found following the approach of the paper /8/. Namely, looking for the evolution operator $U_H(t)$ (with $H$ given by Eq. (1.1’)) in the form $U_H(t)=
\exp(-z(t) Y_++ z(t)^*Y_-)$ and using the $sl(2)$ GCS $|z(t)\rangle=
\exp(-z(t) Y_++ z(t)^*Y_-)|\psi_0\rangle$ as trial functions in the time-dependent Hartree-Fock varitional scheme with the Lagrangian ${\cal L}
=\langle z(t)|(i\partial/\partial t - H)|z(t)\rangle$ one gets the $sl(2)$ Euler-Lagrange equations $$\dot q =\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial p}, \qquad \dot p =
-\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial q} \eqno (4.1)$$ for “motion” of the $sl(2)$ GCS parameters; here ${\cal H}=
\langle z(t)|H|z(t)\rangle$ and $p=j\cos \theta, q= \phi,
z = \tan (\theta/2) \exp (-i\phi)$ for $su(2)$ and $p=j\cosh \theta, q= \phi,
z = \tanh (\theta/2) \exp (-i\phi)$ for $su(2)$.
Acknowledgement
===============
The author thanks A.V. Masalov, S.M. Chumakov and M.A. Mukhtarov for useful discussions and G.S. Pogosyan for interest in the work. A partial financial support of participation in the Conference from its Organizing Committee is acknowledged.
V.P. Karassiov. Teor. mat. fiz., [**95**]{}, 3 (1993). V.P. Karassiov. Symmetry in Physics. (Proc. Int. Workshop in Memory of Professor Ya.A. Smorodinsky). JINR, Dubna, 1994. V. 1, p.225. V.P. Karassiov. J. Phys., [**A 27**]{}, 153 (1994). V.P. Karassiov and A.B. Klimov. Phys. Lett., [**A 189**]{}, 43 (1994). N.B. Narozhny, J.J. Sanchez-Mondragon and J.H. Eberly Phys. Rev., [**A 23**]{}, 236 (1981). F. Calogero. Lett. Nuovo Cimento, [**25**]{}, 533 (1979); S.C. Chhujlany. J. Phys., [**A 25**]{}, 317 (1992). A.M. Perelomov. Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications. Nauka, Œoscow, 1987. D.M. Jezek and E.S. Hernandez. Phys. Rev., [**C 35**]{}, 1555 (1987); [**A 42**]{}, 96 (1990). B.C. Sanders. Phys. Rev., [**A 40**]{}, 2417 (1989). M.V. Karasev and V.P. Maslov. Nonlinear Poisson Brackets. Geometry and Quantization. Nauka, Moscow, 1991. A.J. Dragt and J.M. Finn. J. Math. Phys., [**17**]{} 2215 (1976); S. Steinberg. SIAM J. Math. Anal., [**15**]{} 108 (1984). M. Gaudin. La Fonction d’Onde de Bethe. Masson, Paris, 1987.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The free energy of a system is central to many material models. Although free energy data is not generally found directly, its derivatives can be observed or calculated. In this work, we present an Integrable Deep Neural Network (IDNN) that can be trained to derivative data obtained from atomic scale models and statistical mechanics, then analytically integrated to recover an accurate representation of the free energy. The IDNN is demonstrated by training to the chemical potential data of a binary alloy with B2 ordering. The resulting DNN representation of the free energy is used in a mesoscopic, phase field simulation and found to predict the appropriate formation of antiphase boundaries in the material. In contrast, a B-spline representation of the same data failed to resolve the physics of the system with sufficient fidelity to resolve the antiphase boundaries. Since the fine scale physics harbors complexity that emerges through the free energy in coarser-grained descriptions, the IDNN represents a framework for scale bridging in materials systems.'
address:
- 'Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan'
- 'Materials Department, University of California, Santa Barbara'
- 'Michigan Institute for Computational Discovery & Engineering, University of Michigan'
author:
- 'G.H. Teichert'
- 'A.R. Natarajan'
- 'A. Van der Ven'
- 'K. Garikipati'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Machine learning materials physics: Integrable deep neural networks enable scale bridging by learning free energy functions'
---
Deep Neural Networks ,Chemical potential ,Phase field ,Multiscale physics
Introduction
============
An accurate description of the free energy plays a critical role in many physics-based models of materials systems. The Euler-Lagrange equations of stationary problems are obtained by requiring that the first variational derivative of the free energy functional vanish. In the example of elasticity, this leads to the equilibrium equation satisfied by the displacement field [@Marsden1994]. Evolution equations can also require first variations of the free energy as inputs. For example, the variational derivatives of the free energy with respect to composition and order parameters define the chemical potential fields used in phase field dynamics [@CahnHilliard1958; @Allen1979; @Provatas2011]. A related result is that the first derivative of the free energy density function with respect to appropriate strain measures gives the conjugate stress. Second derivatives with respect to the temperature yield the heat capacity, those with respect to strains define elasticities [@Hillert2007].
High-fidelity evaluations of free energy density functions are attainable by a combination of atomic scale models (including quantum mechanics and various molecular models) and statistical mechanics. The use of such free energy density functions in the partial differential equations of continuum physics at coarse-grained scales, such as in phase field models, other mass and heat transport equations, and the equations of nonlinear elasticity is a rigorous, if classical approach to scale bridging. In principle, if highly accurate free energy density functions were available, quantitative predictivity would become accessible in a specialized but significant spectrum of mechano-chemically driven phenomena, such as phase transformations, nonlinear and strain gradient elasticity.
Implementing these computations, however, can be challenging for a number of reasons. Free energy data is often computed at individual points rather than as an analytic function directly. As such, it becomes necessary to use a fitting process to create a faithful mathematical model of the free energy. The free energy density can be a function of multiple variables, including composition, temperature, strain, and order parameters, thus leading to a high-dimensional function [@Rudrarajuetal2016; @Sagiyamaetal2016]. Additionally, realistic data for the free energy can contain regions with rapid fluctuations, along with other regions with very gradual slopes [@Teichert2017]. Finally, because of the importance of the derivatives of the free energy, it is desirable that the fitting function be smooth. All of these considerations pose challenges to the fitting technique.
Machine learning methods are readily applicable to this problem, and we specifically consider Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) [@LeCun2015]. DNNs have been successfully applied to problems with large numbers of inputs, such as RGB pixel values in an image [@Krizhevsky2012], the log-power spectra of speech data [@Yong2015], the configurational energy of multicomponent alloys [@natarajan2018], predicting precipitate morphologies [@Teichert2018a] and biomarkers for predicting human age [@Putin2016], among numerous other applications. Because the activation functions used in DNNs are generally global functions with one local feature, DNNs are capable of capturing local phenomena without negatively affecting longer range attributes of the data. Also, with the proper choice of activation functions, DNNs are infinitely differentiable, thus allowing all necessary derivatives to be computed.
One potential disadvantage of DNNs is that they are not, in general, analytically integrable. This is a particular challenge in the case of fitting free energy data, because the free energy is often not directly measured or computed from atomic models and statistical mechanics. Instead, the derivatives of the free energy (i.e. the chemical potentials) are first observed or computed, then integrated to find the free energy of the system [@DeHoff2006; @Sanchez1984; @deFontaine1994; @VanderVen1998; @vandewalle2002b; @VanderVen2010; @Puchala2013; @Chen2015; @Natarajan2016; @Teichert2017]. Such an approach is of particular importance in cases where the chemical potential representation must be integrated with respect to chemical variables to obtain the free energy density, whose derivatives with respect to strain then yield the stress for elasticity [@Rudrarajuetal2016]. In order to preserve as much information about the derivatives as possible, it is ideal to train directly to the derivative data itself, as opposed to a numerically integrated data set. This requires an alternate form of DNN that can be trained to derivative data, then analytically integrated to represent the free energy itself. We present such an approach in this work.
In this first presentation of our proposed framework, we consider the problem of chemistry, postponing coupled problems for later communications. To demonstrate the method of training a DNN to derivative data of the free energy, we consider a simple binary substitutional alloy with B2 ordering on a BCC parent structure [@Natarajan2017]. The resulting free energy, as a function of composition and an order parameter, is then used in the Cahn-Hilliard and Allen-Cahn phase field equations.
In Section \[sec:DNN\], we present the form of an Integrable Deep Neural Network (IDNN). Section \[sec:B2\] describes the B2 material system and the method of calculating the chemical potential data via a combination of atomic scale and statistical mechanics computations. In this context, the IDNN training to the chemical potential data and the resulting free energy DNN are shown in Section \[sec:training\]. We describe the phase field formulation in Section \[sec:phase field\] and present the computational results obtained using the DNN representation of the free energy. Section \[sec:splines\] describes a process for fitting the chemical potential data using B-splines and compares the resulting fit and phase field simulation with those of the DNN. Concluding discussions are presented in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Integrable Deep Neural Network {#sec:DNN}
==============================
For a fully connected DNN, the following equations are commonly used to define the activation value of unit $i$ in layer $\ell$, denoted here by $a^\ell_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
a^\ell_i &= f(z^\ell_i)\label{eq:fz}\\
z^\ell_i &= b^\ell_{i} + \sum_{j=1}^{m_{\ell-1}} W^\ell_{i,j}a^{\ell-1}_{j}\label{eq:z}\end{aligned}$$ where $b^\ell_{i}$ is the bias, $W^\ell_{i,j}$ is the weight, $m_{\ell-1}$ is the number of units in layer $\ell-1$, and $f(\cdot)$ is the activation function (see Figure \[fig:DNN\]). In a DNN used for regression, the output $Y_i$ is computed using the activation units from the final layer without an activation function: $$\begin{aligned}
Y_i = b^{n+1}_{i} + \sum_{j=1}^{m_{n}} W^{n+1}_{i,j}a^{n}_{j}\end{aligned}$$
![Schematic of a standard, fully connected Deep Neural Network (DNN). In this instance, the output is a scalar.[]{data-label="fig:DNN"}](figures/DNN.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
The DNN can be thought of as a function of inputs ${\boldsymbol{x}}$, weights ${\boldsymbol{W}}$, and biases ${\boldsymbol{b}}$, i.e. ${\boldsymbol{Y}}={\boldsymbol{Y}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{W}},{\boldsymbol{b}})$. Training the DNN consists of optimizing the weights and biases to minimize the loss function for a given dataset $\{(\hat{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_\theta,\hat{{\boldsymbol{Y}}}_\theta)\}_{\theta=1}^{N_\text{data}}$. The loss function is generally the mean square error (MSE) for regression problems. We can represent this as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{\hat{W}}},{\boldsymbol{\hat{b}}} = \underset{{\boldsymbol{W}},{\boldsymbol{b}}}{\mathrm{arg\,min}}\,\mathrm{MSE}\left({\boldsymbol{Y}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{W}},{\boldsymbol{b}})\Big |_{{\boldsymbol{\hat{x}}}_\theta},{\boldsymbol{\hat{Y}}}_\theta\right)
\label{eq:DNN-Wb}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum over $\theta = 1,\dots N_\text{data}$ is implied in the definition of the MSE.
As argued in the Introduction, it can be desirable to train a function with data describing the derivatives. While it is possible to train a standard DNN directly to the derivative data, there are at least two drawbacks. The first is that the standard DNN cannot, in general, be analytically integrated to recover the originating function. Furthermore, in the multidimensional case with multiple sets of partial derivative data, the trained standard DNNs representing the partial derivatives would not necessarily be themselves the derivatives of the same function. This inconsistency poses a problem even in situations where mathematical representations of only the partial derivatives are needed and not the integral itself.
Both of these difficulties can be overcome by differentiating the standard DNN with respect to the desired input variables, say $x_k$ with $k=1,\ldots,n$, then training these differentiated functions to the (partial) derivative data $\{(\hat{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_\theta,\hat{{\boldsymbol{y}}}_{k_\theta})\}$, as represented by the following: $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{\hat{W}}},{\boldsymbol{\hat{b}}} = \underset{{\boldsymbol{W}},{\boldsymbol{b}}}{\mathrm{arg\,min}}\,\sum_{k=1}^n\mathrm{MSE}\left(\frac{\partial{\boldsymbol{Y}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{W}},{\boldsymbol{b}})}{\partial x_k}\Big |_{{\boldsymbol{\hat{x}}}_\theta},{\boldsymbol{\hat{y}}}_{k_\theta}\right)
\label{eq:IDNN-Wb}\end{aligned}$$
The functional form that results from differentiating the standard DNN is, of course, analytically integrable. As such, it will be referred to in this work as an IDNN (Integrable Deep Neural Network). The antiderivative of the IDNN is simply a standard DNN with the weights and biases of the trained IDNN. The IDNN has the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial a^\ell_i}{\partial x_k} &= f'(z^\ell_i)\frac{\partial z^\ell_i}{\partial x_k} \label{eqn:IDNN1}\\
a^\ell_i &= f(z^\ell_i)\\
\frac{\partial z^\ell_i}{\partial x_k} &= \sum_{j=1}^{m_{\ell-1}} W^\ell_{i,j}\frac{\partial a^{\ell-1}_{j}}{\partial x_k} \label{eqn:IDNN4}\end{aligned}$$ where $z^\ell_i$ is given by Equation . In a slightly more abstracted form with two sets of activation units, $\alpha$ and $\beta_k$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^\ell_{k_i} &= f'(z^\ell_i)\sum_{j=1}^{m_{\ell-1}} W^\ell_{i,j}\beta^{\ell-1}_{k_j}\\
\alpha^\ell_i &= f(z^\ell_i)\end{aligned}$$ The values of the trained derivative function $y_{i,k} := \partial Y_i/\partial x_k$ and its integral (within an integration constant) $Y_i$ are found as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
y_{i,k} &= \sum_{j=1}^{m_{n}} W^{n+1}_{i,j}\beta^{n}_{k_j}\\
Y_i &= \sum_{j=1}^{m_{n}} W^{n+1}_{i,j}a^{n}_{j}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the following are used to compute the activation values for the first hidden layer: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^1_{k_i} &= f'(z^1_i) W^1_{i,k}\\
z^1_i &= b^1_{i} + \sum_{j=1}^{m_{1}} W^1_{i,j}x_{j}\\
\alpha^1_i &= f(z^1_i)\end{aligned}$$ The activation function, $f(\cdot)$, can be chosen such that its derivative, $f'(\cdot)$, is also a common activation function. For example, with the SoftPlus activation function, $f(x) := \ln(1 + e^x)$, the derivative, $f'(x)$ is the commonly used logistic function, i.e. $f'(x) = 1/(1 + e^{-x})$.
We emphasize that the form of the IDNN in Eq.(\[eqn:IDNN1\])–(\[eqn:IDNN4\]) has been chosen such that its integral has the form of a standard DNN, where both the IDNN and its integral use the same weights and biases, as is clear from the optimizations and . Thus, once the weights and biases of an IDNN have been trained using , the analytically integrated DNN is constructed by simply using the IDNN’s weights and biases in a standard DNN given by and .
Enforcing symmetries
--------------------
Neural networks have the property of being uniform approximations of continuous functions over compact domains [@Cybenko1989]. However, underlying symmetries of the domain are not guaranteed to be reproduced exactly by the DNN. For instance, consider a function, $f(x,y)$, defined on variables $x$ and $y$, such that they are symmetric under the inversion operation. Given the symmetry of the domain of $(x,y)$, the function is also symmetric under the same operation, i.e. $f(x,y)=f(\pm x,\pm y)$. Any artificial neural network that approximates $f$ must reproduce this symmetry exactly. This can be enforced on the DNN by first transforming the inputs to a set of symmetric functions [@Ling2015; @Ling2016]. For example, within a neural network to approximate $f$, rather than use the values of $(x,y)$ as input, the symmetric functions $(x^{2},y^{2})$ can be used to parameterize the DNN. These functions map all symmetrically equivalent points in the $(x,y)$ space on to the same value, while also differentiating symmetrically distinguishable points. As another example consider functions $f(x,y)$ that are invariant under an inversion about the $y=0$ line. A DNN that approximates any function in this class can be guaranteed to obey the required symmetry by using $(x,y^{2})$ as the input functions.
In general, a set of invariant inputs to the neural network may be defined by generating symmetry invariant polynomial functions with algorithms described by Thomas and Van der Ven [@thomas2017]. We will denote these functions as $h(\cdot)$. Since the given derivative data is likely differentiated with respect to, for example, $y$ and not $y^{2}$, we must incorporate the symmetrized inputs, $h(\cdot)$, into the loss function, e.g. $\mathrm{MSE}\left(\frac{\partial Y}{\partial h}\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_1},\hat{y}\right)$, where $\hat{y}=\partial\hat{Y}/\partial x_1$ is the derivative data.
Bridging atomic to continuum scales via an IDNN representation of the free energy density {#sec:B2}
=========================================================================================
The phase field model is an outgrowth of the Allen-Cahn theory that was originally developed to describe the motion of anti-phase boundaries in ordered compounds. Many binary alloys form a disordered solid solution at elevated temperature that transforms to an ordered compound at low temperature. A well-known example is the order-disorder transition in brass, where an equiatomic alloy of Cu and Zn forms a disordered mixture over the sites of a body centered cubic (bcc) lattice at high temperature, but then orders into a CsCl-type structure at low temperatures. The low temperature CuZn phase can be viewed as an ordered arrangement of Cu and Zn over the sites of the bcc lattice, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:bcc\_conventional\]. This ordering on bcc is referred to as B2. Because of the translation symmetry of the bcc lattice, there are two ways to form distinct B2 orderings on the same parent bcc lattice. The Zn could, for example, occupy the corners of the conventional cubic bcc unit cell, while the Cu occupies the body centered sites. Alternatively, Cu could occupy the corners, while Zn occupies the body centered sites. The two orderings are identical, differing only by a rigid translation in space. An alloy that orders upon cooling may adopt the first variant in some regions of the solid and the second variant in other regions. When the two variants impinge, they are separated by an anti-phase boundary.
Order parameters can be used to distinguish regions where the constituents of the alloy are ordered from regions where they are disordered. The order parameters should also be able to distinguish between the different translational variants of the ordered phase. Order parameters that satisfy these conditions for the B2 ordering on bcc are well known [@Allen1979; @Natarajan2017]. They are defined as linear combinations of sublattice concentrations $x_1$ and $x_2$ that track the average concentrations over the two sublattice sites $1$ and $2$ of the cubic unit cell shown in Figure \[fig:bcc\_conventional\]. In a binary A-B alloy (e.g. A=Cu and B=Zn), each sublattice concentration $x_i$ ($i=1,2$) is defined as the fraction of crystal sites belonging to sublattice site $i$ that are occupied by B atoms. Convenient order parameters to measure the degree of B2 long-range ordering can be defined as [@Allen1979; @Natarajan2017] $$\label{eq:homogeneous_comp}
c = \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}$$ $$\label{eq:op_B2}
\eta = \frac{x_{1}-x_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}$$ The first order parameter, $c$, is a measure of the homogeneous composition of the alloy (i.e. proportional to the fraction of all crystal sites occupied by B atoms). The second order parameter, $\eta$, measures the degree of long-range B2-like ordering, and is equal to zero in the completely disordered state as the distinction between the two sublattices disappears in the absence of long-range order and $x_1$=$x_2$. The order parameter $\eta$ is also able to distinguish between the two translational variants of B2. This becomes clear when considering an alloy containing an equal number of A and B components (i.e. when $c=1/\sqrt{2}$). In one translational variant of B2, the B atoms occupy sublattice $1$ while the A atoms occupy sublattice $2$. For this variant $x_1=1$ and $x_2=0$ such that $\eta$ becomes equal to $1/\sqrt{2}$. In the second translational variant of B2, the site occupancies are reversed and $\eta$ becomes equal to $-1/\sqrt{2}$.
The free energy, $g$, of a binary A-B alloy with a low-temperature preference for B2 ordering will be a function not only of temperature, $T$, and composition, $x$ (= $c/\sqrt{2}$), but also the long-range order parameter $\eta$. The dependence of $g$ on $T$, $x$ and $\eta$ can be calculated with statistical mechanics approaches. A binary alloy can be modeled as a lattice model that tracks the configurational degrees of freedom associated with all possible ways of arranging A and B atoms over $M$ sites of a crystal. This is done by assigning an occupation variable $\sigma_{i}$ to each crystal site $i=1,...,M$, which is equal to +1 when site $i$ is occupied by a B atoms and -1 when the site is occupied by an A atom. Any arrangement of A and B atoms on the M-site crystal is then fully specified by the configuration vector $\vec{\sigma}=\left(\sigma_1,...,\sigma_i,...,\sigma_M\right)$. The energy of the crystal for any configurations $\vec{\sigma}$ can be described with a cluster expansion Hamiltonian [@Sanchez1984; @deFontaine1994] $$E\left(\vec{\sigma}\right) = V_o+\sum_i V_i \sigma_i +\sum_{i,j}V_{i,j}\sigma_i \sigma_j+\sum_{i,j,k}V_{i,j,k}\sigma_i \sigma_j\sigma_k+...$$ where the expansion coefficients $V_o$, $V_i$, $V_{i,j}$, $V_{i,j,k}$,... are determined by the chemistry of the alloy and can be parameterized by training to a database of first-principles electronic structure calculations. Here, we use a simplified model cluster expansion Hamiltonian that contains only the constant $V_o$, a point term, $V_i$ and a term for the nearest neighbor cluster $V_{i,j}$ where ${i,j}$ represents nearest neighbor clusters. The nearest neighbor pair interaction was chosen such that the B2 ordering is a ground state [@ducastelle1991]. The finite temperature thermodynamics associated with the order-disorder phase transition can be calculated with Monte Carlo simulations applied to the cluster expansion Hamiltonian. Figure \[fig:clex\_pd\] shows the temperature versus composition phase diagram of the model alloy. The B2 stability domain (green) is separated from the disordered solid-solution domain (crimson) by a second order phase transition (solid line).
![Temperature-composition phase diagram calculated for the attractive nearest neighbor cluster expansion. Second order phase transitions are estimated from the divergence of the heat capacity. The temperature is normalized based on the nearest neighbor pair interaction (V$_{\textrm{NN}}$)[]{data-label="fig:clex_pd"}](figures/clex_pd.pdf)
![(a) Schematic crystal structure of the B2 ordering of A (blue) and B (green) atoms on the bcc crystal structure (b) Conventional cell of bcc showing two sublattices labeled 1 and 2 that are used to calculate sublattice compositions.[]{data-label="fig:bcc_conventional"}](figures/bcc_b2_ordering)
![(a) Schematic crystal structure of the B2 ordering of A (blue) and B (green) atoms on the bcc crystal structure (b) Conventional cell of bcc showing two sublattices labeled 1 and 2 that are used to calculate sublattice compositions.[]{data-label="fig:bcc_conventional"}](figures/bcc_sublat)
Conventional grand-canonical Monte-Carlo techniques restrict the calculated free energy to only the thermodynamically stable regions. However, since the unstable parts of the free energy are critical to describing the temporal and spatial evolution of the system within a phase field model, we employed biased Monte-Carlo techniques to sample the free energy throughout the composition, order-parameter domain [@Natarajan2017]. The biased ensemble is defined with the following partition function: $$Z(\phi_{c},\phi_{\eta},\kappa_{c},\kappa_{\eta},T) = \sum_{\vec{\sigma}} \exp\left( - \frac{E(\vec{\sigma}) + M \phi_{c} (c(\vec{\sigma})-\kappa_{c})^{2} + M \phi_{\eta} (\eta(\vec{\sigma})-\kappa_{\eta})^{2}}{k_{B} T} \right)$$ where $E(\vec{\sigma})$, $c(\vec{\sigma})$ and $\eta(\vec{\sigma})$ are the energy, homogeneous composition and long-range order parameter evaluated for configuration $\vec{\sigma}$. The quantities $\phi_c$, $\phi_\eta$, $\kappa_c$ and $\kappa_\eta$ define bias potentials, with curvatures given by $\phi_c$ and $\phi_\eta$, and centers at $\kappa_c$ and $\kappa_\eta$, respectively. The biased ensemble is sampled with Metropolis Monte-Carlo, and statistical averages of the homogeneous composition $\langle c\rangle$, and order parameter $\langle\eta\rangle$ are measured for different values of $\phi$, $\kappa$, and $T$. The statistical averages can be related to the derivatives of the free energy per atom (denoted $g = G/M$, where $G$ is the total free energy) as [@Natarajan2017]: $$\label{chem_pot_derivative}
\mu_{c} = \frac{\partial g}{\partial c}\Bigr|_{(\langle c \rangle,\langle \eta \rangle)} = -2 \phi_{c} (\langle c \rangle -\kappa_{c})$$ $$\label{op_derivative}
\mu_{\eta}= \frac{\partial g}{\partial \eta}\Bigr|_{(\langle c \rangle,\langle \eta \rangle)} = -2 \phi_{\eta} (\langle \eta \rangle -\kappa_{\eta})$$ where $\mu_{c}$ and $\mu_{\eta}$ are the chemical potentials with respect to the composition and order parameter respectively. The cluster expansions, and statistical mechanics calculations were performed with the `CASM` code [@Casm; @Vanderven2018; @thomas2013; @Puchala2013]. The measured ensemble averages were then used to calculate free energy derivatives.
Training free energy DNN {#sec:training}
------------------------
An IDNN representing the chemical potential data, $\mu_c$ and $\mu_\eta$, was trained to the derivative data, i.e. the chemical potential values, as described in Section \[sec:DNN\], such that the IDNN could be analytically integrated to recover the free energy. The IDNN was implemented as a custom Estimator using the `TensorFlow` library [@Martin2015], and was defined by two hidden layers with 10 units per layer. The IDNN was trained for 500 epochs using the `AdagradOptimizer`, with learning rates of 0.1 and 0.5 applied at different stages of training. A batch size of 10 was used, with 105,061 points in the training set and 35,021 points used for cross-validation. The resulting learning curve is plotted in Figure \[fig:learningCurve\], showing the decrease of both the training and cross-validation mean square errors as training progressed. Symmetry with respect to the order parameter about $\eta=0$ was enforced.
![Learning curve for the IDNN showing the decrease in mean square error for testing and cross-validation datasets over training epochs. The cross-validation error is nearly indistinguishable from the training error.[]{data-label="fig:learningCurve"}](figures/learningCurve-3.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
![The training of ten standard DNNs is compared with the training of ten IDNNs. Each neural network was trained for 20 epochs, with different initial values for the weights and biases. The cross-validation error is nearly indistinguishable from the training error. The added complexity of the IDNN does not inhibit training.[]{data-label="fig:learningCurveComp"}](figures/training_comp-3.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
Since the IDNN has a more complex form than the standard DNN, it is reasonable to expect that it may require more training to achieve comparable errors. To demonstrate any differences in training, ten IDNNs and ten standard DNNs were trained to the same chemical potential data, with the same symmetry conditions imposed. All twenty neural networks consisted of two hidden layers of ten neurons, each with different initial values for the weights and biases. They were trained for 20 epochs with a learning rate of 0.1. The resulting learning curves appear in Figure \[fig:learningCurveComp\]. After 20 epochs, the average MSE for the standard DNNs was higher than the average MSE for the IDNNs. Thus, the added complexity of the IDNN does not inhibit the training.
Figure \[fig:dnn\_fe\] shows the original chemical potential data compared with the associated IDNN that was trained to the corresponding chemical potential data. It also shows two views of the free energy surface as represented by the analytically integrated DNN. Perhaps the most significant feature of the free energy surface is the two energy wells, located at about $c=1/\sqrt{2}$, $\eta = \pm 1/\sqrt{2}$. Given that the wells exist at the same composition, the material will not separate into multiple phases, but instead form anti-phase domains. This reflects the expected physics of the system, described at the beginning of Section \[sec:B2\].
![Top row: plots of the chemical potential IDNN representations (surfaces) with the chemical potential data points (grey). Bottom row: the analytically integrated free energy density DNN.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_fe"}](figures/dg_dc_IDNN.png){width="95.00000%"}
![Top row: plots of the chemical potential IDNN representations (surfaces) with the chemical potential data points (grey). Bottom row: the analytically integrated free energy density DNN.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_fe"}](figures/dg_deta_IDNN.png){width="95.00000%"}
![Top row: plots of the chemical potential IDNN representations (surfaces) with the chemical potential data points (grey). Bottom row: the analytically integrated free energy density DNN.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_fe"}](figures/fe_1_DNN-3.png){width="95.00000%"}
![Top row: plots of the chemical potential IDNN representations (surfaces) with the chemical potential data points (grey). Bottom row: the analytically integrated free energy density DNN.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_fe"}](figures/fe_2_DNN-3.png){width="95.00000%"}
Phase field computation {#sec:phase field}
-----------------------
To demonstrate the use of the DNN representation of the free energy in computations, the analytically integrated free energy DNN was used in phase field computations. The phase field model was based on the coupled Cahn-Hilliard and Allen-Cahn equations [@CahnHilliard1958; @Allen1979; @Cahn1996; @NovickCohen2000; @Barrett2001], solved using isogeometric analysis (IGA) [@CottrellHughesBazilevs2009]. The simulation was performed using the `mechanoChemIGA` code[^1], which is based on the `PetIGA` [@Dalcin2016] and `PETSc` [@petsc-web-page; @petsc-user-ref; @petsc-efficient] libraries, and run on the XSEDE Comet HPC cluster [@Towns2014].
### Formulation
Given the homogeneous free energy density $g(c,\eta)$ as a function of concentration, $c$, and order parameter, $\eta$, we define the total free energy as the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi[c,\eta] &= \int\limits_\Omega \left[g(c,\eta) + \frac{1}{2}\chi|\nabla c|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\chi|\nabla\eta|^2\right]\,\mathrm{d}V\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding chemical potentials are given by the variational derivatives of the total free energy, namely $\mu_c := \delta\Pi/\delta c$ and $\mu_\eta := \delta\Pi/\delta\eta$. Using standard variational methods results in the following equations for the chemical potentials: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_c &= \frac{\partial g}{\partial c} - \chi \nabla^2 c\\
\mu_\eta &= \frac{\partial g}{\partial \eta} - \chi \nabla^2 \eta\end{aligned}$$
The phase field model consists of the Cahn-Hilliard and Allen-Cahn equations, given by the following, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial c}{\partial t} &= 4\chi\nabla\cdot M(c,\eta)\nabla\mu_c\\
\frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t} &= -\frac{1}{4}M(c,\eta)\mu_\eta\end{aligned}$$ The Cahn-Hilliard equation is in conservation form, with the flux defined as ${\boldsymbol{J}} := -M\nabla\mu_c$. It models the overall composition of the system through $c$, while conserving mass. The Allen-Cahn equation models the time evolution of the long-range ordering of the system through the non-conserved order parameter $\eta$. The two equations are coupled through the chemical potentials being derived from the same free energy. Periodic boundary conditions were applied. A degenerate mobility of the following form was applied: $$M(c,\eta) = 16\tilde{M}c^2(\sqrt{2}-c)^2(1/2 - \eta^2)^2$$ The weak form of the equations, as solved by the IGA formulation, takes the following form:$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
0 &= \int_\Omega \left[w\frac{\partial c}{\partial t} + 4\chi \left(M\nabla w\cdot\nabla g_{,c}+\chi(M\nabla^2w + \nabla M\cdot\nabla w) \nabla^2 c\right)\right]\mathrm{d}V
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
0 &= \int_\Omega \left[w\frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{4}\left(Mwg_{,\eta} + \chi(M\nabla w + w\nabla M)\cdot\nabla\eta\right)\right]\mathrm{d}V
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Due to the stiffness of the equations when using the realistic free energy density, a two-stage, fourth-order Runge-Kutta time stepping scheme was used [@Suli2003].
### Phase field results {#sec:pfresults}
We considered a two-dimensional domain, discretized by a $200\times200$ element mesh. The initial and boundary value problem was initialized with a uniform composition field of $c = 1/\sqrt{2}$ and an order parameter field randomly perturbed about $\eta = 0$ by a value up to 0.01, representing a material that had just been quenched from a higher temperature. Periodic boundary conditions were applied. The initial time step was $\Delta t = 1$, with an adaptive time stepping scheme being applied to modify the time step based on the convergence of the nonlinear solver at each time step.
As shown in Figure \[fig:dnn\_pf1\], the initially disordered domain gradually forms regions of the two ordered states. The antiphase boundary has completely formed within 40 time steps. The antiphase domains take on order parameter values of $\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$, while the composition field remains nearly uniform.
![The order parameter field from the phase field simulation is plotted, showing the formation of antiphase boundaries in a B2 alloy, with chemical potentials represented as IDNNs, integrated to yield the free energy.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_pf1"}](figures/ts0.png){width="90.00000%"}
![The order parameter field from the phase field simulation is plotted, showing the formation of antiphase boundaries in a B2 alloy, with chemical potentials represented as IDNNs, integrated to yield the free energy.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_pf1"}](figures/ts20.png){width="90.00000%"}
![The order parameter field from the phase field simulation is plotted, showing the formation of antiphase boundaries in a B2 alloy, with chemical potentials represented as IDNNs, integrated to yield the free energy.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_pf1"}](figures/ts30.png){width="90.00000%"}
![The order parameter field from the phase field simulation is plotted, showing the formation of antiphase boundaries in a B2 alloy, with chemical potentials represented as IDNNs, integrated to yield the free energy.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_pf1"}](figures/ts40.png){width="90.00000%"}
As the simulation progresses, the microstructure coarsens with curvature fluctuations from a straight antiphase boundary decreasing, as shown in Figure \[fig:dnn\_pf2\].
![Curvature fluctuations away from straight antiphase boundaries decrease, and the domains coarsen with time. The chemical potentials are represented as IDNNs, integrated to yield the free energy.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_pf2"}](figures/ts150.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Curvature fluctuations away from straight antiphase boundaries decrease, and the domains coarsen with time. The chemical potentials are represented as IDNNs, integrated to yield the free energy.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_pf2"}](figures/ts300.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Curvature fluctuations away from straight antiphase boundaries decrease, and the domains coarsen with time. The chemical potentials are represented as IDNNs, integrated to yield the free energy.[]{data-label="fig:dnn_pf2"}](figures/ts800.png){width="90.00000%"}
Comparison with B-spline surface fit {#sec:splines}
====================================
For comparison with the IDNN’s representation properties of complex surfaces, we consider two-dimensional B-splines, motivated by their wide use in mathematics, and diverse applications in engineering [@CottrellHughesBazilevs2009].
Formulation
-----------
The equation for a B-spline surface $Y(\xi_1,\xi_2)$, with knots on a tensor grid can be written in the following form $$Y(\xi_1,\xi_2) = \sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^n C_{ij}N_{i,p}(\xi_1)M_{j,p}(\xi_2)
\label{eqn:splinesurf}$$ where $\xi_1\in[\xi^1_1,\xi^{m+p+1}_1]$, $\xi_2\in[\xi^1_2,\xi^{n+p+1}_2]$, and $N_{i,p}$ is the B-spline basis function of order $p$. The basis functions are defined by the Cox-de Boor recursion formula [@cox1972; @deboor1972] $$\begin{aligned}
N_{i,p}(\xi_1) &= \frac{\xi_1 - \xi^i_1}{\xi^{i+p}_1-\xi^i_1}N_{i,p-1}(\xi_1)+\frac{\xi^{i+p+1}_1 - \xi_1}{\xi^{i+p+1}_1-\xi^{i+1}_1}N_{i+1,p-1}(\xi_1)\label{eq:coxdeboor1}\\
N_{i,0}(\xi_1) &=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } \xi^i_1 \leq \xi_1 < \xi^{i+1}_1\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ using the knot vector $\Xi_1 = \{\xi^1_1,\xi^2_1,\ldots,\xi^{m+p+1}_1\}$. $M_{j,p}(\xi_2)$ is similarly defined using the knot vector $\Xi_2 = \{\xi^1_2,\xi^2_2,\ldots,\xi^{n+p+1}_2\}$.
To convert the matrix $C$ to a vector (to use the standard form for least squares fitting), we use the following index conversion: $I = ni+j$, $i=0,\ldots,m-1$, $j=0,\ldots,n-1$, so that $I = 0,\ldots,mn-1$. Then we can rewrite Eq. (\[eqn:splinesurf\]) as the following:
$$Y(\xi_1,\xi_2) = \sum_{I=0}^{mn-1}c_IP_{I,p}(\xi_1,\xi_2)$$
where $c_I := C_{ij}$ and $P_{I,p}(\xi_1,\xi_2) := N_{i,p}(\xi_1)M_{j,p}(\xi_2)$. If evaluating multiple data points $\{(\hat{\xi}_{1_k},\hat{\xi}_{2_k})\}$, we can write the resulting vector of function evaluations using the following matrix-vector form, written in coordinate notation: $$\begin{aligned}
Y_k &= A_{kI}c_I\end{aligned}$$ where $$A_{kI} = P_{I,p}(\hat{\xi}_{1_k},\hat{\xi}_{2_k})$$
We now consider fitting to two sets of derivative data. For derivative datasets contained in the two vectors ${\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_1$ and ${\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_2$, the following matrices are defined: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{kI} &= \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_1}P_{I,p}(\hat{\xi}_{1_k},\hat{\xi}_{2_k})\\
C_{kI} &= \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_2}P_{I,p}(\hat{\xi}_{1_k},\hat{\xi}_{2_k})\label{eq:splineparam}\end{aligned}$$ Then, we have the following least squares formulation, with some regularization added for numerical stability: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{{\boldsymbol{c}}} &= \mathrm{arg}\min_{{\boldsymbol{c}}} \left[\left({\boldsymbol{B}}{\boldsymbol{c}} - {\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_1\right)^T\left({\boldsymbol{B}}{\boldsymbol{c}} - {\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_1\right) + \left({\boldsymbol{C}}{\boldsymbol{c}} - {\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_2\right)^T\left({\boldsymbol{C}}{\boldsymbol{c}} - {\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_2\right) + \lambda{\boldsymbol{c}}^T{\boldsymbol{c}}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is the regularization coefficient. Setting the gradient with respect to ${\boldsymbol{c}}$ equal to the zero vector leads to the following least squares solution: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{{\boldsymbol{c}}} &= \left({\boldsymbol{B}}^T{\boldsymbol{B}}+{\boldsymbol{C}}^T{\boldsymbol{C}} + \lambda{\boldsymbol{I}}\right)^{-1}\left({\boldsymbol{B}}^T{\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_1+{\boldsymbol{C}}^T{\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}}_2\right)
\label{eq:optimspline}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{I}}$ is the identity matrix. Equations (\[eq:coxdeboor1\]-\[eq:splineparam\]) and are applied, with datasets in the $(c,\eta)$ space corresponding to the $(\xi_1,\xi_2)$ space for B-spline surfaces. Chemical potential data for $\mu_c$ and $\mu_\eta$ are contained in the vectors $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}_1$ and $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}_2$, respectively.
Selection of knots
------------------
While the method presented in the previous section can be used to optimize the values of the control points for given knot vectors, the locations of the knots also can be optimized to minimize the error. A variety of approaches are available, including nonlinear least squares, bisection, and genetic algorithms [@Dung2017]. Our approach was performed in two steps.
![The mean square error (MSE) is compared for different numbers of knots distributed uniformly.[]{data-label="fig:knot_opt"}](figures/uniform_knots-3.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
First, we divided the data into training data (75%) and validation data (25%). As before, symmetry of the function about $\eta=0$ was imposed. The optimal control points were found for a number of uniformly spaced knots, and the mean square error (MSE) using the validation data was reported, as shown in Figure \[fig:knot\_opt\]. Higher numbers of knots were not used due to the resulting oscillatory behavior of the fit, particularly in regions of missing data. Knots placed at Chebyshev nodes also resulted in inaccurate fluctuations where data was missing when more than one interior knot was used. In comparing the resulting cross-validation error, it was found that thirteen uniformly distributed interior knots gave the lowest error with $9.25\times10^{-4}$.
In the second step, we used Matlab’s genetic algorithm optimization routine to attempt to improve the B-spline fit using thirteen interior knots per knot vector (26 total variables). Appropriate inequality constraints were applied to maintain monotonically increasing knot vectors. The algorithm terminated after 50 generations, with a MSE of $5.903\times10^{-3}$. Since this was not an improvement over the error with uniformly spaced knots, the B-spline fit with thirteen uniformly spaced interior knots per knot vector was taken as the best fit using B-splines.
B-spline results, and comparison with DNN
-----------------------------------------
The resulting B-spline representations of the chemical potentials and the free energy density are plotted in Figure \[fig:spline\_fe\]. Visually, these fits seem similar to those of the DNN in Figure \[fig:dnn\_fe\], although there are notable differences.
![Top row: Plots of the chemical potential B-spline surfaces with data in grey. Bottom row: Free energy density B-spline surface.[]{data-label="fig:spline_fe"}](figures/dg_dc_splines.png){width="99.00000%"}
![Top row: Plots of the chemical potential B-spline surfaces with data in grey. Bottom row: Free energy density B-spline surface.[]{data-label="fig:spline_fe"}](figures/dg_deta_splines.png){width="99.00000%"}
![Top row: Plots of the chemical potential B-spline surfaces with data in grey. Bottom row: Free energy density B-spline surface.[]{data-label="fig:spline_fe"}](figures/fe_1_splines.png){width="99.00000%"}
![Top row: Plots of the chemical potential B-spline surfaces with data in grey. Bottom row: Free energy density B-spline surface.[]{data-label="fig:spline_fe"}](figures/fe_2_splines.png){width="99.00000%"}
![Comparison of $\partial g/\partial\eta$ at $c = 1/\sqrt{2}$ for the IDNN and B-spline fits, showing the regions where the sign of $\partial g/\partial\eta$ goes from positive to negative and antiphase separation occurs. The $\partial g/\partial\eta$ data are also plotted as points.[]{data-label="fig:dg_deta"}](figures/dg_deta_comp.pdf){width="55.00000%"}
The behavior of the dynamics related to antiphase domains is dictated primarily by the sign of $\partial g/\partial\eta$. These values are plotted in Figure \[fig:dg\_deta\], along with data points within $c = 1/\sqrt{2} \pm 1.1\times10^{-4}$ for comparison. Antiphase segregation occurs in a domain where the sign of $\partial g/\partial\eta$ changes from positive to negative for increasing $\eta$. In order for antiphase domains to occur in the phase field simulations, the initial conditions, which as in Section \[sec:pfresults\] consist of random perturbations about $\eta = 0$ in the range (-0.01,0.01), must lie on both sides of the point where the sign of $\partial g/\partial\eta$ changes from positive to negative. While this condition holds true for the DNN representation, it does not hold for the B-spline representation. Due to oscillations in the B-spline representation, $\partial g/\partial\eta$ changes from negative to positive, rather than positive to negative, within the range of initial order parameter values. This results in a phase field solution that does not produce antiphase regions, but instead reaches an equilibrium with uniform values of $\eta=0$ and $c=1/\sqrt{2}$. It is possible, however, that other methods for knot selection or additional constraints might produce a better fit with B-splines.
The B-spline representation is more computationally efficient than the DNN. The phase field code evaluates the free energy and all first and second derivatives at each quadrature point. Using the de Boor algorithm for B-spline evaluation [@deboor1972], the FLOP count for each function evaluation is about 1700. The highest order term in the count is $\sim165p^2$, with polynomial order $p$. Significantly, the FLOP count for the B-spline evaluation does not depend on the size of the knot vector. The DNN representation, on the other hand, requires about 4500 FLOPs per evaluation of the DNN and its derivatives, using a naive implementation. The highest order term of the count is $\sim18m^2n$, where $m$ is the neurons per layer and $n$ is the number of layers. However, an improved evaluation algorithm could potentially reduce the FLOP count. The use of accelerators could also speed up the function evaluations, without reducing the total FLOP count.
While the FLOP count for the free energy evaluation of the DNN is more than 2.5 times that of the B-spline, this affects only the computation time for the assembly of the residual vector and tangent matrix. The wall time for the matrix-vector solution will be equivalent for the two methods, assuming both fitted functions are similar enough to give comparable condition numbers. For the DNN and B-spline fits presented here, the average computation time per time step over the first 5 time steps using B-splines was 22.8 s, while it was 24.7 s using the DNN. The total computation time using the DNN was, then, only about 1.1 times that of the computation using the B-spline to represent the free energy. For larger problems, the matrix size increases and solver time comes to dominate the average computation time. In this limit the wall times will converge.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
This communication adds to our nascent, but growing body of work in machine learning and artificial intelligence targeting higher fidelity models of materials physics [@natarajan2018; @Teichert2018a]. We have explored machine learning as an approach to bridging scales, by focusing on the representation of complexity emerging from fine scale physics. Here, the fine scales come from atomic and statistical mechanics descriptions, which can parameterize thermodynamic functions, such as free energy densities with high fidelity. At the core of this work is the idea of an analytically integrable Deep Neural Network (IDNN) to represent such functions. The IDNN is of particular use in the context of mathematically representing the free energy density of a material, where only the derivative data is originally known and the trained function must be integrated to recover the free energy. It is highly relevant to multidimensional systems, where multiple sets of partial derivative data must be trained against simultaneously under the constraint that all trained functions are the partial derivatives of one common function.
Using as a prototypical case a binary alloy, an IDNN was trained to two sets of chemical potential data, which were found using first principles calculations. Since these datasets are derivatives of the same free energy density, the analytic integrability of the IDNN, which exactly preserves consistency of representation, assumes importance. Symmetry with respect to the order parameter was embedded in the IDNN. We anticipate an expansion of these approaches to embedding fundamental aspects of the physics into machine learning models as this field develops.
Phase field simulations with the analytically integrated DNN representing the free energy recovered the proper physics of the system, showing the creation and subsequent coarsening of antiphase domains in the material. This example demonstrates the ability of the IDNN to capture the relevant physics of a material system. Interestingly, the IDNN was able to represent the physics of the system more faithfully than a B-spline representation, even in the current, relatively simple case, of a two-dimensional input. We note that in earlier work, we have demonstrated that B-spline representations themselves are superior to the more traditional Redlich-Kister polynomials at resolving rapidly varying thermodynamic functions [@Teichert2017]. The present work is a continuation of that thread, and establishes that, even for only two-dimensional functions, the B-spline approach also may be inadequate. It is natural to expect that high-dimensional chemical potentials and free energy densities will present greater challenges.
Future work will consider systems of greater complexity, where the free energy density has such higher-dimensional dependence on variables that number $\sim \mathcal{O}(10)$. In this regime, high fidelity representations of the free energy density will be crucial to reproducing the physics through scale bridging, and the uniform approximation property of DNNs, inherited by the IDNNs, will deliver greater advantages.
Acknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements}
================
We gratefully acknowledge the support of Toyota Research Institute, Award \#849910, “Computational framework for data-driven, predictive, multi-scale and multi-physics modeling of battery materials". This work has also been supported in part by National Science Foundation DMREF grant \#1729166, “Integrated Framework for Design of Alloy-Oxide Structures”. Simulations in this work were performed using the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) Comet at the San Diego Supercomputer Center through allocations TG-MSS160003 and TG-DMR180072. XSEDE is supported by National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1548562. Computing resources also were provided in part by the NSF via grant 1531752 MRI: Acquisition of Conflux, A Novel Platform for Data-Driven Computational Physics (Tech. Monitor: Ed Walker).
[^1]: Code available at github.com/mechanoChem/mechanoChemIGA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Dmitry Melnikov
title: '**Topological transport from a black hole**'
---
#### Introduction.
AdS/CFT is a powerful tool to approach a certain class of strongly coupled quantum systems. The method is based on a conjectured duality between string theory in anti-de Sitter (AdS) space and conformal theory (CFT) on the boundary of AdS [@AdS/CFT]. When the string theory is in its low-energy weak-coupling limit of classical gravity the dual CFT is in a quantum strongly coupled phase. Henceforth we refer to this as the *holographic* limit.
It turns out that the strong coupling regime of the CFT probed by the duality is a peculiar one. In particular, it does not apply directly to strong interactions in particle physics, as originally expected, since it addresses the regime of extreme number of internal degrees of freedom (color) and extreme values of coupling constant. It was consequently proposed that a more natural domain of applicability of AdS/CFT belongs to condensed matter physics. An appropriate review can be found in Ref. [@AdS/CMT].
Following the idea of the proposal we would like to revisit the view of AdS/CFT on transport in $2+1$ - dimensional systems with finite charge density and magnetic field. The focus in this paper will be on the low-temperature transport. Based on the analysis of transport properties we claim that the simplest $3+1$ - dimensional dual gravity description of such a system predominantly reflects its topological features.
The most interesting observation that we will present here is that $3+1$/$2+1$ - dimensional “holographic" duality is consistent with the $2+1$/$1+1$ bulk-to-boundary correspondence in well-known topological setups, such as quantum Hall effect (QHE). Most transparently, the heat conductivities, as computed by the gravity model, exhibit a typical behavior, consistent with CFT models of $1+1$ - dimensional edge modes in QHE. The low temperature results thus indicate exact systems, where predictions of AdS/CFT could be tested, even experimentally. Some experimental challenges are outlined in the conclusion to this paper. In particular, holography instructs us to work in a “classical” regime of degenerate topological states of matter.
The gravity system that has the above features is provided by an electrically and magnetically charged (dyonic) black hole [@Hartnoll:2007ai].
#### In dyonic black holes
transport was originally discussed by Hartnoll and Kovtun [@Hartnoll:2007ai], and later by seminal papers [@Hartnoll:2007ih] and [@Herzog] of Hartnoll *et al*, which demonstrated an impressive consistence of holographic approach with a more conventional hydrodynamical one. The gravity side of the story is provided by a $3+1$ - dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory with a negative cosmological constant. This theory has a solution corresponding to an asymptotically AdS black hole metric coupled to electric and magnetic fields. The latter fields are parallel to the fourth “radial" AdS coordinate $z$, so that at the asymptotic boundary $z\to 0$, where the expected $2+1$ - dimensional dual theory lives, the electric field turns into a two-dimensional surface charge density $\rho$, while the magnetic field $B$ becomes a transverse magnetic flux.
Following the holographic prescription one can compute equilibrium thermodynamics of the dual system as well as response to external perturbations. Gravity calculation appears as powerful as the hydrodynamical one, yet it is more complete and provides information on the equation of state. Summarizing the zero frequency results from Refs. [@Hartnoll:2007ai; @Hartnoll:2007ih] on transport coefficients, classical gravity calculation in the dyonic black hole background expresses electric, thermal and mixed conductivities in terms of the thermodynamical quantities. While the result for electric conductivity does not seem to be very illuminating, namely, non-vanishing is only the transverse Hall conductivity, which is expressed as $\sigma_H=\rho/B$, the thermal conductivity is given by a less trivial expression: $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{klong}
\kappa_{xx} \ = \ \kappa_{yy} & = & \frac{a s^2 T}{\rho^2+a^2 B^2}\,, \nn \\
\label{kperp}
\kappa_{xy} \ = \ -\,\kappa_{yx} & = & \frac{ \rho s^2 T}{B(\rho^2+a^2 B^2)} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here $T$ and $s$ are the temperature and entropy density of the thermodynamic system described by the black hole. The quantity \[centralcharge\] a = , comes from the gravitational/geometric parameters: $G$ is the four-dimensional Newton’s constant and $L$ is the curvature radius of the AdS space. One can establish the precise meaning of $a$ on the dual side, if the black hole is embedded in a full string theory setup. In [@Herzog:2007ij] it is identified as $\sqrt{2}N^{3/2}/6\pi$ in terms of a dual superconformal gauge theory with $SU(N)$ gauge group. More generally it is a parameter that characterizes a number of degrees of freedom of the dual CFT.
#### In the low temperature limit
thermodynamics of the dyonic black hole and Eq. (\[kperp\]) yield the following result for the thermal conductivities $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{klong}
\kappa_{xx} & = & \frac{\pi^2}{3}\,a T + O(T^2)\,, \nn \\
\label{kperp2}
\kappa_{xy} & = & \frac{\pi^2}{3}\,\sigma_H T + O(T^2)\,.\end{aligned}$$
The numerical coefficient $\pi^2/3$ that appears in the expressions for the conductivities is the conventional quantum of thermal conductivity “quantized" in units of parameters $a$ and $\sigma_H$. In particular, it was appreciated in Ref. [@Melnikov:2012tb] that the ratio of transverse thermal and electric conductivities, = T, yields the Wiedemann-Franz law for classical metals.
The expression for $a$ in terms of gravity parameters together with the form it appears in Eq. (\[kperp2\]) implies that we should identify $a$ with a central charge of the dual theory. In three-dimensional gravity in AdS space their exists a similar relation derived by Brown and Henneaux [@Brown:1986nw]. Specifically, the boundary degrees of freedom of $AdS_3$ are governed by a $1+1$ - dimensional CFT with central charge $c=3L^{(3D)}/2G^{(3D)}$. Expression (\[centralcharge\]) for $a$ is a particular $D=2+1$ form of the central charge in odd dimensions conjectured by Myers and Sinha [@Myers:2010xs] in the analysis of the universal contribution to entanglement entropy. Eq. (\[kperp2\]) provides further evidence to this conjecture.
#### In a topological state,
such as one in QHE, transport occurs at edges of the system. In the presence of edges the effective Chern-Simons theory of QHE requires massless boundary degrees of freedom to preserve gauge invariance. The theory of edge modes is a CFT, whose central charge is connected with the filling fraction of the QHE state [@Wen]. CFT allows to compute the transverse Leduc-Righi (LR) conductivity \_[xy]{} = \_Q T, where $\nu_Q$ is a sum over edge mode channels. In integer QHE, see *e.g.* [@Kane:1997fda], $\nu_Q=\sigma_H$, and the holographic formula for the LR conductivity appears consistent. The difference between $\nu_Q$ and $\sigma_H$ appears when channels with different quasiparticle charges and, consequently, different $\sigma_H$ are present. This is not captured by the naive holographic picture.
In a 1998 paper [@Read:1999ch] Green and Read proposed to derive the quantization of $\kappa_{xy}$, coupling energy current to external metric fluctuations. Similarly to the electric potential, metric would be controlled by a gravitational Chern-Simons theory. As we know, gravity has a Chern-Simons description in three dimensions. The approach suggested by Green and Read is what is now “routinely" applied in AdS/CFT.
In 3D the above result for the LR conductivity is easy to obtain. In $AdS_3$ an easy calculation yields \[AdS3\] = c T. in terms of the Brown-Henneaux central charge $c$. Note that $2+1$ - dimensional gravity describes a $1+1$-dimensional system, which is the edge of the QHE bar. Thus $\kappa =\kappa_{xy}$ and $\sigma_H = c/2\pi$. Meanwhile the direct conductivity $\kappa_{xx}$ is defined in terms of a $2+1$ - dimensional central charge $a$.
The agreement between Eqs. (\[kperp2\]) and (\[AdS3\]) is quite interesting. We remind that while in $AdS_3$ this result can be easily obtained using conformal symmetry, in $AdS_4$ it becomes a much less trivial calculation, *e.g.* [@Hartnoll:2007ai]. We believe that the reason for the agreement lies in the fact that the $T\to 0$ result is topological.
#### In experiment
more accessible are the thermoelectric coefficients, which characterize the current or voltage response to an applied temperature difference. First, from formulae in [@Hartnoll:2007ai; @Hartnoll:2007ih] one finds the low temperature expansion of the thermoelectric conductivity: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{xx} & = & 0\,, \nn \\
\alpha_{xy} & = & - \alpha_{yx} \ = \ \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\sigma_H^2+a^2} + O(T)\,.\end{aligned}$$ It appears that the off-diagonal part of $\alpha$ is a square root of the sum of $\kappa_{xx}^2$ and $\kappa_{xy}^2$ divided by the temperature.
The thermoelectric power (TEP) $S$ can be found from the matrix formula $S=-\sigma^{-1}\cdot\alpha$. We conclude that S\_[xx]{} = - = - + O(T). while the transverse components, measuring the Nernst response, vanish.
As in Boltzmann’s theory the TEP is entropy carried by unit charge. The fact that it does not vanish for zero temperature is related to non-vanishing entropy at $T=0$. In other words, the ground state of the black hole is degenerate, which happens in topological states of matter. The leading $T=0$ coefficient thus computes the topological TEP.
It is interesting to compute the next order contribution to the (Seebeck) coefficient $S$. Using the black hole equation of state it can readily be presented in the form \[Mott\] S\_[xx]{} = S\_[xx]{}\^[(top)]{} - T(\^[-1]{}) + O(T\^2). In the latter term one recognizes the Mott relation [@Mott].
![(color online) Seebeck coefficient as a function of the chemical potential (applied gate voltage). Different curves show the dependence at different temperatures, which is measured in units of $\mu/\sqrt{B}$.[]{data-label="fig:tep"}](./tep.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In figure \[fig:tep\] we show a plot of the coefficient $S_{xx}$ as a function of chemical potential and temperature. This plot can be compared with experimental data. In real QHE $S_{xx}$ would exhibit oscillations, between zero value (at a Hall plateau) and some maximum value (transition between plateaux), which is inversely proportional to the Landau level number. The connection between experimental behavior and the one on figure \[fig:tep\] will become clear in the following discussion.
Another application of the transport information is an estimate for the dimensionless figure of merit in holographic topological transport ZT = S\^2\^[-1]{}T = (
[cc]{} 1 &\
- & 1
). Here we define $ZT$ as a matrix, via multiplication of transport matrices.
#### In charged black holes
it is a common practice to impose the condition $A_t=0$ for the bulk (Maxwell) gauge field at the horizon. This ensures regularity of thermodynamic potentials, but also fixes the thermodynamical relation between the chemical potential and charge density. In the case of the dyonic black hole [@Hartnoll:2007ai] the relation reads \[thermorelation\] = a, where $z_h$ is the horizon radius of the black hole in terms of the $AdS_4$ radial coordinate $z$ [@radius], fixed by the relation \[horizon\] z\_h\^2\^2+z\_h\^4B\^2+4z\_h T =3. Together, Eqs. (\[thermorelation\]) and (\[horizon\]) constitute the equation of state of the dual system. It is not hard to verify that Mott relation (\[Mott\]) was derived assuming the above relation.
We remind that the horizon radius is a geometric scale, which can be holographically associated with a physical energy scale in the dual theory. In black holes with no charge this scale is temperature. Heuristically, all physics characterized by an energy scale below the temperature scale gets swallowed by the black hole.
We are interested in the regime $T\to 0$ of the charged black hole. In this limit the black hole still has a finite radius. The geometric scale can now be associated with the chemical potential and/or the Landau level filling fraction as instructed by Eq. (\[horizon\]).
To sum up the observations, the system seems to be in a QHE-like state since the direct electric conductivity vanishes. One the other hand, the filling fraction is not quantized. Moreover, charge density $\rho$ depends on both the chemical potential and magnetic field. In the same time one observes that the zero temperature state of the system has a non-vanishing entropy.
Such a system has a simple interpretation. It is a holographic limit of a topological state. The charge density $\rho$ is not the density of electrons filling the Landau levels, but rather the density of quasiparticle excitations. The density of the quasiparticles scales as the central charge $a$. It must be large in the limit $a\to\infty$. This is similar to the classical limit $\hbar\to 0$, where one cannot distinguish individual plateux of conductivity and the latter appear as continuous rather than quantized.
A topological state with a large number of non-abelian quasiparticles can be highly degenerate. This is accounted by the entropy, which is also proportional to the central charge. Consequently, topological nature of this quasiparticle system is reflected in the behavior of the transport coefficients at low temperatures.
#### In conclusion
we summarize our observations about low-temperature, zero-frequency transport predicted by the dyonic black hole. The electric and heat conductivities have the following scaling $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma & = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \sigma_H\\
-\sigma_H & 0
\end{array}
\right),\nn \\
\kappa & = & \frac{\pi^2}{3}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & \sigma_H\\
-\sigma_H & a
\end{array}
\right)T\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the central charge of the underlying CFT, large in the holographic limit. In this limit charge density scales as $O(a)$, which is equivalent to the classical limit $\hbar\to 0$ in $\sigma_H=\rho/B$, where it becomes continuous rather than quantized. The quantization should be recovered at small values of the chemical potential, $\mu\sim1/a$, where $\sigma_H=O(1)$ and $\delta\sigma_H/\delta\mu\to \infty$.
The thermoelectric conductivity is transverse, $\alpha_{xy}=\sqrt{\kappa_{xx}^2+\kappa_{xy}^2}/T$. At low temperature it is independent from $T$. So is the Seebeck constant (TEP), which in the limit of large $a$, but finite $\sigma_H$, scales as S = - . This result can be used as a reference for experimental values of heights of the maxima of $S_{xx}$ in topological phases. Indeed, in the $a\to\infty$ limit, what the plot on figure \[fig:tep\] must be showing is the envelope curve of the oscillating experimental function. The characteristic figure of merit of the topological system shows the same scaling $a/\sigma_H$.
We remind that the results cited in Refs. [@Hartnoll:2007ih] and [@Herzog] apply for any values of $T$, and further, any frequency $\omega$. It would be interesting to analyze the experimental consequences of those results also departing from the low-temperature regime. We have shown that the subleading temperature behavior of TEP is given by the Mott relation, which is often a good description of experimental results. It would be interesting if the leading behavior could be tested in a degenerate topological state. For example, a non-vanishing TEP at zero temperature is consistent with a non-abelian nature of the quasiparticles, *cf.* Ref. [@Halperin].
A more challenging experimental task is to test the subleading behaviour of heat conductivities. Expanding Eqs. (\[kperp\]) in small $T$ we find that the ratio of the $O(T^2)$ coefficients can be expressed in terms of topological data as = . At large $a$, but finite $\sigma_H$, this ratio tends to $4a/5\sigma_H$.
An interesting theoretical question is what this topological behavior means for the $AdS_4$ Einstein-Maxwell theory itself. Perhaps, by connecting it to an appropriate “Chern-Simons” theory on the boundary, as in [@Herzog:2007ij], the theory could prove completely solvable.
#### Acknowledgements
The author benefited from enlightening discussions with A. Abanov, D. Giataganas, D. Khveshchenko, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, F. Novaes, R. Pereira and P. Wiegmann as well as from many interesting conferences held at the IIP in Natal. He would also like to thank S. Klevtsov, N. Toumbas and the hospitality of the University of Cologne and the University of Cyprus, where a part of this work was done. The work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation Grant No. 16-12-10344.
[99]{}
J. M. Maldacena, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**38**]{} (1999) 1113 \[Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 231\] \[hep-th/9711200\]; S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B [**428**]{} (1998) 105 \[hep-th/9802109\]. E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 253 \[hep-th/9802150\]. S. A. Hartnoll, Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{} (2009) 224002 \[arXiv:0903.3246 \[hep-th\]\]. S. A. Hartnoll and P. Kovtun, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 066001 \[arXiv:0704.1160 \[hep-th\]\]; S. A. Hartnoll, P. K. Kovtun, M. Muller and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{} (2007) 144502 \[arXiv:0706.3215 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\]. S. A. Hartnoll and C. P. Herzog, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 106012 \[arXiv:0706.3228 \[hep-th\]\].
C. P. Herzog, P. Kovtun, S. Sachdev and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 085020 \[hep-th/0701036\].
D. Melnikov, E. Orazi and P. Sodano, JHEP [**1305**]{} (2013) 116 \[arXiv:1211.1416 \[hep-th\]\]. J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, Commun. Math. Phys. [**104**]{} (1986) 207. R. C. Myers and A. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 046006 \[arXiv:1006.1263 \[hep-th\]\]. X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{} (1990) 12838. C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{} (1997) no.23, 15832. N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{} (2000), 10267. \[arXiv:cond-mat/9906453\]. M. Cutler and N. F. Mott, Phys. Rev. [**181**]{} (1969) 1336.
It is a bit sloppy to call $z_h$ the black hole radius. A more proper radius is given by $L^2/z_h$: when black hole is “large" – $z_h$ is small.
K. Yang and B. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{} (2009), 115317.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we propose right-angled Artin groups as a platform for secret sharing schemes based on the efficiency (linear time) of the word problem. Inspired by previous work of Grigoriev-Shpilrain in the context of graphs, we define two new problems: Subgroup Isomorphism Problem and Group Homomorphism Problem. Based on them, we also propose two new authentication schemes. For right-angled Artin groups, the Group Homomorphism and Graph Homomorphism problems are equivalent, and the later is known to be NP-complete. In the case of the Subgroup Isomorphism problem, we bring some results due to Bridson who shows there are right-angled Artin groups in which this problem is unsolvable.'
address:
- 'Ramón Flores, Department of Geometry and Topology, University of Seville, Spain'
- 'Delaram Kahrobaei, CUNY Graduate Center, PhD Program in Computer Science and NYCCT, Mathematics Department, City University of New York, New York University, Tandon School of Engineering, Computer Science Department'
author:
- Ramón Flores
- Delaram Kahrobaei
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'Cryptography with right-angled Artin groups'
---
Introduction
============
Using algorithmic group theoretic problems in cryptography has been an active area of research since 1999 (see [@Myasnikov-book] for a thorough account). The complexity of different algorithmic problems (Conjugacy Problems, Membership Problems, etc.) have made available a lot of families of groups as platform groups for cryptographic protocols, as for example:
- Braid groups, using the Conjugacy Search Problem [@KoLee00].
- Polycyclic groups, using the Conjugacy Search Problem [@EickKahrobaei04], [@GK2016].
- Thompson groups, based on the Decomposition Search Problem [@ShpilrainUshakov05].
- Hyperbolic groups, using properties of subgroup distortion and the Geodesic Length Problem [@CKL].
- Free metabelian groups, based on the Subgroup Membership Search Problem [@VSGZ], and in the Endomorphism Search Problem [@Habeeb-Kahrobaei-Shpilrain].
- Free nilpotent $p$-groups, for a semidirect product public key [@KS16].
- Linear groups [@BFX].
- Grigorchuk groups, for cryptographic protocols [@Pet03].
- Groups of matrices, for a Homomorphic Encryption scheme [@GP04].
Note that some are infinite and some are finite, but they are all non-commutative.
As mentioned above, we propose here right-angled Artin groups for two secret sharing schemes, as well as two authentication schemes. For the first, we follow the approach of Habeeb-Kahrobaei-Shpilrain [@Habeeb-Kahrobaei-Shpilrain] and Shamir [@Shamir], while the second is a modification of two protocols developed by Grigoriev-Shpilrain [@Grigoriev-Shpilrain] in the context of graphs, that we adapt to the language of right-angled Artin groups by using the graph which is always associated to these groups. Then, we take advantage of the fact that many graph-theoretic problems that are proved to be NP-complete can be translated to a group-theoretic setting in the right-angled Artin groups, and also of some unsolvability results which are proper from this context. Besides that it is always of interest to introduce new applications of Group Theory in cryptography, we also note that working with group presentation is easier and sometimes more practical than working with graphs. We note that Shpilrain-Zapata have proposed a key exchange based on Artin groups but this class is much bigger than right-angled Artin groups [@VSGZ].
This note is structured as follows. In Section \[RAAGs\] we review the main features of right-angled Artin groups that will be useful for our purposes. Section \[Sharing schemes\] is devoted to the description of the sharing schemes, while the authentication schemes are treated in Section \[Auth\]. Finally, in Section \[complexity\] we deal with study of the security of the proposed protocols.
Right Angled Artin Groups {#RAAGs}
=========================
First we will introduce the main facts concerning right-angled Artin groups, a class probably introduced first in [@HR71] by Hauschild and Rautenberg (which called them *semifree* groups) in the seventies. Good surveys about the topic can be found in [@korbeda] and [@charney], while a good general introduction for the theory presentations of groups is [@MKS].
\[Right-angled Artin groups\] Let $\Gamma$ denote a finite simplicial graph. We will write $V = V (\Gamma)$ for the finite set of vertices and $E(\Gamma) \subset V \times V$ for the set of edges, viewed as unordered pairs of vertices. The requirement that $\Gamma$ be simplicial simply means that the diagonal of $V \times V$ is excluded from the set of edges. The right-angled Artin group on $\Gamma$ is the group $$A(\Gamma) = \langle V|[v_i, v_j] =1 \text{ whenever } (v_i, v_j) \in E \rangle.$$ In other words, $A(\Gamma)$ is generated by the vertices of $\Gamma$, and the only relations are given by commutation of adjacent vertices.
Observe that right-angled Artin groups, that are associated to a finite simplicial graph (the *Artin graph*), are always finitely presented. It is clear from the definition that there is a bijective correspondence between isomorphism types of right-angled Artin groups and isomorphism types of finite simplicial graphs, in the sense that two right-angled Artin groups $A(\Gamma)$ and $A(\Lambda)$ are isomorphic if and only if $\Gamma = \Lambda$. Moreover, a map $f:A_1\rightarrow A_2$ of right-angled Artin groups is a homomorphism if and only if it induces a graph homomorphism between the corresponding graphs.
We will be specially interested in the subgroups generated by subsets of the set $S$ of generators. If $T\subset S$ is such a subgroup of a right-angled Artin groups $A$, it is usually denoted by $A_T$ and called a *special subgroup* of $A$. Note that every special subgroup of $A$ gives rise to a subgraph of $\Gamma_A$, but the converse is not true. For example, if we consider the graph with vertices $\{v_0,v_1\}$ and edge $[v_0,v_1]$, which corresponds to the free abelian group in two generators, the 0-dimensional subgraph defined by the two vertices produces the free group in two generators, which is not a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}^2$. It is easy to see that a subgraph $\Gamma'$ of an Artin graph $\Gamma$ defines a special subgroup of the corresponding right-angled Artin groups if and only if $\Gamma'$ is a *full* subgraph of $\Gamma$.
A subgraph $\Gamma'$ of a graph $\Gamma$ is *full* if for every pair of vertices $\{v,w\}$ in $\Gamma'$ such that $[v,w]$ is an edge in $\Gamma$, $[v,w]$ is an edge in $\Gamma'$.
The full subgraphs are also called spanning or induced. This condition is important in order to use these subgroups as a platform for authentication.
Secret sharing threshold schemes {#Sharing schemes}
================================
Habeeb-Kahrobaei-Shpilrain have proposed a cryptosystem based on efficiency of the word problem [@Habeeb-Kahrobaei-Shpilrain], and we intend to use it with right-angled Artin groups. Let us describe the two schemes.
In the first protocol, which is an $(n,n)$-threshold scheme, the dealer distributes a $k$-column $C=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix} c_{1}\\c_{2}\\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\ c_{k}
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ consisting of bits (0’s and 1’s), among $n$ participants in such a way that the column can be reconstructed only when all participants combine their information. A set of generators $X=\{x_1,\ldots x_m\}$ is public. Then:
1. The dealer uses a secure channel to assign to each participant $P_j$ a set of commutators $R_j$ of the generators in $X^{\pm}$. Recall that each right-angled Artin group $G_j=\langle x_1,\ldots x_m| R_j\rangle$ has efficiently solvable word problem (see Section \[Wordproblem\] below).
2. The secret bit column $C$ is split by the dealer in a mod $2$ sum $\sum_{j=1}^nC_j$ on $n$ bit columns, which are secretly distributed to the $n$ participants.
3. Words $w_{1j},\ldots ,w_{kj}$ in the generators of $X$ are openly distributed by the dealer to the participant $P_j$, for every $1\leq j\leq n$. The words are selected in such a way that $w_{ij}\neq 1$ is $c_i=0$ and $w_{ij}=1$ if $c_i=1$.
4. Each participant $P_j$ check, for each $i$, if the word $w_{ij}=1$ in the right-angled Artin group $G_j$ is trivial or not. Then, each participant can make the column $C=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix} c_{1j}\\c_{2j}\\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\ c_{kj}
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ , whose entries are 0’s and 1’s.
5. The secret can be now reconstructed by forming the vector sum $\sum_{j=1}^nC_j$, again with the sum taken mod 2.
The second protocol is a $(t,n)$-threshold scheme, and a modification of the previous one that takes into account some ideas from [@Shamir], and allows a subset of size $t$ of the total number of participants $n$ to reconstruct all the information. Now the secret is an element $x\in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$, and the dealer chooses a polynomial $f$ of degree $t-1$ such that $f(0)=x$. In addition the dealer determines integers $y_{i}=f(i)(\textrm{mod } p)$ that are distributed to participants $P_{i}$, $1\leq i \leq n$ (we assume that all integers $x$ and $y_{i}$ can be written as $k$-bit columns). A set of group generators $\left\{x_{1}, \ldots, x_{m}\right\}$ is public.
1. A set of commutators $R_j$ of the generators in $X$ is secretly distributed to the participants by the dealer. The group $G_j=\langle x_1,\ldots , x_m|R_j$ is a right-angled Artin group, and hence it has an efficiently solvable word problem.
2. Now $k$-columns $b_{j}=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} b_{1j}\\b_{2j}\\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\
\cdot \\ b_{kj} \end{smallmatrix}\right)$, with $1 \leq j \leq n$, are openly distributed by the dealer to each participant, being their entries words in the generators. The words $b_{ij}$ are chosen in such a way that, after replacing them by bits (the bit “1" if $b_{ij}$ is trivial in the right-angled Artin group $G_j$ and “0" otherwise), the resulting column represents the integer $y_i$.
3. Now for each word $b_{ij}$, the participant $P_j$ checks if this word is trivial or not in the right-angled group $G_j$, and in this way he/she obtains a binary representation of $y_j$.
4. Finally, every participant has a point $y_i=f(i)$ of the original polynomial, and then every set of $t$ participants is able now to obtain $f$ by polynomial interpolation, and also the secret number $x=f(0)$.
Note that every subset of $t$ participants can recover the secret $x$ by constructing the polynomial $f$ via interpolation, and this scheme can be arranged in such a way that participants do not have to reveal their individual shares $y_{i}$ to each other if they do not want to. More details of these protocols can be found in [@Habeeb-Kahrobaei-Shpilrain].
Authentication Schemes Based on the Group Homomorphism and the Subgroup Isomorphism problems {#Auth}
============================================================================================
Grigoriev and Shpilrain have proposed in [@Grigoriev-Shpilrain] some authentication protocols using graph homomorphisms problem and subgraph isomorphism problem. In the sequel, we introduce two different protocols, which are based on the group homomorphism and the subgroup isomorphism problems, and that we introduce using right-angled Artin groups as a platform; they are inspired by the work of these authors in the sense that they are originally (but not necessarily) addressed to be used with group graphs as a platform. In this sense, and as we will see below, we would make profit of unsolvability results for groups and also for graphs. We remark that we have developed no analogy of the protocol based in the classical Graph Isomorphism problem, as it has recently been shown by Babai [@Babai15] that its complexity is quasi-polynomial.
An Authentication scheme using Group Homomorphism problem {#Homo}
---------------------------------------------------------
Consider two finitely presented groups $G_1=\langle S_1|R_1 \rangle$ and $G_2=\langle S_2|R_2 \rangle$, being $S_i$ generators and $R_i$ relations, $i=1,2$. The Group Homomorphism problem asks if there is a homomorphism $G_1\rightarrow G_2$ that takes generators in $S_1$ to generators in $S_2$.
The authentication protocol is the following:
1. Alice’s public key consists of two finitely presented groups $G_1=\langle S_1|R_1 \rangle$ and $G_2=\langle S_2|R_2 \rangle$. Alice’s long term private key is a homomorphism $\alpha$ sending generators in $S_1$ to generators in $S_2$.
2. Alice selects another finitely presented group $G=\langle S|R \rangle$, and a homomorphism $\beta:G\rightarrow G_1$ which sends generators in $S$ to generators in $S_1$. Then she sends $G=\langle S|R \rangle$ to Bob, and keeps the homomorphism $\beta$ to herself.
3. Bob chooses a random bit and sends $c$ to Alice.
- When $c=0$, Alice sends the homomorphism $\beta$ to Bob, and Bob should check if $\beta(G)=G_1$, and if $\beta$ is a homomorphism that takes generators in $S$ to generators in $S_1$.
- When $c=1$, Alice sends the composite $\alpha \beta$ to Bob, and Bob checks whether $\alpha \beta (G)=G_2$, and if the composite is a homomorphism that takes generators in $S$ to generators in $S_2$.
An Authentication Scheme Based on the Subgroup Isomorphism problem {#Sub}
------------------------------------------------------------------
The authentication protocol we propose is as follows:
1. Alice’s public key consists of two isomorphic subgroups of a group $\Gamma$, $G_1$ and $G_2$. Alice’s long-term private key is an isomorphism $\alpha : G_1 \rightarrow G_2$.
2. To begin authentication, Alice selects a group $G$ together with the isomorphism $\beta : G \rightarrow G_1$ and sends the group $G$ (the commitment) to Bob, while keeping $\beta$ to herself.
3. Bob chooses a random bit $c$ and sends it to Alice.
- If $c = 0$, then Alice sends the isomorphism $\beta$ to Bob, and Bob checks whether $\beta(G) = G_1$ and whether $\beta$ is an isomorphism.
- If $c = 1$, then Alice sends the composition $\alpha \beta = \beta (\alpha)$ to Bob, and Bob checks whether $\alpha \beta (G) = G_2$ and whether $\alpha \beta$ is an isomorphism.
Complexity and security {#complexity}
=======================
In this section we state the complexity results that make right-angled Artin groups a good platform for the previous protocols.
Word problem {#Wordproblem}
------------
To introduce a family of groups as a platform for the secret sharing scheme described [@Habeeb-Kahrobaei-Shpilrain] it is necessary that its word problem can be solved efficiently. In the mentioned paper, for example, the authors apply their cryptosystem for small cancellation groups. In the case of right-angled Artin groups, the easiness of the word problem was first proved in a paper by Liu-Wrathall-Zeger [@LWZ] which in a more general framework of free partially commutative monoids, describes an algorithm which is effective in linear polynomial time. More recently, Crisp-Goddelle-Wiest [@CGW] have extended this result (with different methods) to some families of subgroups of right-angled Artin groups, as for example braid groups.
Security assumption, complexity analysis and platform groups (right-angled Artin groups)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The security of our proposed authentication schemes relies, for the first scheme, on the difficulty of the Graph Homomorphism problem, and for the second, on some Bridson unsolvability results. Let us analyze in detail both situations.
### Group Homomorphism Problem and proposed authentication scheme:
We observe that the problem is equivalent to the Graph Homomorphism problem for graphs, as there is a bijection between right-angled Artin groups and finite simplicial graphs (see Section \[RAAGs\]), and recall that this problem has been shown to remain NP-complete even when the graph in the right is a triangle [@GJ]. Hence, it would be enough here to select two right-angled Artin groups $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ such that $\Gamma_2$ contains a free abelian group in three generators.
### Subgroup Isomorphism Problem and proposed authentication scheme:
Martin Bridson has proved [@Br14] that there exist families of right-angled Artin groups for which this problem is unsolvable, even for finitely presented subgroups. Let us briefly recall the construction. He starts with a free group in a finite number of generators, and performs over it Rips construction [@Rips82] in the specific version of Haglund and Wise ([@HaWi08], Section 10). In this way we obtain an explicit presentation of a hyperbolic group $\Gamma$ that possess a finite index subgroup $\Gamma_0<\Gamma$, which is the fundamental group of a special cube complex. This complex is subject to certain restrictions ([@HaWi08], Theorem 1.1), that give rise to the existence of a local isometry with a standard cube complex, and in particular imply the existence of an embedding of $\Gamma_0$ in the fundamental group of the latter, which is a right-angled Artin group and we call $A$. The group $\Gamma_0$ also projects onto a non-abelian free group, and the kernel is infinite and finitely-generated. Then, by a previous result of Bridson-Miller [@BrMi03], the subgroup Isomorphism problem is unsolvable for every product $\Gamma_0\times \Gamma_0\times F$ , being $F$ any non-abelian free group. As $\Gamma_0<A$, the problem is also unsolvable for $A\times A\times F$, and this is a right-angled Artin group itself, as it is the product of right-angled Artin groups.
In general, to compare the Subgroup Isomorphism problem and the Subgraph Isomorphism problem we need that the generators and relators on the groups can be represented as a graph. But this is only a necessary condition. For example, in right-angled Artin groups there are plenty of subgroups that cannot be represented by a subgraph of the Artin graph (for example, the cyclic group generated by the product of two generators). An authentication scheme based in this problem for right-angled Artin groups only should make use of the special subgroups, and should take into account the fact that not every subgraph of the Artin graph represents a special subgroup. This approach is closer to the problem of subgroup isomorphism for full subgraphs of a finite graph, usually called the *induced Subgraph Isomorphism problem*, which is known to be NP-complete in general (see [@KOSU] for a reference). For the classical Subgroup Isomorphism problem, it is more straightforward to appeal to Bridson unsolvability results described above.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the referees for their comments and suggestions, which have improved the quality and readiness of this paper.
Delaram Kahrobaei is partially supported by a PSC-CUNY grant from the CUNY Research Foundation, the City Tech Foundation, and ONR (Office of Naval Research) grant N00014-15-1-2164. Part of the work was done while visiting the UPV/EHU in Bilbao funded by the ERC grant PCG-336983, especially we thanks Montse Casals for the fruitful discussions. Delaram Kahrobaei has also partially supported by an NSF travel grant CCF-1564968 to IHP in Paris. Ramón Flores is partially supported by MEC grant MTM2010-20692.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Stirling permutations were introduced by Gessel and Stanley [@gessel_stirling_1978], who used their enumeration by the number of descents to give a combinatorial interpretation of certain polynomials related to Stirling numbers.
Quasi-Stirling permutations, which can be viewed as labeled noncrossing matchings, were introduced by Archer et al. [@archer_pattern_2019] as a natural extension of Stirling permutations. Janson’s correspondence [@janson_plane_2008] between Stirling permutations and labeled increasing plane trees extends to a bijection between quasi-Stirling permutations and the same set of trees without the increasing restriction.
Archer et al. [@archer_pattern_2019] posed the problem of enumerating quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of descents, and conjectured that there are $(n+1)^{n-1}$ such permutations of size $n$ having the maximum number of descents. In this paper we prove their conjecture, and we give the generating function for quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of descents, expressed as a compositional inverse of the generating function of Eulerian polynomials. We also find the analogue for quasi-Stirling permutations of the main result from [@gessel_stirling_1978]. We prove that the distribution of descents on these permutations is asymptotically normal, and that the roots of the corresponding quasi-Stirling polynomials are all real, in analogy to Bóna’s results for Stirling permutations [@bona_real_2008].
Finally, we generalize our results to a one-parameter family of permutations that extends $k$-Stirling permutations, and we refine them by also keeping track of the number of ascents and the number of plateaus.
author:
- Sergi Elizalde
bibliography:
- 'quasiStirling.bib'
title: 'Descents on quasi-Stirling permutations'
---
Introduction
============
Stirling permutations
---------------------
In 1978, Gessel and Stanley [@gessel_stirling_1978] introduced the set ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$ of Stirling permutations. They are defined as those permutations $\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_{2n}$ of the multiset $\{1,1,2,2,\dots,n,n\}$ satisfying that, if $i<j<k$ and $\pi_i=\pi_k$, then $\pi_j>\pi_i$. In pattern avoidance terminology, we can describe this condition as avoiding the pattern $212$.
In general, given two sequences of positive integers $\pi=\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_r$ and $\sigma=\sigma_1\sigma_2\dots\sigma_s$, we say that $\pi$ avoids $\sigma$ if there is no subsequence $\pi_{i_1}\pi_{i_2}\dots \pi_{i_s}$ (with $i_1<i_2<\dots<i_s$) whose entries are in the same relative order as $\sigma_1\sigma_2\dots\sigma_s$.
Using the notation $[r]=\{1,2,\dots,r\}$, define $i\in[r]$ to be a [*descent*]{} of $\pi=\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_r$ if $\pi_i>\pi_{i+1}$ or $i=r$, and let $\operatorname{des}(\pi)$ denote the number of descents of $\pi$. This is the same definition used in [@gessel_stirling_1978; @bona_real_2008; @janson_plane_2008; @janson_generalized_2011], even though other papers, such as [@archer_pattern_2019], do not consider $i=r$ to be a descent. Descents are closely related to [*ascents*]{}, which are indices $i\in\{0,\dots,r-1\}$ such that $\pi_i<\pi_{i+1}$ or $i=0$, and to [*plateaus*]{}, which are indices $i\in[r-1]$ such that $\pi_i=\pi_{i+1}$. Let $\operatorname{asc}(\pi)$ and $\operatorname{plat}(\pi)$ denote the number of ascents and the number of plateaus of $\pi$, respectively.
Denoting by ${\mathcal{S}}_n$ the set of permutations of $[n]$, the polynomials $$\label{eq:Eulerian_def}
A_n(t)=\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_n} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)}$$ are called [*Eulerian polynomials*]{}. It is well known (see for example [@stanley_enumerative_2012 Prop. 1.4.4]) that $$\label{eq:Eulerian}
\sum_{m\ge0} m^n t^m=\frac{A_n(t)}{(1-t)^{n+1}},$$ and in fact this formula is often used as the definition of Eulerian polynomials.
Gessel and Stanley [@gessel_stirling_1978] show that, when replacing the coefficients in the left-hand side of Equation by Stirling numbers of the second kind, then the role of the Eulerian polynomials is played by the [*Stirling polynomials*]{} $$Q_n(t)=\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{Q}}_n} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)},$$ which count Stirling permutations by the number of descents. Specifically, denoting by $S(n,m)$ the number of partitions of an $n$-element set into $m$ blocks, they prove the following.
\[thm:GS\] $$\sum_{m\ge0} S(m+n,m)\, t^m=\frac{Q_n(t)}{(1-t)^{2n+1}}.$$
It follows, in particular, that $|{\mathcal{Q}}_n|=(2n-1)!!=(2n-1)\cdot(2n-3)\cdot\dots\cdot 3\cdot 1$.
There is an extensive literature on Stirling permutations and their generalizations. Bóna [@bona_real_2008] showed that the distribution of plateaus on ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$ is also given by the polynomial $Q_n(t)$, that this polynomial has only real roots (this had also been proved by Brenti [@brenti_unimodal_1989 Thm. 6.6.3]), and that this distribution converges to a normal distribution. More generally, Janson [@janson_plane_2008] showed that the joint distribution ascents, descents and plateaus is asymptotically normal, and Haglund and Visontai [@haglund_stable_2012] proved the stability of the corresponding multivariate polynomials.
Gessel and Stanley [@gessel_stirling_1978] proposed an extension of Stirling permutations by allowing $k$ copies of each element in $[n]$. These permutations were studied by Brenti [@brenti_unimodal_1989] in an even more general setting, proving real-rootedness of their descent polynomials; by Park [@park_r-multipermutations_1994; @park_inverse_1994], who studied the distribution of various statistics on them; and by Janson, Kuba and Panholzer [@janson_generalized_2011], who proved a joint normal law for ascents, descents and plateaus. Other generalizations have been studied by Barbero et al. [@barbero_g._generalized_2015].
Quasi-Stirling permutations
---------------------------
In [@archer_pattern_2019], Archer, Gregory, Pennington and Slayden introduce the set ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ of [*quasi-Stirling*]{} permutations. These are permutations $\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_{2n}$ of the multiset $\{1,1,2,2,\dots,n,n\}$ avoiding $1212$ and $2121$; that is, those for which there do not exist $i<j<k<\ell$ such that $\pi_i=\pi_k$ and $\pi_j=\pi_\ell$. Thinking of $\pi$ as a labeled matching of $[2n]$, by placing an arc between with label $k$ between $i$ with $j$ if $\pi_i=\pi_j=k$, the avoidance requirement is equivalent to the matching being [*noncrossing*]{} (see [@stanley_enumerative_1999 Exercise 6.19(o)]). By definition, ${\mathcal{Q}}_n\subseteq{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$.
Archer et al. [@archer_pattern_2019] note that $$\label{eq:nCat}
|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|=n!\,C_n=\frac{(2n)!}{(n+1)!},\quad \text{where }C_n=\frac{1}{n+1}\binom{2n}{n}$$ is the $n$th Catalan number. They also compute the number of permutations in ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ avoiding some sets of patterns of length 3, and they enumerate quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of plateaus. They pose the open problem of enumerating quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of descents, and they conjecture the following intriguing formula[^1].
\[conj:archer\] The number of $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ with $\operatorname{des}(\pi)=n$ is equal to $(n+1)^{n-1}$.
Structure of the paper
----------------------
In Section \[sec:des\] we prove Conjecture \[conj:archer\], stated as Theorem \[thm:desn\]. More generally, in Theorem \[thm:main\], we describe the generating function enumerating quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of descents. An analogue of Theorem \[thm:GS\] for quasi-Stirling permutations is given in Theorem \[thm:QQn\]. In Section \[sec:properties\] we study some properties of the distribution of descents on quasi-Stirling permutations, analogous to those studied by Bóna [@bona_real_2008] for Stirling permutations. We show that the corresponding polynomials have real roots only, and that the distribution of descents is asymptotically normal.
In Section \[sec:k\] we consider an extension of quasi-Stirling permutations by allowing $k$ copies of each element in $[n]$, in analogy to $k$-Stirling permutations. We generalize the results from Section \[sec:des\] to this setting, and we refine them by considering the joint distribution of the number of ascents, the number of descents, and the number of plateaus on our generalized quasi-Stirling permutations. Finally, we give a simple description of the joint distribution of the same statistics on $k$-Stirling permutations.
It is worth pointing out that Stirling permutations (and, more generally, $k$-Stirling permutations) have a simple recursive description, since elements in ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$ can be obtained by inserting the adjacent pair $nn$ into elements in ${\mathcal{Q}}_{n-1}$. This fact is repeatedly used in [@gessel_stirling_1978; @bona_real_2008; @janson_plane_2008], and it greatly simplifies the enumeration of Stirling permutations by certain statistics. For example, it yields a recurrence for the number of Stirling permutations with a given number of descents or plateaus [@bona_real_2008], and it enables a probabilistic proof of the symmetry of the numbers of ascents, descents and plateaus [@janson_plane_2008]. Unfortunately, quasi-Stirling permutations do not have such a simple recursive description (in fact, the quotient $|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_{n}|/|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_{n-1}|=2n(2n-1)/(n+1)$ is not an integer in general), which makes their enumeration with respect to the number of descents more challenging. Nevertheless, we are still able to find analogues for quasi-Stirling permutations of most of the results from [@gessel_stirling_1978] and [@bona_real_2008].
A bijection to plane trees {#sec:bij}
--------------------------
The original motivation for considering quasi-Stirling permutations in [@archer_pattern_2019] is that they are in bijection with labeled plane rooted trees, in much the same way that Stirling permutations are in bijection with increasing trees. Next we describe these bijections.
Denote by ${\mathcal{T}}_n$ the set of edge-labeled plane (i.e., ordered) rooted trees with $n$ edges. Each edge of such a tree receives a unique label from $[n]$. The [*root*]{} is a distinguished vertex of the tree, which we place at the top. The [*children*]{} of a vertex $i$ are the neighbors of $i$ that are not in the path from $i$ to the root; the neighbor of $i$ in the path to the root (if $i$ is not the root) is called the [*parent*]{} of $i$. The children of $i$ are placed below $i$, and the left-to-right order in which they are placed matters. Vertices with no children are called [*leaves*]{}.
Disregarding the labels, it is well known that the number of unlabeled plane rooted trees with $n$ edges is $C_n$. Since there are $n!$ ways to label the edges of a particular tree, it follows that $|{\mathcal{T}}_n|=n!\,C_n$.
Denote by ${\mathcal{I}}_n\subseteq{\mathcal{T}}_n$ be the subset of those trees whose labels along any path from the root to a leaf are increasing. Elements of ${\mathcal{I}}_n$ are called edge-labeled increasing plane trees, or simply increasing trees when there is no confusion.
A simple bijection between ${\mathcal{I}}_n$ and ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$ was given by Janson in [@janson_plane_2008]. Archer at al. [@archer_pattern_2019] showed that this bijection naturally extends to a bijection $\varphi$ between ${\mathcal{T}}_n$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$. Both bijections can be described as follows. Given a tree $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n$, traverse its edges by following a depth-first walk from left to right (i.e., counterclockwise); that is, start at the root, go to the leftmost child and explore that branch recursively, return to the root, then continue to the next child, and so on (see [@stanley_enumerative_1999 Fig. 5-14] for a visual description). Recording the labels of the edges as they are traversed gives a permutation $\varphi(T)\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$; see Figure \[fig:varphi\] for an example. Note that each edge is traversed twice, once in each direction. As shown in [@archer_pattern_2019], the map $\varphi:{\mathcal{T}}_n\to{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ is a bijection. Additionally, the image of the subset of increasing trees is precisely the set of Stirling permutations, and so $\varphi$ induces a bijection between ${\mathcal{I}}_n$ and ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$, which is the map described in [@janson_plane_2008].
(1.5,3) coordinate(d0) – (0,2) coordinate(d4) – (0,1) coordinate(d1); (d0) – (1,2) coordinate(d6); (d0) – (2.5,2) coordinate(d3) – (1.5,1) coordinate(d7); (d3) – (2.5,1) coordinate(d5) – (2.5,0) coordinate(d8); (d3) – (3.5,1) coordinate(d2); in [0,...,8]{} [ (d) circle (2pt); ]{} in [4,6]{} [ (d)+(.45,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [7]{} [ (d)+(.2,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [3,2,5,8,1]{} [ (d)+(-.15,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} (4,1.5) node\[right\] [$\longrightarrow \quad 4114663775885223$]{}; (4.15,1.5) node\[above right\][$\varphi$]{};
Descents on quasi-Stirling permutations {#sec:des}
=======================================
In order to enumerate quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of descents, let us first analyze how descents are transformed by the bijection $\varphi$.
Define the number of [*cyclic descents*]{} of a sequence of positive integers $\pi=\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_r$ to be $$\label{eq:cdes_def} \operatorname{cdes}(\pi)=|\{i\in[r]: \pi_i>\pi_{i+1}\}|,$$ with the convention $\pi_{r+1}:=\pi_1$. Note that rotating the entries of $\pi$ does not change the number of cyclic descents, that is, $\operatorname{cdes}(\pi_{i+1}\dots\pi_r\pi_1\dots\pi_i)=\operatorname{cdes}(\pi)$ for all $i\in[r]$.
Let $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n$, and let $v$ a vertex of $T$. If $v$ is not the root, define $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ to be the number of cyclic descents of the sequence obtained by listing the labels of the edges incident to $v$ in counterclockwise order (note that the starting point is irrelevant). Equivalently, if the label of the edge between $v$ and its parent is $\ell$, and the labels of the edges between $v$ and its children are $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_{d}$ from left to right, then $\operatorname{cdes}(v)=\operatorname{cdes}(\ell a_1\dots a_d)$. If $v$ is the root of $T$, define $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ to be the number of descents of the sequence obtained by listing the labels of the edges incident to $v$ from left to right, that is, $\operatorname{cdes}(v)=\operatorname{des}(a_1\dots a_d)$ with the above notation. Finally, define the number of cyclic descents of $T$ to be $$\operatorname{cdes}(T)=\sum_v \operatorname{cdes}(v),$$ where the sum ranges over all the vertices $v$ of $T$. For example, if $T$ is the tree on the left of Figure \[fig:varphi\], then $\operatorname{cdes}(T)=2+1+0+0+2+0+1+0+0=6$, where the two vertices with $\operatorname{cdes}(v)=2$ are the root and the other vertex with 3 children.
\[lem:cdes\] The bijection $\varphi:{\mathcal{T}}_n\to{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ has the following property: if $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n$ and $\pi=\varphi(T)\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$, then $$\operatorname{des}(\pi)=\operatorname{cdes}(T).$$
In the counterclockwise depth-first walk performed on $T$ to obtain $\pi$, suppose that the $i$th step of the walk traverses edge $e$ in the direction from vertex $u$ to vertex $v$, and let $\ell$ be its label. Then $i$ is a descent of $\pi$ if and only if one of the following holds:
- $u$ is the parent of $v$, and $\ell$ is larger than the label of the edge between $v$ and its leftmost child;
- $u$ is a child of $v$ (but not its rightmost child), and $\ell$ is larger than the label of the edge between $v$ and its next child in the left-right order;
- $u$ is the rightmost child of $v$, and either $v$ is the root or $T$, or $\ell$ is larger than the label of the edge between $v$ and its parent.
By definition, $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ counts the number of times that $v$ is involved in one of these scenarios at some point in the depth-first walk on $T$, and so $\operatorname{cdes}(T)$ equals the total number of descents of $\pi$.
Another property of $\varphi$ that follows easily from its description, as noted in [@archer_pattern_2019], is that plateaus of quasi-Stirling permutations correspond to leaves of edge-labeled plane rooted trees. Specifically, denoting by $\operatorname{lea}(T)$ the number of leaves of $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n$, and letting $\pi=\varphi(T)\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$, we have that $$\label{eq:lea}
\operatorname{plat}(\pi)=\operatorname{lea}(T).$$
Quasi-Stirling permutations with most descents
----------------------------------------------
It follows from Lemma \[lem:cdes\] that the maximum value that $\operatorname{des}(\pi)$ can attain for $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ is $n$. To see this, note that if $\pi=\varphi(T)$ and $v$ is a vertex of $T$, then $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ is bounded from above by the number of children of $v$, which we denote by ${d}(v)$. Summing over all the vertices $v$ of $T$, we get $\operatorname{des}(\pi)=\operatorname{cdes}(T)=\sum_{v} \operatorname{cdes}(v) \le \sum_{v} d(v)=n$, the number of edges of $T$. This bound is attained, for example, by the permutation $\pi=12\dots nn\dots 21\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$. Next we count how many permutations attain this upper bound, proving Conjecture \[conj:archer\].
\[thm:desn\] The number of $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ with $\operatorname{des}(\pi)=n$ is equal to $(n+1)^{n-1}$.
By Lemma \[lem:cdes\], the problem is equivalent to counting the number of trees $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n$ such that $\operatorname{cdes}(T)=n$. As discussed above, $\operatorname{cdes}(T)=n$ if and only if $\operatorname{cdes}(v)={d}(v)$ for every vertex $v$ of $T$. Let ${\mathcal{T}}^{\max}_n\subseteq{\mathcal{T}}_n$ be the subset of trees satisfying this condition. If $v$ is the root of $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n$, then $\operatorname{cdes}(v)={d}(v)$ precisely when the labels of the edges incident to $v$ decrease from left to right. If $v$ is a non-root vertex, then $\operatorname{cdes}(v)={d}(v)$ if and only if the labels of the edges incident to $v$ decrease when read counterclockwise starting from the largest label.
Let ${\mathcal{U}}_n$ be the set of edge-labeled [*unordered*]{} rooted trees with $n$ edges. The difference with ${\mathcal{T}}_n$ is that, for trees in ${\mathcal{U}}_n$, the order of the children of a vertex is irrelevant; that is, trees are determined by their combinatorial structure and not by their particular embedding on the plane. It is known that $|{\mathcal{U}}_n|=(n+1)^{n-1}$. Indeed, transferring edge labels to vertex labels by moving each label to the endpoint away from the root, and labeling the root with $n+1$, trees in ${\mathcal{U}}_n$ are in bijection with vertex-labeled unordered unrooted trees on $n+1$ vertices (an example of this bijection appears on the left of Figure \[fig:unordered\]). By Cayley’s formula, the number of such trees is $(n+1)^{n-1}$. Thus, it suffices to describe a bijection between ${\mathcal{T}}^{\max}_n$ and ${\mathcal{U}}_n$.
Given a tree in ${\mathcal{T}}^{\max}_n$, the corresponding unordered tree is obtained simply by forgetting the order of the children of each vertex. Conversely, given a tree in ${\mathcal{U}}_n$, the unique tree in ${\mathcal{T}}^{\max}_n$ with the same combinatorial structure is obtained as follows. First, place the root and its children so that the labels of the corresponding edges decrease from left to right. Then, for each placed vertex $v$, recursively place its children in the only possible order that yields $\operatorname{cdes}(v)={d}(v)$. Specifically, writing $d=d(v)$, suppose that the labels between $v$ and its children are $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_d$ in increasing order, that the label between $v$ and its parent is $a$, and that $0\le i\le d$ is the index such that $$a_1<a_2<\dots<a_i<a<a_{i+1}<\dots<a_d.$$ Then place the children of $v$ so that the edge labels are $a_i,a_{i-1},\dots,a_1,a_d,a_{d-1},\dots,a_{i+1}$ from left to right. This guarantees that $\operatorname{cdes}(aa_ia_{i-1}\dots a_1a_da_{d-1}\dots a_{i+1})=d$. An example of this bijection is shown on the right of Figure \[fig:unordered\].
(0,0) coordinate(d1) – (1,0) coordinate(d4) – (2,0) coordinate(d9) – (3,0) coordinate(d3) – (4,0) coordinate(d5) – (5,0) coordinate(d8); (d9) – (2,-1) coordinate(d6); (3,1) coordinate(d2) – (d3) – (3,-1) coordinate(d7); in [1,...,9]{} [ (d) circle (2pt); ]{} in [1,4,9,5,8]{} [ (d) node\[above\] [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [2,6,7]{} [ (d) node\[right\] [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [3]{} [ (d) node\[above right\] [$\x$]{}; ]{}
(1.5,3) coordinate(d0) – (0,2) coordinate(d4) – (0,1) coordinate(d1); (d0) – (1,2) coordinate(d6); (d0) – (2.5,2) coordinate(d3) – (1.5,1) coordinate(d7); (d3) – (2.5,1) coordinate(d5) – (2.5,0) coordinate(d8); (d3) – (3.5,1) coordinate(d2); in [0,...,8]{} [ (d) circle (2pt); ]{} in [4,6]{} [ (d)+(.45,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [7]{} [ (d)+(.2,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [3,2,5,8,1]{} [ (d)+(-.15,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} (1.5,3.5) node[${\mathcal{U}}_n$]{};
(1.5,3) coordinate(d0) – (1,2) coordinate(d4) – (1,1) coordinate(d1); (d0) – (0,2) coordinate(d6); (d0) – (2.5,2) coordinate(d3) – (1.5,1) coordinate(d2); (d3) – (3.5,1) coordinate(d5) – (3.5,0) coordinate(d8); (d3) – (2.5,1) coordinate(d7); in [0,...,8]{} [ (d) circle (2pt); ]{} in [4,6]{} [ (d)+(.45,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [2]{} [ (d)+(.2,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [3,7,5,8,1]{} [ (d)+(-.15,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} (1.5,3.5) node[${\mathcal{T}}^{\max}_n$]{};
A generating function for the number of descents
------------------------------------------------
Denote by $$A(t,z)=\sum_{n\ge0} A_n(t) \frac{z^n}{n!}$$ the exponential generating function (EGF for short) of the Eulerian polynomials, defined in Equation . It is well known [@stanley_enumerative_2012 Prop. 1.4.5] that $$\label{eq:A_GF} A(t,z)=\frac{1-t}{1-te^{(1-t)z}}.$$
In analogy to $A_n(t)$ and $Q_n(t)$, define the [*quasi-Stirling polynomials*]{} $$\label{eq:defoQn}
{\overline{Q}}_n(t)=\sum_{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)},$$ and their EGF $${\overline{Q}}(t,z)=\sum_{n\ge0}{\overline{Q}}_n(t)\frac{z^n}{n!}.$$ The first few quasi-Stirling polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
&{\overline{Q}}_1(t)=t,\\
&{\overline{Q}}_2(t)=t+3\,{t}^{2},\\
&{\overline{Q}}_3(t)=t+13\,{t}^{2}+16\,{t}^{3}, \\
&{\overline{Q}}_4(t)=t+39\,{t}^{2}+171\,{t}^{3}+125\,{t}^{4},\\
&{\overline{Q}}_5(t)=t+101\,{t}^{2}+1091\,{t}^{3}+2551\,{t}^{4}+1296\,{t}^{5},\\
&{\overline{Q}}_6(t)=t+243\,{t}^{2}+5498\,{t}^{3}+28838\,{t}^{4}+43653\,{t}^{5}+16807\,{t}^{6},\\
&{\overline{Q}}_7(t)=t+561\,{t}^{2}+24270\,{t}^{3}+243790\,{t}^{4}+780585\,{t}^{5}+850809\,{t}^{6}+262144\,{t}^{7}.\end{aligned}$$
The main result in this section is an equation that describes $\overline{Q}(t,z)$, and allows us to compute the quasi-Stirling polynomials. The notation $[z^n]F(z)$ refers to the coefficient of $z^n$ in the generating function $F(z)$.
\[thm:main\] The EGF of quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of descents satisfies the implicit equation ${\overline{Q}}(t,z)=A(t,z{\overline{Q}}(t,z))$, that is, $$\label{eq:oQ}
{\overline{Q}}(t,z)=\frac{1-t}{1-te^{(1-t)z{\overline{Q}}(t,z)}}.$$ In particular, its coefficients satisfy $$\label{eq:Lagrange}
{\overline{Q}}_n(t)=\frac{n!}{n+1}\,[z^n]A(t,z)^{n+1}.$$
Before proving this theorem, note that if we ignore descents by setting $t=1$, then $A(1,t)=\frac{1}{1-z}$. In this case, Theorem \[thm:main\] simply states that $${\overline{Q}}(1,z)=A(1,z{\overline{Q}}(t,z))=\frac{1}{1-z{\overline{Q}}(1,z)}.$$ It follows that $$\label{eq:Catalan}
{\overline{Q}}(1,z)=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-4z}}{2z},$$ the ordinary generating function for the Catalan numbers, and so $|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|=n!C_n$, which agrees with Equation . Equation in this case states that $${\overline{Q}}_n(1)=\frac{n!}{n+1}\,[x^{n}]\frac{1}{(1-x)^{n+1}}=\frac{n!}{n+1}\binom{2n}{n}=n!C_n.$$
It is also worth noting that a non-bijective proof of Theorem \[thm:desn\] can be deduced from Theorem \[thm:main\], by noting that the number of $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ with $n$ descents is $$[t^n]{\overline{Q}}_n(t)=\frac{n!}{n+1}\,[t^nz^n]A(t,z)^{n+1}=\frac{n!}{n+1}\,[t^nz^n]\left(\sum_{n\ge0}\frac{t^nz^n}{n!}\right)^{n+1}=\frac{n!}{n+1}\,[t^nz^n]e^{(n+1)tz}=(n+1)^{n-1}.$$
By Lemma \[lem:cdes\], ${\overline{Q}}(t,z)$ is also the EGF for edge-labeled plane rooted trees by the number of cyclic descents, that is, $$\label{eq:oQT}
{\overline{Q}}_n(t)=\sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T)} \quad \text{and}\quad {\overline{Q}}(t,z)=\sum_{n\ge0} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T)} \frac{z^n}{n!}.$$ For $n\ge1$, let ${\mathcal{T}}'_n\subseteq{\mathcal{T}}_n$ be the subset of trees whose root has exactly one child, and let $$\label{eq:Rn}
R_n(t)=\sum_{T'\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T')-1}.$$ The next lemma will be used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
\[lem:T’\] We have $$\sum_{n\ge1} R_n(t) \frac{z^n}{n!}=z\,{\overline{Q}}(t,z).$$
We define two operations on trees. For $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_{n-1}$, let $T^{|n}\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n$ be the tree obtained from $T$ by attaching an edge with label $n$ from the root of $T$ to a new root vertex. For $T'\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n$ and $i\in\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$, let $T'+i\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n$ be tree obtained by adding $i$ modulo $n$ to each label of $T'$, so that the resulting labels are again the numbers $1,2,\dots,n$.
Next we analyze how the statistic $\operatorname{cdes}$ behaves under these two operations. We have that $\operatorname{cdes}(T^{|n})=\operatorname{cdes}(T)+1$ for all $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_{n-1}$, since $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ stays the same for each vertex $v$ of $T$, and the new root contributes one cyclic descent. On the other hand, $\operatorname{cdes}(T'+i)=\operatorname{cdes}(T')$ for all $T'\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n$ because, when adding $1$ modulo $n$ to each label, the relative order of the labels around a vertex $v$ does not change unless $v$ is an endpoint of the edge with label $n$ in $T'$, which has label $1$ in $T'+1$. But, even for such $v$, the value of $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ does not change, because when reading the labels around $v$ in counterclockwise order, the old label $n$ was bigger than the next label, whereas the new label $1$ is smaller than the previous label.
Since every tree in $T'\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n$ can be obtained as $T'=T^{|n}+i$ for a unique $i\in\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$ and a unique $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_{n-1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R_n(t)&=\sum_{T'\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T')-1}=\sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}_{n-1}} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T^{|n}+i)-1}=\sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}_{n-1}} n t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T^{|n})-1}
=n \sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}_{n-1}} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T)}\\
&=n{\overline{Q}}_{n-1}(t)\end{aligned}$$ for every $n\ge1$, where we used Equation in the last equality. Multiplying both sides by $z^n/n!$ and summing over $n$, we get $$\sum_{n\ge1} R_n(t) \frac{z^n}{n!}=\sum_{n\ge1} {\overline{Q}}_{n-1}(t) \frac{z^n}{(n-1)!}=z\,{\overline{Q}}(t,z).$$
We consider a recursive description of edge-labeled plane rooted trees. Let ${\mathcal{T}}=\bigcup_{n\ge0}{\mathcal{T}}_n$ and ${\mathcal{T}}'=\bigcup_{n\ge1}{\mathcal{T}}'_n$. We think of these sets as labeled combinatorial classes in the sense of Flajolet and Sedgewick [@flajolet_analytic_2009]. The EGFs for these classes with a variable $t$ keeping track of the number of cyclic descents are ${\overline{Q}}(t,z)$ for ${\mathcal{T}}$, by Equation , and $tz{\overline{Q}}(t,z)$ for ${\mathcal{T}}'$, by Lemma \[lem:T’\].
Every tree in ${\mathcal{T}}$ can be decomposed as a sequence of trees in ${\mathcal{T}}'$ with a common root. Let us first consider the simplified version where we momentarily disregard the parameter $\operatorname{cdes}$. Recall from [@flajolet_analytic_2009] that if $F(z)$ is the EGF for a labeled class, then the EGF for sequences of objects in that class is $\frac{1}{1-F(z)}$. Thus, the decomposition of trees in ${\mathcal{T}}$ as sequences of trees in ${\mathcal{T}}'$ yields the equation $${\overline{Q}}(1,z)=\frac{1}{1-z{\overline{Q}}(1,z)}.$$
Next we incorporate the parameter $\operatorname{cdes}$, by analyzing how it behaves under this decomposition. Suppose that $T\in{\mathcal{T}}$ is obtained by attaching $r$ non-empty trees $T'_1,T'_2,\dots,T'_r\in{\mathcal{T}}'$ to a common root, denoted by $v_0$, and relabeling their edges with distinct labels from $1$ up to the total number of edges, so that the relative order of the labels within each tree is preserved. This relabeling does not change the value of $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ at any vertex $v$ other than $v_0$. However, whereas the root of each $T'_i$ contributed $1$ to its number of cyclic descents, the contribution to $\operatorname{cdes}(T)$ of the common root $v_0$ equals the number of descents of the sequence of labels in $T$ of the edges incident to this vertex. Specifically, if the edges incident to $v_0$ in $T$ have labels $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_r$ from left to right, then $$\operatorname{cdes}(T)=\sum_{i=1}^r(\operatorname{cdes}(T'_i)-1)+\operatorname{des}(a_1a_2\dots a_r).$$
Since the labels of these $r$ subtrees of $T$ form a partition of $[n]$, and the order in which these trees are attached to $v_0$ can be any of the $r!$ permutations, it follows that $$\sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}_n} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T)} = \sum_{\substack{\{B_1,B_2,\dots,B_r\}\\ \text{partition of $[n]$}}} \left(\sum_{T'_1\in{\mathcal{T}}'_{|B_1|}} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T'_1)-1}\right)\cdots\left(\sum_{T'_r\in{\mathcal{T}}'_{|B_r|}} t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T'_r)-1}\right)\left(\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_r} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)}\right),$$ where the first sum on the right-hand side is over all partitions of $[n]$, not just those with a fixed number of blocks. Using the notation $R_n(t)$ from Equation , we can rewrite this equation as $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{Q}}_n(t)&=\sum_{\substack{\{B_1,B_2,\dots,B_r\}\\ \text{partition of $[n]$}}} R_{|B_1|}(t) \cdots R_{|B_r|}(t) A_r(t)\\
&=\sum_{r=1}^n\frac{1}{r!}\sum_{\substack{b_1+\dots+b_r=n \\ b_1,\dots,b_r\ge1}}\binom{n}{b_1,\dots,b_r} R_{b_1}(t) \cdots R_{b_r}(t) A_r(t).\end{aligned}$$ To turn this equality into an equation for EGFs, we use a bivariate version of the Compositional Formula (see [@stanley_enumerative_1999 Thm. 5.1.4]). Explicitly, we multiply both sides by $z^n/n!$, sum over $n\ge0$, and apply Lemma \[lem:T’\]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{Q}}(t,z)=\sum_{n\ge0}{\overline{Q}}_n(t)\frac{z^n}{n!}&=1+\sum_{n\ge1}\sum_{r=1}^n\frac{1}{r!}\sum_{\substack{b_1+\dots+b_r=n\\ b_1,\dots,b_r\ge1}}
\frac{1}{b_1!\cdots b_r!} R_{b_1}(t) \cdots R_{b_r}(t) A_r(t) z^n\\
&=1+\sum_{r\ge1}\frac{1}{r!}\sum_{b_1,\dots,b_r\ge1} R_{b_1}(t)\frac{z^{b_1}}{b_1!} \cdots R_{b_r}(t)\frac{z^{b_r}}{b_r!} A_r(t)\\
&=1+\sum_{r\ge1} \frac{1}{r!}(z{\overline{Q}}(t,z))^r A_r(t) \\
&=A(t,z{\overline{Q}}(t,z)),\end{aligned}$$ proving Equation .
Next, we extract the coefficients of ${\overline{Q}}(t,z)$. The generating function $F(t,z):=z{\overline{Q}}(t,z)$ satisfies the equation $$F(t,z)=zA(t,F(t,z)).$$ Thus, by the Lagrange’s inversion formula (see for example [@stanley_enumerative_1999 Thm. 5.4.2]), we have $$[z^n]F(t,z)=\frac{1}{n}\,[z^{n-1}]A(t,z)^n,$$ so $${\overline{Q}}_n(t)=n!\,[z^n]{\overline{Q}}(t,z)=n!\,[z^{n+1}]F(t,z)=\frac{n!}{n+1}\,[z^{n}]A(t,z)^{n+1}.$$
Gessel and Stanley’s main result from [@gessel_stirling_1978] (stated above as Theorem \[thm:GS\]) is the analogue for Stirling polynomials of Equation for Eulerian polynomials. As a consequence of Theorem \[thm:main\], we obtain the following analogue for quasi-Stirling polynomials of these two results.
\[thm:QQn\] $$\sum_{m\ge 0} \frac{m^n}{n+1}\binom{m+n}{m}\, t^m=\frac{{\overline{Q}}_n(t)}{(1-t)^{2n+1}}.$$
We use Equation and extract the coefficient of $z^n$ in $A(t,z)^{n+1}$. By Equation , this expression equals $$\left(\frac{1}{1-te^{(1-t)z}}\right)^{n+1}=\sum_{m\ge0} \binom{m+n}{m}t^m e^{m(1-t)z},$$ and so $$[z^n]\left(\frac{1}{1-te^{(1-t)z}}\right)^{n+1}=\sum_{m\ge0} \binom{m+n}{m} \frac{t^m m^n(1-t)^n}{n!}.$$ Thus, by Equation , $${\overline{Q}}_n(t)=\frac{n!}{n+1}[z^n]\left(\frac{1-t}{1-te^{(1-t)z}}\right)^{n+1}=\frac{(1-t)^{2n+1}}{n+1}\sum_{m\ge0} \binom{m+n}{m} m^n t^m,$$ which is equivalent to the stated formula.
Properties of quasi-Stirling polynomials {#sec:properties}
========================================
In the section, we prove some properties of the distribution of the number of descents —as well as the number of ascents and the number of plateaus— on quasi-Stirling permutations, in analogy with Bóna’s results for Stirling permutations [@bona_real_2008].
By symmetry, the number of ascents and the number of descents are equidistributed on ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$, since reversing a permutation in ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ turns ascents into descents and vice versa.
Using Equation , it is shown by Archer et al. [@archer_pattern_2019] that the number of elements in ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ with $m$ plateaus is $$n!N(n,m)=(n-1)!\binom{n}{m}\binom{n}{m-1},$$ where the Narayana number $N(n,m)$ is the number of unlabeled plane rooted trees with $n$ edges and $m$ leaves. The corresponding generating function is $$\label{eq:Narayana}
\sum_{n\ge0} \sum_{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n} u^{\operatorname{plat}(\pi)} \frac{z^n}{n!}
=1+\sum_{n,m\ge1} N(n,m) u^m z^n=\frac{1-(u-1)z-\sqrt{1-2(1+u)z+(1-u)^2z^2}}{2z}.$$
Average number of ascents, descents, and plateaus
-------------------------------------------------
Bóna proves in [@bona_real_2008 Cor. 1] that Stirling permutations in ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$ have, on average, $(2n+1)/3$ ascents, $(2n+1)/3$ descents, and $(2n+1)/3$ plateaus. From Theorem \[thm:main\], we can derive the following analogue for quasi-Stirling permutations.
\[cor:average\] Let $n\ge1$. On average, elements of ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ have $(3n+1)/4$ ascents, $(3n+1)/4$ descents, and $(n+1)/2$ plateaus.
By Equation , $$\frac{{\overline{Q}}_n'(1)}{|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|}=\frac{\sum_{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n} \operatorname{des}(\pi)}{|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|}$$ is the average number of descents in elements of ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$.
Differentiating Equation with respect to $t$, setting $t=1$, and solving for $\frac{\partial {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t}(1,z)$, we get $$\label{eq:oQ'}
\frac{\partial {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t}(1,z)=\frac{z{\overline{Q}}(1,z)(2-z{\overline{Q}}(1,z))}{2(1-z-2z{\overline{Q}}(1,z)+z^2{\overline{Q}}(1,z)^2)}=\frac{1}{4z}\left(\frac{1-z}{\sqrt{1-4z}}-1+z\right),$$ where we have used Equation in the last equality.
Extracting the coefficient of $z^n$ for $n\ge1$ on both sides of , $$\frac{{\overline{Q}}_n'(1)}{n!}=\frac{1}{4}\,[z^{n+1}]\frac{1-z}{\sqrt{1-4z}}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\binom{2n+2}{n+1}-\binom{2n}{n}\right)=\frac{3n+1}{4(n+1)}\binom{2n}{n}.$$ Dividing by $|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|/n!=C_n$, we conclude that $$\frac{{\overline{Q}}_n'(1)}{|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|}=\frac{3n+1}{4}.$$
The average number of descents in elements of ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ equals the average number of ascents, by symmetry. Additionally, the sum of the numbers of ascents, descents and plateaus of any given $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ is $2n+1$, since every $i\in\{0,1,\dots,2n\}$ is an ascent, a descent or a plateau of $\pi$. It follows that the average number of plateaus is $$2n+1-2\cdot\frac{3n+1}{4}=\frac{n+1}{2}.$$ Alternatively, this average can be deduced directly from the generating function in Equation .
Real roots of quasi-Stirling polynomials and $r$-Eulerian polynomials
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well-known result of Frobenius that the roots of the Eulerian polynomials $A_n(t)$ are real, distinct, and nonpositive. In [@bona_real_2008 Thm. 1], Bóna proves the analogous result for the Stirling polynomials $Q_n(t)$, although their real-rootedness had already been shown by Brenti [@brenti_unimodal_1989 Thm. 6.6.3] in more generality. In this subsection, we prove that quasi-Stirling polynomials ${\overline{Q}}_n(t)$ also have this property. Unlike the proofs for $A_n(t)$ and $Q_n(t)$ that give direct recurrences for these polynomials, our proof relates ${\overline{Q}}_n(t)$ to the so-called $r$-Eulerian polynomials.
For $r\ge1$, define the number of $r$-excedances of a sequence $\pi=\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_s$ to be $$\operatorname{exc}_r(\pi)=\{i\in[s]:\pi_i\ge i+r\}.$$ In particular, we write $\operatorname{exc}(\pi)=\operatorname{exc}_1(\pi)$ to denote the number of excedances in the usual sense.
Riordan [@riordan_introduction_1958], and later Foata and Schützenberger [@foata_theorie_1970], defined the polynomials $$A_{n,r}(t)=\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_n} t^{\operatorname{exc}_r(\pi)}.$$ For $r=1$, we have $A_{n,1}(t)=A_n(t)/t$, by the well-known fact (see [@foata_theorie_1970] or [@stanley_enumerative_2012 Prop. 1.4.3]) that the number of excedances in ${\mathcal{S}}_n$ is equidistributed with the number of descents, if we do not consider the last position $n$ to be a descent. Let ${\mathcal{J}}_{n,r}$ denote the set of injections $\pi:[n-r]\to[n]$. Identifying such an injection with the sequence $\pi=\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_{n-r}$ of its images, define the polynomials $$J_{n,r}(t)=\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{J}}_{n,r}} t^{\operatorname{exc}(\pi)}.$$ For small values of $r$, these polynomials appear in [@sloane_-line_nodate A144696–A144699]. Adapting the notation, it is shown in [@riordan_introduction_1958; @foata_theorie_1970] that, for $r\ge1$, $$\label{eq:IA}
J_{n,r}(t)=\frac{t^{n-r}\,A_{n,r}(1/t)}{r!}$$ (in particular, $J_{n,1}(t)=A_{n,1}(t)=A_n(t)/t$) and that $$\sum_{m\ge1} t\,J_{m+r-1,r}(t)\,\frac{z^m}{m!}=\frac{A(t,z)^r}{r}.$$
Setting $r=n+1$ and taking the coefficient of $z^n$, it follows from Theorem \[thm:main\] that $$\label{eq:QI}
{\overline{Q}}_n(t)=t\,J_{2n,n+1}(t).$$
We are now ready to prove the real-rootedness of quasi-Stirling and $r$-Eulerian polynomials.
\[thm:roots\] For every $1\le r\le n$, each of the polynomials $A_{n,r}(t)$, $J_{n,r}(t)$ and ${\overline{Q}}_n(t)$ has real, distinct, and nonpositive roots.
We will prove that the polynomials $$\label{eq:def_pnr}
p_{n,r}(t):=t\,J_{n,r}(t)$$ have real, distinct, and nonpositive roots. The statement for $J_{n,r}(t)$ will then follow immediately, as well as for $A_{n,r}(t)$ because, by Equation , its roots are the reciprocals of the roots of $J_{n,r}(t)$. The statement for the polynomials ${\overline{Q}}_n(t)$ will follow from Equation .
First we claim that, for any fixed $r\ge1$, the polynomials $p_{n,r}(t)$ satisfy the recurrence $$\label{eq:recp}
p_{n,r}(t)=n\,t\,p_{{n-1},r}(t)+t(1-t)\,p_{n-1,r}'(t)$$ for $n>r$, with initial condition $p_{r,r}(t)=t$. Indeed, this is a direct translation, using Equations and , of the recurrence for $A_{n,r}(t)$ proved in [@riordan_introduction_1958 p. 214]: $$A_{n,r}(t)=(r+(n-r)t)A_{n-1,r}(t)+t(1-t)A'_{n-1,r}(t).$$ Note that, aside from the initial condition, recurrence does not depend on $r$, and it extends the well-known recurrence satisfied by the Eulerian polynomials $A_n(t)=p_{n,1}(t)$.
By definition, $p_{n,r}(t)$ is a polynomial of degree $n-r+1$ with a positive leading coefficient, and $0$ is one of its roots. Next we show by induction on $n$ that $p_{n,r}(t)$ has $n-r+1$ real, distinct, and nonpositive roots. This is trivially true for base case $n=r$, since $p_{r,r}(t)=t$.
Let $n>r$, and suppose that $p_{n-1,r}(t)$ has $n-r$ real, distinct roots $x_1<x_2<\dots<x_{n-r}=0$. The sign of the derivative $p'_{n-1,r}(t)$ alternates on these roots; specifically, $p'_{n-1,r}(x_i)$ is positive if $i$ and $n-r$ have the same parity, and negative otherwise. Since $p_{{n-1},r}(x_i)=0$ and $1-x_i>0$ for all $i$, the same assertion applies to the sign of $n\,p_{{n-1},r}(x_i)+(1-x_i)\,p_{n-1,r}'(x_i)$.
It follows that the polynomial $n\,p_{{n-1},r}(t)+(1-t)\,p_{n-1,r}'(t)$ must have a root between any pair of consecutive roots of $p_{n-1,r}(t)$, let us denote these roots by $y_1,\dots,y_{n-r-1}$ where $$x_1<y_1<x_2<y_2<\dots<y_{n-r-1}<x_{n-r}=0.$$ Using that $$p_{n,r}(t)=t\left(n\,p_{{n-1},r}(t)+(1-t)\,p_{n-1,r}'(t)\right)$$ by Equation , the polynomial $p_{n,r}(t)$ has the roots $y_1,\dots,y_{n-r-1}$, plus a root $y_{n-r}=0$. Note also that, if $n-r$ is even, then $p_{n,r}(x_1)>0$ and $\lim_{n\to-\infty}p_{n,r}(t)=-\infty$; if $n-r$ is odd, then $p_{n,r}(x_1)<0$ and $\lim_{n\to-\infty}p_{n,r}(t)=+\infty$. In both cases, $p_{n,r}(t)$ has an additional root $y_0<x_1$, for a total of $n-r+1$ roots $y_0<y_1<\dots<y_{n-r-1}<y_{n-r}=0$.
In analogy to Bóna’s results for Stirling permutations [@bona_real_2008 Thm. 3], we can infer the modal number of descents in ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ from Theorem \[thm:roots\].
Fix $n\ge1$, and let $m$ be an index that maximizes $|\{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n:\operatorname{des}(\pi)=m\}|$ (equivalently, $|\{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n:\operatorname{asc}(\pi)=m\}|$). Then $$\left|m-\frac{3n+1}{4}\right|<1.$$ Similarly, let $m'$ be an index that maximizes $|\{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n: \operatorname{plat}(\pi)=m'\}|$. Then $$\left|m'-\frac{n+1}{2}\right|<1.$$
Like Bóna’s proof of [@bona_real_2008 Thm. 3], our proof relies on a theorem of Darroch [@darroch_distribution_1964] (see also [@bona_combinatorics_2012 Thm. 3.25] and [@pitman_probabilistic_1997 Prop. 1]), which implies that if $p(t)=\sum_{m=0}^n p_m t^m$ is a polynomial that has only real roots and satisfies $p(1)>0$, then an index $m$ that maximizes $p_m$ must satisfy $|m-p'(1)/p(1)|<1$.
By Theorem \[thm:roots\], the polynomial ${\overline{Q}}_n(t)$ has only real roots, and by Corollary \[cor:average\], $$\frac{{\overline{Q}}_n'(1)}{{\overline{Q}}_n(1)}
=\frac{{\overline{Q}}_n'(1)}{|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|}=\frac{3n+1}{4},$$ so the first statement follows.
On the other hand, it is well-known (see [@brenti_unimodal_1989 Thm. 5.3.1] and [@bona_combinatorics_2012]) that the Narayana polynomials $\sum_{m=1}^n N(n,m) u^m$, which give the distribution of the number of plateaus by Equation , have only real roots. Thus, the statement regarding plateaus follows similarly Corollary \[cor:average\].
Asymptotically normal distribution
----------------------------------
Here we prove that the distribution of each of the statistics $\operatorname{asc}$, $\operatorname{des}$ and $\operatorname{plat}$ on quasi-Stirling permutations is asymptotically normal. We use a result of Bender, that can be stated as follows.
\[thm:bender\] Let $\{X_n\}_n$ be a sequence of random variables, where $X_n$ takes values in $[n]$. Suppose that the polynomials $g_n(t)=\sum_{m=1}^n P(X_n=m)\, t^m$ have only real roots, and that $$\label{eq:var}
\sigma_n=\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}(X_n)}\to\infty$$ as $n\to\infty$. Then $$\frac{X_n-E(X_n)}{\sigma_n}\rightarrow N(0,1),$$ which denotes convergence in distribution to the standard normal distribution.
The distribution of the number of descents (resp. ascents, plateaus) on elements of ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ converges to a normal distribution as $n\to\infty$.
In order to apply Theorem \[thm:bender\] to descents (equivalently, ascents) on quasi-Stirling permutations, we let $X_n$ be the number of descents of a random element of ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$. Then the polynomials $$g_n(t)=\sum_{m=1}^n P(X_n=m)\, t^m=\frac{{\overline{Q}}_n(t)}{|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|}$$ have only real roots by Theorem \[thm:roots\]. It remains to show that Equation holds.
Using that ${\overline{Q}}'_n(1)+{\overline{Q}}''_n(1)=\sum_{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n} \operatorname{des}(\pi)^2$, we have $$\label{eq:varformula}
\operatorname{Var}(X_n)=E(X_n^2)-E(X_n)^2=\frac{{\overline{Q}}'_n(1)+{\overline{Q}}''_n(1)}{|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|}-\left(\frac{3n+1}{4}\right)^2,$$ since $E(X_n)={\overline{Q}}'_n(1)/|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|=(3n+1)/4$ by Corollary \[cor:average\].
Differentiating Equation twice with respect to $t$, setting $t=1$, and solving for $\frac{\partial^2 {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t^2}(1,z)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t^2}(1,z)
&=\frac{z}{6}\,\frac{z^3{\overline{Q}}(1,z)^4-4z^2{\overline{Q}}(1,z)^3+6z{\overline{Q}}(1,z)^2+12 z\left(\frac{\partial {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t}(1,z)\right)^2+12\frac{\partial {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t}(1,z)}{1-z-3z{\overline{Q}}(1,z)+z^2{\overline{Q}}(1,z)+3z^2{\overline{Q}}(1,z)^2-z^3{\overline{Q}}(1,z)^3}\\
&=\frac{1}{12z}\left(\frac{14{z}^{3}-18{z}^{2}+23z-4}{(1-4z)^{3/2}}+z+4\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Equations and in the last equality. Extracting the coefficient of $z^n$ in $$\frac{\partial^2 {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t^2}(1,z)+\frac{\partial {\overline{Q}}}{\partial t^2}(1,z)=\frac{1}{12z}\left(\frac{14{z}^{3}-6{z}^{2}+8z-1}{(1-4z)^{3/2}}-2z+1\right),$$ we get that, for $n\ge1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\overline{Q}}'_n(1)+{\overline{Q}}''_n(1)}{n!}&=\frac{1}{12}[z^{n+1}]\frac{14{z}^{3}-6{z}^{2}+8z-1}{(1-4z)^{3/2}}\\
&=14(2n-3)\binom{2n-4}{n-2}-6(2n-1)\binom{2n-2}{n-1}+8(2n+1)\binom{2n}{n}-(2n+3)\binom{2n+2}{n+1}\\
&=\frac{27n^3 + 10n^2 - 9n - 4}{12n(n + 1)}\binom{2n-2}{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging this expression and the equality $|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|=n!C_n$ into Equation , we obtain $$\operatorname{Var}(X_n)=\frac {11{n}^{2}-6n-5}{48(2n-1)},$$ and so Equation holds. By Theorem \[thm:bender\], we conclude that $$\frac{X_n-\frac{3n+1}{4}}{\sqrt{\frac {11{n}^{2}-6n-5}{48(2n-1)}}}\rightarrow N(0,1).$$
Asymptotic normality of the distribution of the number of plateaus can be proved similarly using Equation ; in fact, it is already known that the Narayana distribution is asymtotically normal, see for example [@fulman_steins_2018].
Generalization to $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations {#sec:k}
=================================================
In the rest of the paper, we significantly extend the results from Section \[sec:des\]. On the one hand, we refine them to track the joint distribution of the number of ascents, the number of descents, and the number of plateaus. On the other hand, we generalize them to a one-parameter family of permutations, by allowing $k$ copies of each element.
Gessel and Stanley proposed in [@gessel_stirling_1978] a generalization of Stirling permutations by considering, for a fixed positive integer $k$, permutations of the multiset $\{1^k,2^k,\dots,n^k\}$ (where the notation $i^k$ indicates $k$ copies of $i$) that avoid the pattern $212$. Let ${\mathcal{Q}}^k_n$ denote the set of these permutations, which we call [*$k$-Stirling permutations*]{}, following [@janson_generalized_2011; @kuba_analysis_2011], although they are called $r$-multipermutations in [@park_r-multipermutations_1994; @park_inverse_1994]. Note that ${\mathcal{Q}}^1_n={\mathcal{S}}_n$ and ${\mathcal{Q}}^2_n={\mathcal{Q}}_n$. For this reason, the coefficients of the Stirling polynomials $Q_n(t)$ are called [*second-order Eulerian numbers*]{} in [@graham_concrete_1994]. An even more general version where each element $i$ appears an arbitrary number of times, which may be different for each $i$, was considered by Brenti [@brenti_unimodal_1989].
Generalizing the definition of quasi-Stirling permutations in an analogous manner, we define [*$k$-quasi-Stirling permutations*]{} as those permutations of $\{1^k,2^k,\dots,n^k\}$ that avoid the patterns $1212$ and $2121$, and denote this set by ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$. Note that ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^1_n={\mathcal{S}}_n$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^2_n={\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$. Viewing permutations of $\{1^k,2^k,\dots,n^k\}$ as ordered set partitions into blocks of size $k$, the avoidance requirement is equivalent to the partition being [*noncrossing* ]{}. In this section, we enumerate $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of ascents, the number of descents, and the number of plateaus.
Bijections to trees {#sec:bij_k}
-------------------
We present two bijections between $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations and different kinds of trees, each one extending a bijection in the literature between $k$-Stirling permutations and certain increasing trees.
In [@janson_generalized_2011 Thm. 1], Janson, Kuba and Panholzer describe a bijection between $k$-Stirling permutations and [*$(k+1)$-ary increasing trees*]{} —this bijection is attributed to Gessel in [@park_r-multipermutations_1994]—, and they use it to study the distribution of ascents, descents and plateaus on $k$-Stirling permutations. A (vertex-labeled) $k$-ary tree is a plane rooted tree where each vertex has either $0$ or $k$ children, and each of the internal (i.e. non-leaf) vertices receives a distinct label between 1 and the number of internal vertices. Let ${\mathcal{A}}^k_n$ denote the set of $k$-ary trees with $n$ internal vertices. Such a tree is [*increasing*]{} if the label of each vertex is smaller than the labels of its children, disregarding unlabeled leaves.
Inspired by this bijection, we can construct a bijection $\psi$ between $k$-ary trees without the increasing condition, and $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations.
\[thm:psi\] There is a natural bijection $\psi:{\mathcal{A}}^k_n\to{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$.
Given a tree in ${\mathcal{A}}^k_n$, traverse its edges by following a depth-first walk from left to right, and record the label of each vertex that the path returns to; in other words, record every time that a vertex is visited except for the first time. See Figure \[fig:kary\] for examples with $k=2$ and $k=3$. Let us show that the resulting sequence belongs to ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$. First, it contains $k$ copies of each element in $[n]$, since the path returns to each internal vertex once coming from each of its $k$ children. Second, it avoids the patterns $1212$ and $2121$ because, if a label $a$ appears between two readings of a label $b$ in the depth-first walk, then vertex $b$ is in the path between vertex $a$ and the root, and so all occurrences of $a$ in the sequence appear between those two occurrences of $b$.
To see that $\psi$ is a bijection, let us describe its inverse. Given $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$, let $b=\pi_n$, and decompose $\pi$ as $\pi=\sigma_1 b \sigma_2 b \dots \sigma_{k-1} b \sigma_k b$. The subsequences $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\dots,\sigma_k$ must have pairwise disjoint entries, because $\pi$ avoids $1212$ and $2121$, and so each $\sigma_i$ is a $k$-quasi-Stirling permutation whose entries have been relabeled by an order-preserving function. Then $\psi^{-1}(\pi)$ is the $k$-ary tree consisting of a root labeled $b$ with subtrees $\psi^{-1}(\sigma_1),\psi^{-1}(\sigma_2),\dots,\psi^{-1}(\sigma_k)$ from left to right, constructed recursively.
For $k=2$, $\psi$ is a bijection between (vertex-labeled) binary trees and quasi-Stirling permutations. Interestingly, the shift of the parameter $k$ in the bijection from [@janson_generalized_2011] between $(k+1)$-ary increasing trees and $k$-Stirling permutations disappears in our bijection $\psi$.
(0,3) coordinate(d4) – ++(-1.5,-1) coordinate(d3) – ++(-.8,-1) coordinate(d2) – ++(-.5,-1); (d2) – ++(.5,-1); (d3) – ++(.8,-1) coordinate(d7) – ++(-.5,-1) coordinate(d6) – ++(-.3,-1); (d6) – ++(.3,-1); (d7) – ++(.5,-1) coordinate(d5)– ++(-.3,-1); (d5) – ++(.3,-1); (d4) – ++(1.5,-1) coordinate(d1) – ++(-.8,-1); (d1) – ++(.8,-1); in [1,...,7]{} [ (d) circle (2pt); (d) node\[right\] [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [1]{} [ (d)+(-.8,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(.8,-1) circle (1pt); ]{} in [2]{} [ (d)+(-.5,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(.5,-1) circle (1pt); ]{} in [6,5]{} [ (d)+(-.3,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(.3,-1) circle (1pt); ]{} (3.5,1) node\[right\] [$\longrightarrow \quad 22366755734114$]{}; (3.65,1) node\[above right\][$\psi$]{};
(0,3) coordinate(d3) – (-2,2) coordinate(d6) – (-2,1) coordinate(d2) – (-2,0); (d6) – ++(-.6,-1); (d6) – ++(0.6,-1); (d2) – ++(-.4,-1); (d2) – ++(0.4,-1); (d3) – (0,2) coordinate(d5) – (0,1); (d5) – ++(-.6,-1); (d5) – ++(0.6,-1); (d3) – (2,2) coordinate(d1) – (1.4,1) coordinate(d7) – (1.8,0) coordinate(d4) – (1.8,-1); (d1) – ++(0,-1); (d1) – ++(0.6,-1); (d7) – ++(-.4,-1); (d7) – ++(0,-1); (d4) – ++(-.3,-1); (d4) – ++(0.3,-1); in [1,...,7]{} [ (d) circle (2pt); (d) node\[right\] [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [1,5,6]{} [ (d)+(-.6,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(0,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(.6,-1) circle (1pt); ]{} in [2,7]{} [ (d)+(-.4,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(0,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(.4,-1) circle (1pt); ]{} in [4]{} [ (d)+(-.3,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(0,-1) circle (1pt); (d)+(.3,-1) circle (1pt); ]{} (3.5,1) node\[right\] [$\longrightarrow \quad 622266355537744471113$]{}; (3.65,1) node\[above right\][$\psi$]{};
In order to study ascents, descents and plateaus, we introduce a second bijection $\phi$ between trees and $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations that will be more suitable to track these statistics. It extends a construction of Kuba and Panholzer [@kuba_analysis_2011 Thm. 2.2] that, with a slight modification, yields a bijection between $k$-Stirling permutations and certain modified increasing trees that we describe next.
For $k\ge2$, let ${\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ be the set of edge-labeled plane rooted trees with $n$ edges, where every node other than the root has $k-2$ unlabeled half-edges which serve as walls, separating its children into $k-1$ (possibly empty) compartments. By definition, ${\mathcal{T}}^2_n={\mathcal{T}}_n$. A tree in ${\mathcal{T}}^3_n$ is drawn on the left of Figure \[fig:phi\]. We call trees in ${\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ [*compartmented trees*]{}. Denote by ${\mathcal{I}}^k_n\subseteq{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ the subset of those trees whose labels along any path from the root to a leaf are increasing.
(0,3) coordinate(d0) – (-1,2) coordinate(d6) – (-1.5,1) coordinate(d2); (d0) – (1,2) coordinate(d3) – (0,1) coordinate(d5); (d3) – (1.5,1) coordinate(d7) – (2,0) coordinate(d4); (d3) – (3,1) coordinate(d1); (d0) circle (2pt); in [1,...,7]{} [ (d) circle (2pt) – ++(0,-0.3); ]{} in [5,6]{} [ (d)+(.2,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [2]{} [ (d)+(.05,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [1]{} [ (d)+(-.55,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [3]{} [ (d)+(-.2,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} in [4,7]{} [ (d)+(-.05,.5) node [$\x$]{}; ]{} (4,1.5) node\[right\] [$\longrightarrow \quad 622266355537744471113$]{}; (4.15,1.5) node\[above right\][$\phi$]{};
We are now ready to describe the bijection $\phi$ between ${\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$. For $k=2$, $\phi$ coincides with $\varphi:{\mathcal{T}}_n\to{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ described in Section \[sec:bij\]. When restricted to increasing trees, $\phi$ becomes a bijection between ${\mathcal{I}}^k_n$ and ${\mathcal{Q}}^k_n$, which is a version of [@kuba_analysis_2011 Thm. 2.2].
\[thm:phi\] There is a natural bijection $\phi:{\mathcal{T}}^k_n\to{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$.
Given a tree $T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$, first label the half-edges at each node $v$ with the label of the edge between $v$ and its parent. Then traverse the edges and half-edges of $T$ following a depth-first walk from left to right, and record their labels as they are traversed, with the rule that the label of each half-edge only contributes once. Let $\phi(T)$ be the resulting sequence of recorded labels; see Figure \[fig:phi\] for an example. We claim that $\phi(T)\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$. Indeed, each element in $[n]$ appears $k$ times: twice from traversing the edge with that label, and $k-2$ times from traversing the half-edges with that label. Additionally, the sequence does not contain the patterns $1212$ and $2121$ because, if a label $a$ appears between two readings of a label $b$ in the depth-first walk, then the whole subtree containing the edge labeled $a$ (which includes all occurrences of $a$) must be read between those two occurrences of $b$.
Next we show that $\phi$ is a bijection by describing its inverse. Given $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$, let $a=\pi_1$, and decompose $\pi$ according to the occurrences of $a$ as $\pi=a\sigma_1 a \sigma_2 a \dots a \sigma_{k-1} a \sigma_k$. The subsequences $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\dots,\sigma_k$ must have pairwise disjoint entries, because $\pi$ avoids $1212$ and $2121$, and so each $\sigma_i$ is a $k$-quasi-Stirling permutation with relabeled entries. We obtain $\phi^{-1}(\pi)$ as follows. First, place an edge with label $a$ from the root to its leftmost child. In the $k-1$ compartments hanging from that child, place the subtrees $\phi^{-1}(\sigma_1),\dots,\phi^{-1}(\sigma_{k-1})$ from left to right, constructed recursively. Finally, place the subtree $\phi^{-1}(\sigma_k)$ hanging from the root of $\phi^{-1}(\pi)$, to the right of the initially placed edge.
Either of the bijections $\psi$ or $\phi$ allows us to easily count the number of $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations. We denote the [*$k$-Catalan numbers*]{} (see [@stanley_enumerative_1999 pp. 168–173]) by $$C_{n,k}=\frac{1}{(k-1)n+1}\binom{kn}{n}.$$
\[thm:QQkn\] For $n\ge1$ and $k\ge1$, $$|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n|=\frac{(kn)!}{((k-1)n+1)!}=n!\,C_{n,k}.$$
Consider the EGF ${G}(z)=\sum_{n\ge0}|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n|z^n/n!$. By Theorem \[thm:phi\], $|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n|=|{\mathcal{T}}^k_n|$. We enumerate compartmented trees by giving a recursive description of the class ${\mathcal{T}}^k=\bigcup_{n\ge0} {\mathcal{T}}^k_n$. Every non-empty tree in ${\mathcal{T}}^k$ consists of a root having a sequence of children, where each of these children plays itself the role of a root of a sequence of $k-1$ trees from ${\mathcal{T}}^k$, one in each of the compartments. This description translates into the equation $${G}(z)=\frac{1}{1-z{G}(z)^{k-1}},$$ which is equivalent to ${G}(z)-z{G}(z)^k=1$.
Alternatively, using Theorem \[thm:psi\], $|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n|=|{\mathcal{A}}^k_n|$, so one can enumerate $k$-ary trees instead. The obvious recursive description of such trees yields the equation ${G}(z)=1+z{G}(z)^k$ for their EGF.
Applying the Lagrange inversion formula to $F(z):={G}(z)-1$, which satisfies $F(z)=z(1+F(z))^k$, we get, for $n\ge1$, $$\frac{|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n|}{n!}=[z^n]F(z)=\frac{1}{n}[z^{n-1}](1+z)^{kn}=\frac{1}{n}\binom{kn}{n-1}=C_{n,k}.$$
Ascents, descents and plateaus on $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We are now ready to generalize Theorem \[thm:main\] to give an equation for the refined $k$-quasi-Stirling polynomials $${\overline{P}}^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)=\sum_{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n} q^{\operatorname{asc}(\pi)}t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)} u^{\operatorname{plat}(\pi)},$$ and their EGF $${\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)=\sum_{n\ge0}{\overline{P}}^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)\frac{z^n}{n!}.$$ For $k=2$, we have ${\overline{P}}^{(2)}(1,t,1;z)={\overline{Q}}(t,z)$ by definition, which we computed in Theorem \[thm:main\]. On the other hand, an expression for ${\overline{P}}^{(2)}(1,1,u;z)$ is given by Equation .
In order to track ascents, it will be useful to consider the homogenization of the Eulerian polynomials, $$\hat{A}_n(q,t)=\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_n} q^{\operatorname{asc}(\pi)} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)},$$ and their EGF $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}(q,t;z)&=\sum_{n\ge0} \hat{A}_n(q,t) \frac{z^n}{n!}=
1+\sum_{n\ge1} A_n(t/q) q^{n+1} \frac{z^n}{n!} = 1+q(A(t/q,qz)-1)\\
&=1-q+\frac{q(q-t)}{q-te^{(q-t)z}},\end{aligned}$$ using Equation .
\[thm:main\_plat\_k\] Fix $k\ge1$. The EGF of $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations by the number of ascents, the number of descents, and the number of plateaus satisfies the implicit equation ${\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)=\hat{A}(q,t,z({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)-1+u)^{k-1})$, that is, $$\label{eq:oP}
{\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)=1-q+\frac{q(q-t)}{q-t\,\exp\left((q-t)z({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)-1+u)^{k-1}\right)}.$$ In particular, for $n\ge1$, its coefficients satisfy $${\overline{P}}^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)=\frac{n!}{(k-1)n+1}\,[z^n]\left(\hat{A}(q,t;z)-1+u\right)^{(k-1)n+1}.$$
Our proof relies on the bijection $\phi$. The first step is to analyze how the statistics $\operatorname{asc}$, $\operatorname{des}$ and $\operatorname{plat}$ are transformed by this bijection. To this end, we extend the notion of cyclic descents to compartmented trees. Let $T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$, and let $v$ a vertex of $T$. If $v$ is not the root, define $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ to be the number of cyclic descents of the sequence obtained by listing the labels of the edges and half-edges incident to $v$ in counterclockwise order, where the half-edges are given the label of the edge between $v$ and its parent. Equivalently, if this label is $\ell$, and the labels of the edges between $v$ and its children in the $j$-th compartment from the left are $a_{j,1},a_{j,2},\dots,a_{j,d_j}$ from left to right, for $1\le j\le k-1$, then $$\label{eq:cdes_k}
\operatorname{cdes}(v)=\operatorname{cdes}(\ell a_{1,1}\dots a_{1,d_1}\ell a_{2,1}\dots a_{2,d_2}\ell \dots \ell a_{k-1,1}\dots a_{k-1,d_{k-1}}).$$ If $v$ is the root of $T$, define $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ to be the number of descents of the sequence obtained by listing the labels of the edges incident to $v$ from left to right. Finally, define the number of cyclic descents of $T$ to be $$\operatorname{cdes}(T)=\sum_v \operatorname{cdes}(v),$$ where the sum ranges over all the vertices $v$ of $T$. For example, if $T$ is the tree on the left of Figure \[fig:phi\], then $\operatorname{cdes}(T)=2+1+0+2+0+1+0+0=6$, where the two vertices with $\operatorname{cdes}(v)=2$ are the root and the vertex with 3 children.
Switching the direction of the inequalities, we define the number of [*cyclic ascents*]{} of a sequence of positive integers as $\operatorname{casc}(\pi_1\pi_2\dots\pi_r)=|\{i\in[r]: \pi_i<\pi_{i+1}\}|$, with the convention $\pi_{r+1}:=\pi_1$. For a non-root vertex $v$ of $T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$, define $\operatorname{casc}(v)$ in analogy to Equation , replacing $\operatorname{cdes}$ with $\operatorname{casc}$. If $v$ is the root of $T$, define $\operatorname{casc}(v)$ to be the number of ascents of the sequence obtained by listing the labels of the edges incident to $v$ from left to right. The number of cyclic ascents of $T$ is then defined as $\operatorname{casc}(T)=\sum_v \operatorname{casc}(v)$, summing over all the vertices of $T$.
Recall that the children of each non-root vertex of $T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ are separated into $k-1$ (possibly empty) compartments. Denote by $\operatorname{emp}(T)$ the total number of empty compartments of $T$. For example, if $T$ is the tree on the left of Figure \[fig:phi\], then $\operatorname{emp}(T)=10$.
\[lem:cdes\_k\] The bijection $\phi:{\mathcal{T}}^k_n\to{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$ has the following property: if $T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ and $\pi=\phi(T)\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}^k_n$, then $$\operatorname{asc}(\pi)=\operatorname{casc}(T), \quad \operatorname{des}(\pi)=\operatorname{cdes}(T) \quad \text{and} \quad \operatorname{plat}(\pi)=\operatorname{emp}(T).$$
The proof of the equality $\operatorname{des}(\pi)=\operatorname{cdes}(T)$ is similar to the proof of Lemma \[lem:cdes\], the only difference being the contribution to $\pi=\phi(T)$ of the half-edges at each non-root vertex $v$ of $T$. These half-edges are labeled with the label $\ell$ of the edge $e$ between $v$ and its parent, and then traversed by the depth-first walk in the definition of $\phi$. Each such half-edge $h$ creates an entry $\ell$ in $\pi$, which is inserted between the label of the edge or half-edge incident to $v$ immediately to the left of $h$ (or, in its absence, the edge $e$), and the label of the edge or half-edge immediately to the right of $h$ (or, in its absence, the edge $e$). With these additional entries in $\pi=\phi(T)$, the contribution to $\operatorname{des}(\pi)$ of all the visits to $v$ of the depth-first walk around $T$ equals $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$, as defined in Equation . If $v$ is the root of $T$, its contribution to $\operatorname{des}(\pi)$ is also $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$, like in the proof of Lemma \[lem:cdes\]. Adding the contributions of all the vertices of $T$, we see that $\operatorname{cdes}(T)=\sum_v \operatorname{cdes}(v)=\operatorname{des}(\pi)$.
The equality $\operatorname{asc}(\pi)=\operatorname{casc}(T)$ is proved analogously by symmetry.
Finally, to show that $\operatorname{plat}(\pi)=\operatorname{emp}(T)$, note that a plateau in $\pi=\phi(T)$ occurs when two edges or half-edges (or one of each) of $T$ with the same label are traversed one immediately after the other by the depth-first walk on $T$, which happens precisely at empty compartments of $T$.
By Lemma \[lem:cdes\_k\], ${\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)$ is also the EGF for compartmented trees by the number of cyclic ascents, the number of cyclic descents, and the number of empty compartments: $$\label{eq:oPT}
{\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)=\sum_{n\ge0} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k_n} q^{\operatorname{casc}(T)}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T)}u^{\operatorname{emp}(T)} \frac{z^n}{n!}.$$
Paralleling the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], we will consider a recursive description of compartmented trees. Let ${{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'\subseteq{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ be the subset of trees whose root has exactly one child, and let $$\label{eq:Rkn}
R^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)=\sum_{T'\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'} q^{\operatorname{casc}(T')-1}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T')-1}u^{\operatorname{emp}(T')}.$$ Let ${\mathcal{T}}^k=\bigcup_{n\ge0}{\mathcal{T}}^k_n$ and ${{\mathcal{T}}^k}'=\bigcup_{n\ge1}{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'$. The next lemma generalizes Lemma \[lem:T’\].
\[lem:T’\_k\] We have $$\sum_{n\ge1} R^{(k)}_n(q,t,u) \frac{z^n}{n!}=z\,({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)-1+u)^{k-1}.$$
In the proof of Lemma \[lem:T’\], we showed that every tree $T'\in{\mathcal{T}}'_n$ can be obtained as $T'=T^{|n}+j$ for a unique $j\in\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$ and a unique $T\in{\mathcal{T}}_{n-1}$.
Here we generalize this construction to compartmented trees. Using the notation from [@flajolet_analytic_2009], consider the class $\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k})$, which consists of sequences of $k-1$ trees from ${\mathcal{T}}^{k}$ whose edges have been relabeled with distinct labels from $1$ up to the total number of edges, so that the relative order of labels within each tree is preserved. If $\vec{T}\in \operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k})$ is a relabeling of the tuple $(T_1,\dots,T_{k-1})$, where $T_j\in{\mathcal{T}}^{k}$ for all $j$, define $$\label{eq:cdesvecT}
\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})=\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\operatorname{cdes}(T_j),\quad \operatorname{casc}(\vec{T})=\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\operatorname{casc}(T_j),\quad
\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T})=\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\operatorname{emp}(T_j)+|\{j:T_j \text{ is empty}\}|,$$ and let $|\vec{T}|$ denote the total number of edges. Using Equation , the corresponding multivariate EGF is $$\label{eq:EGFSeq}
\sum_{\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k})} q^{\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T})}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})}u^{\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T})}\frac{z^{|\vec{T}|}}{|\vec{T}|!} = ({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)-1+u)^{k-1}.$$
Given $\vec{T}\in \operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k})$ with $|\vec{T}|=n-1$, construct a new tree $\vec{T}^{|n}\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'$ as follows: combine the $k-1$ trees in $\vec{T}$ by identifying their roots into a common vertex $v_0$, placing the trees from left to right with $k-2$ half-edges at $v_0$ separating them, and attach an edge with label $n$ from $v_0$ to a new root vertex.
Using the definitions from Equation , we claim that $$\label{eq:cdesvecTplus1}
\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T}^{|n})=\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})+1, \quad \operatorname{casc}(\vec{T}^{|n})=\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T})+1, \quad \operatorname{emp}(\vec{T}^{|n})=\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T}).$$ To prove the first equality, suppose that $\vec{T}$ is a relabeling of the tuple $(T_1,\dots,T_{k-1})$. If $v$ is a non-root vertex of $T_j$ for some $j$, then $\operatorname{cdes}(v)$ is the same in $T_j$ as it is in $\vec{T}^{|n}$. On the other hand, assuming that the edges incident to the root of $T_j$ have labels $a_{j,1},a_{j,2},\dots,a_{j,d_j}$ from left to right, the root of $T_j$ contributes $\operatorname{des}(a_{j,1}a_{j,2}\dots a_{j,d_j})$ to $\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})$ for each $j$, whereas the corresponding vertex $v_0$ in $\vec{T}^{|n}$ contributes $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{cdes}(v_0)&=\operatorname{cdes}(n a_{1,1}\dots a_{1,d_1}n a_{2,1}\dots a_{2,d_2}n \dots n a_{k-1,1}\dots a_{k-1,d_{k-1}})=
\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \operatorname{cdes}(n a_{j,1}a_{j,2}\dots a_{j,d_j})\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \operatorname{des}(a_{j,1}a_{j,2}\dots a_{j,d_j})\end{aligned}$$ to $\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T}^{|n})$. Finally, the new root of $\vec{T}^{|n}$ contributes an additional cyclic descent, proving the first equality in Equation . A symmetric argument proves the analogous statement for $\operatorname{casc}$. The third equality in Equation is clear by construction, since each empty $T_j$ contributes an additional empty compartment in $\vec{T}^{|n}$.
For $T'\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'$ and $i\in\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$, let $T'+i\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'$ be the tree obtained by adding $i$ modulo $n$ to each label of $T'$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:T’\], this operation preserves the number of cyclic descents, that is, $\operatorname{cdes}(T'+i)=\operatorname{cdes}(T')$ for all $T'\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'$. In addition, $\operatorname{casc}(T'+i)=\operatorname{casc}(T')$ by symmetry, and $\operatorname{emp}(T'+i)=\operatorname{emp}(T')$ because adding $i$ does not change the underlying unlabeled tree, and in particular its number of empty compartments.
Noting that every tree $T'\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'$ can be obtained as $T'=\vec{T}^{|n}+i$ for a unique $\vec{T}\in \operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k})$ with $|\vec{T}|=n-1$, and a unique $i\in\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)&=\sum_{T'\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k_n}'} q^{\operatorname{casc}(T')-1}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T')-1}u^{\operatorname{emp}(T')}\\
&=\sum_{\substack{\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k}) \\ |\vec{T}|=n-1}} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} q^{\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T}^{|n}+i)-1}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T}^{|n}+i)-1}u^{\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T}^{|n}+ )}\\
&=\sum_{\substack{\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k}) \\ |\vec{T}|=n-1}} n\, q^{\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T}^{|n})-1}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T}^{|n})-1}u^{\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T}^{|n})}\\
&=n\sum_{\substack{\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k}) \\ |\vec{T}|=n-1}} q^{\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T})}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})}u^{\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T})}\end{aligned}$$ for every $n\ge1$. Multiplying both sides by $z^n/n!$, summing over $n$, and using Equation , we get $$\sum_{n\ge1} R^{(k)}_n(q,t,u) \frac{z^n}{n!}=
\sum_{n\ge1} \sum_{\substack{\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k}) \\ |\vec{T}|=n-1}} q^{\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T})}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})}u^{\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T})} \frac{z^n}{(n-1)!}
=z\,({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)-1+u)^{k-1}.$$
Recall that, by Equation , ${\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)$ is the EGF for the class ${\mathcal{T}}^k$ with respect to $\operatorname{casc}$, $\operatorname{cdes}$ and $\operatorname{emp}$.
Every $T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k$ can be decomposed as a sequence of non-empty trees $T'_1,T'_2,\dots,T'_r\in{{\mathcal{T}}^k}'$ with a common root, denoted by $v_0$, with edges relabeled from $1$ up to the number of edges of $T$ as usual. In this decomposition, $\operatorname{emp}(T)=\sum_{i=1}^r \operatorname{emp}(T'_j)$. As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], if the edges incident to $v_0$ in $T$ have labels $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_r$ from left to right, then $$\operatorname{cdes}(T)=\sum_{i=1}^r(\operatorname{cdes}(T'_i)-1)+\operatorname{des}(a_1a_2\dots a_r),$$ and similarly $$\operatorname{casc}(T)=\sum_{i=1}^r(\operatorname{casc}(T'_i)-1)+\operatorname{asc}(a_1a_2\dots a_r).$$ It follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{T\in{\mathcal{T}}^k_n} q^{\operatorname{casc}(T)}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T)}u^{\operatorname{emp}(T)} \\
= \sum_{\substack{\{B_1,B_2,\dots,B_r\}\\ \text{partition of $[n]$}}}
\left(\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_r} q^{\operatorname{asc}(\pi)} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)}\right)\cdot\prod_{i=1}^r \left(\sum_{T'_i\in{\mathcal{T}}'_{|B_i|}} q^{\operatorname{casc}(T'_i)-1}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(T'_i)-1}u^{\operatorname{emp}(T'_i)} \right).\end{gathered}$$ Using the notation $R^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)$ from Equation , we can rewrite this equation as $${\overline{P}}^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)=\sum_{\substack{\{B_1,B_2,\dots,B_r\}\\ \text{partition of $[n]$}}} \hat{A}_r(q,t)\cdot \prod_{i=1}^r R^{(k)}_{|B_i|}(q,t,u).$$ By the Compositional Formula, and using Lemma \[lem:T’\_k\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)&=\sum_{n\ge0}{\overline{P}}^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)\frac{z^n}{n!}=1+\sum_{r\ge1}\hat{A}_r(q,t)\frac{1}{r!} \left(\sum_{b\ge1} R^{(k)}_{b}(q,t,u)\frac{z^{b}}{b!}\right)^r\\
&=1+\sum_{r\ge1} \hat{A}_r(q,t) \frac{1}{r!} \left(z\,({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)-1+u)^{k-1}\right)^r \\
&=\hat{A}(q,t,z({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)-1+u)^{k-1}),\end{aligned}$$ proving Equation .
To extract the coefficient of $z^n$ in ${\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)$, first write $z=y^{k-1}$, so that $${\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;y^{k-1})=\hat{A}(q,t,y^{k-1}({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;y^{k-1})-1+u)^{k-1}).$$ Then the generating function $F(y):=F(q,t,u;y):=y\left({\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;y^{k-1})-1+u\right)$ satisfies the equation $$F(y)=y\left(\hat{A}(q,t,F(y)^{k-1})-1+u\right).$$ Applying Lagrange’s inversion formula to $F(y)$ yields, for $n\ge1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{P}}^{(k)}_n(q,t,u)&=n!\,[z^n]{\overline{P}}^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)=n!\,[y^{(k-1)n+1}]F(y)\\
&=\frac{n!}{(k-1)n+1}\,[y^{(k-1)n}]\left(\hat{A}(q,t;y^{k-1})-1+u\right)^{(k-1)n+1}\\
&=\frac{n!}{(k-1)n+1}\,[z^n]\left(\hat{A}(q,t;z)-1+u\right)^{(k-1)n+1}.\end{aligned}$$
Ascents, descents and plateaus on $k$-Stirling permutations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bóna proves in [@bona_real_2008 Prop. 1] that, on the set ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$ of Stirling permutations, the statistics $\operatorname{asc}$, $\operatorname{des}$ and $\operatorname{plat}$ are equidistributed. Janson generalizes this result in [@janson_plane_2008 Thm. 2.1], proving, using a probabilistic argument, that the polynomials $$\label{eq:Pn}
P_n(q,t,u)=\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{Q}}_n} q^{\operatorname{asc}(\pi)} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)} u^{\operatorname{plat}(\pi)}$$ are symmetric in the three variables, and he suggests in [@janson_plane_2008 Sec. 3] that the study of these polynomials would be interesting. In [@haglund_stable_2012], Haglund and Visontai prove that these polynomials are [*stable*]{}, meaning that they do not vanish when all the variables have a positive imaginary part.
In this subsection we present a nice differential equation satisfied by the EGF of these polynomials, which we denote by $$P(q,t,u;z)=\sum_{n\ge0}P_n(q,t,u)\frac{z^n}{n!},$$ and more generally, by the analogous multivariate EGF for $k$-Stirling permutations: $$P^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)=\sum_{n\ge0}\sum_{\pi\in{\mathcal{Q}}^k_n} q^{\operatorname{asc}(\pi)} t^{\operatorname{des}(\pi)} u^{\operatorname{plat}(\pi)}\frac{z^n}{n!}.$$ We give two derivations of the differential equation. The first one uses the same techniques as in the proofs of Lemma \[lem:T’\_k\] and Theorem \[thm:main\_plat\_k\], including our interpretation of ascents, descents and plateaus in permutations as cyclic ascents, cyclic descents and empty compartments in compartmented trees. The second one is a more direct, conceptual proof.
\[thm:Qplat\_k\] The EGF $P(z):=P^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)$ of $k$-Stirling permutations by the number of ascents, the number of descents, and the number of plateaus satisfies the differential equation $$P'(z)=(P(z)-1+q)(P(z)-1+t)(P(z)-1+u)^{k-1},$$ with initial condition $P(0)=1$.
As discussed in Section \[sec:bij\_k\], the map $\phi$ restricts to a bijection between increasing compartmented trees ${\mathcal{I}}^k_n$ and $k$-Stirling permutations ${\mathcal{Q}}^k_n$. Thus, by Lemma \[lem:cdes\_k\], $P^{(k)}(q,t,u;z)$ is the EGF of increasing compartmented trees where $q$, $t$ and $u$ mark the number of cyclic ascents, the number of cyclic descents, and the number of empty compartments, respectively.
Next we adapt the construction from the proof of Lemma \[lem:T’\_k\] to increasing trees. Let ${\mathcal{I}}^k=\bigcup_{n\ge0}{\mathcal{I}}^k_n$ be the class of increasing compartmented trees, and let ${{\mathcal{I}}^k}'\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}^k$ be the subclass of those trees whose root has exactly one child. Every tree in ${{\mathcal{I}}^k}'$ can be obtained from a sequence $\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{I}}^k)$, consisting of $k-1$ trees $T'_1,\dots,T'_{k-1}\in{\mathcal{I}}^k$ with edges relabeled as usual, by identifying the $k-1$ roots into a common vertex $v_0$, placing $k-2$ half-edges at $v_0$ to separate these trees into $k-1$ compartments, adding $1$ to every edge label, and attaching a new edge with label $1$ from $v_0$ to a new root vertex. Denote the resulting tree by $\vec{T}^{|1}\in{{\mathcal{I}}^k}'$, and observe that, with the notation from the proof of Lemma \[lem:T’\_k\] and letting $n=|\vec{T}|+1$, we have $\vec{T}^{|1}=\vec{T}^{|n}+1$. Since adding $1$ modulo $n$ to the labels preserves the statistics $\operatorname{cdes}$, $\operatorname{casc}$ and $\operatorname{emp}$, it follows from Equation that $\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T}^{|1})=\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T}^{|n})=\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})+1$, $\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T}^{|1})=\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T}^{|n})=\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T})+1$, and $\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T}^{|1})=\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T}^{|n})=\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T})$. The number of edges of $\vec{T}^{|1}$ is $|\vec{T}|+1$.
Noting that every $T'\in{{\mathcal{I}}^k}'$ is obtained as $T'=\vec{T}^{|1}$ for a unique $\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{I}}^k)$, and using Equation , we deduce that the refined EGF for the class ${{\mathcal{I}}^k}'$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\sum_{T'\in{{\mathcal{I}}^k}'} q^{\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T'})-1}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T'})-1}u^{\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T'})}\frac{z^{|T'|}}{|T'|!}&
=\sum_{\vec{T}\in\operatorname{\textsc{Seq}}_{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}^{k})} q^{\operatorname{casc}(\vec{T})}t^{\operatorname{cdes}(\vec{T})}u^{\operatorname{emp}(\vec{T})}\frac{z^{|\vec{T}|+1}}{(|\vec{T}|+1)!}\\
&=\int_0^z(P(y)-1+u)^{k-1}\,dy.
\label{eq:Pplat}\end{aligned}$$
The decomposition from the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_plat\_k\], expressing trees in ${\mathcal{T}}^k$ as sequences of trees in ${{\mathcal{T}}^k}'$, restricts straightforwardly to increasing trees: every tree in $ {\mathcal{I}}^k$ can be decomposed as a sequence of trees in ${{\mathcal{I}}^k}'$ with a common root, relabeling as usual. The same argument, using now Equation , implies that $$P(z)=\hat{A}\left(q,t,\int_0^z(P(y)-1+u)^{k-1}\,dy\right)=1-q+\frac{q(q-t)}{q-te^{(q-t)\int_0^z(P(y)-1+u)^{k-1}\,dy}}.$$ Rewriting this equation as $$(q-t)\int_0^z(P(y)-1+u)^{k-1}\,dy=\ln(P(z)-1+t)-\ln(P(z)-1+q)+\ln(q)-\ln(t)$$ and differentiating with respect to $z$ gives the stated differential equation.
By looking at the positions of the $1$s, every non-empty $k$-Stirling permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{Q}}^k_n$ can be decomposed uniquely as $\pi=\sigma_0 1\sigma_1 1\dots 1\sigma_{k}$. The entries in each $\sigma_i$ must be pairwise disjoint, since otherwise the repeated entry together with a $1$ in between would form an occurrence of $212$ in $\pi$. Thus, each $\sigma_i$ is itself a $k$-Stirling permutation with relabeled entries. Conversely, any $(k+1)$-tuple of $k$-Stirling permutations can be used to construct a new Stirling permutation by relabeling the entries with $\{2^k,\dots,n^k\}$ so that their relative order is preserved, and using the relabeled permutations as the subsequences $\sigma_0,\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_{k}$ above. Next, we examine how ascents, descents, and plateaus behave under this decomposition. Note that $\operatorname{des}(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^{k} \operatorname{des}(\sigma_i)$, unless $\sigma_{k}$ is empty, in which case $\pi$ has an extra descent. Similarly, $\operatorname{asc}(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^{k} \operatorname{asc}(\sigma_i)$, unless $\sigma_0$ is empty, in which case $\pi$ has an extra ascent. On the other hand, $$\operatorname{plat}(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^{k} \operatorname{plat}(\sigma_i)+|\{i\in[k-1]:\sigma_i\text{ is empty}\}|.$$ It follows that $$P'(z)=(P(z)-1+q)(P(z)-1+t)(P(z)-1+u)^{k-1}.$$ The initial condition $P(0)=1$ comes from the empty permutation, completing the proof.
We remark that, through the bijection $\phi$, this decomposition of $k$-Stirling permutations is equivalent to the decomposition of non-empty increasing compartmented trees $T\in{\mathcal{I}}^k$ into $k+1$ trees $T_0,T_1,\dots,T_k\in{\mathcal{I}}^k$, obtained by splitting $T$ at the edge with label $1$ and at the half-edges of its lower endpoint, as shown in Figure \[fig:tree\_decomp\].
(1,0) coordinate (d0) – (1.5,-2) coordinate (d1); (1.1,-1.2) node [$1$]{}; (d0) circle (3pt); (d1) circle (3pt); (d0) – (-2.5,-3) – (-0.5,-3) – (d0); (-.8,-2) node [$T_0$]{}; (d0) – (3.5,-3) – (5,-3) – (d0); (3.4,-2) node [$T_{k+1}$]{}; (d1) – (-1,-5) – (.5,-5) – (d1); (0.4,-4) node [$T_1$]{}; (d1) – (1.35,-3); (1.5,-3) circle (.7pt); (1.6,-3) circle (.7pt); (1.7,-3) circle (.7pt); (d1) – (1.85,-3); (d1) – (3,-5) – (4.5,-5) – (d1); (3,-4) node [$T_k$]{}; (-1.5,-3) node\[below\] [$P-1+q$]{}; (-.25,-5) node\[below\] [$P-1+u$]{}; (1.75,-5) node\[below\] [$\cdots$]{}; (3.75,-5) node\[below\] [$P-1+u$]{}; (4.25,-3) node\[below\] [$P-1+t$]{};
For $k=2$, the differential equation in Theorem \[thm:Qplat\_k\] becomes simply $$\label{eq:Qplat} P'(z)=(P(z)-1+q)(P(z)-1+t)(P(z)-1+u).$$ The symmetry among the variables $q,t,u$ in this equation immediately implies that the joint distribution of the statistics $\operatorname{asc}$, $\operatorname{des}$ and $\operatorname{plat}$ on ${\mathcal{Q}}_n$ is symmetric, in the sense that it is invariant under any permutation of the three statistics, agreeing with [@janson_plane_2008 Thm. 2.1].
Setting $q=u=1$ and making the change of variable $z=\frac{z}{(1-t)^2}$ in Equation yields a different proof of [@gessel_stirling_1978 Thm. 2.4].
Further directions {#sec:further}
==================
In this section we discuss some open problems and potential directions of further research.
Give a combinatorial proof of Theorem \[thm:QQn\], in analogy to Gessel and Stanley’s second proof of [@gessel_stirling_1978 Thm. 2.1] for Stirling polynomials.
In the statement of Theorem \[thm:QQn\], the coefficient of $t^m$ in ${\overline{Q}}_n(t)/(1-t)^{2n+1}$ can be interpreted as the number of permutations $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ with $m$ bars inserted in some of the $2n+1$ spaces between the entries of $\pi$ (allowing bars to be inserted before the first entry and after the last entry), satisfying that there is some bar in each descent of $\pi$. A combinatorial proof would be obtained by showing that the number of such barred permutations equals $\frac{m^n}{n+1}\binom{m+n}{m}$.
Our second question asks for a bijective proof of Equation , which states that the number of quasi-Stirling permutations $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ with $\operatorname{des}(\pi)=m+1$ equals the number of injections $[n-1]\to[2n]$ with $m$ excedances, for all $n$ and $m$ .
Describe a bijection $f:{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n\to{\mathcal{J}}_{2n,n+1}$ such that $\operatorname{des}(\pi)-1=\operatorname{exc}(f(\pi))$ for all $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$.
Viewing quasi-Stirling permutations as noncrossing matchings of $[2n]$ whose arcs are labeled with the labels $1,2,\dots,n$, it is reasonable to consider the closely related set of labeled [*nonnesting*]{} matchings. These correspond to the set ${\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$ of permutations of $\{1,1,2,2,\dots,n,n\}$ that avoid $1221$ and $2112$. By definition, ${\mathcal{Q}}_n\subseteq{\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$. It is easy to see that $|{\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|=n!C_n=|{\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n|$, since unlabeled nonnesting matchings, just like their noncrossing counterparts, are also counted by the Catalan numbers (see [@chen_crossings_2007] for more information on crossings and nestings in matchings), and there are $n!$ ways to assign labels to the arcs. The distribution of the number of descents on ${\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$, which is different from its ditribution on ${\overline{\mathcal{Q}}}_n$, is the topic of a forthcoming preprint [@archer_descents_nodate].
Finally, it may be interesting to study the distribution on $k$-quasi-Stirling permutations of other statistics such as the number of inversions, the major index, the number of left-to-right minima, the number of inverse descents, the number of blocks of specified sizes, or the distance between occurrences of elements. The distribution of these statistics on Stirling and $k$-Stirling permutations has been studied in [@park_r-multipermutations_1994; @park_inverse_1994; @janson_generalized_2011; @kuba_analysis_2011].
Acknlowledgements {#acknlowledgements .unnumbered}
-----------------
The author thanks Kassie Archer and Adam Gregory for making him aware of Conjecture \[conj:archer\] and the notion of quasi-Stirling permutations, as well as for helpful discussions.
[^1]: The statement of the conjecture in [@archer_pattern_2019] mentions permutations with $n-1$ descents, since their definition does not consider the last position $2n$ to be a descent.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
= plus 1pt
=.aux .aux.def=.aux
= =[>1 Fels and Kaup, CR-tube realizations Fels and Kaup, maximal abelian subalgebras ]{}
Local tube realizations of CR-manifolds and maximal
abelian subalgebras
[GREGOR FELS and WILHELM KAUP]{}
-2ptAbstract For every real-analytic CR-manifold $M$ we give necessary and sufficient conditions that $M$ can be realized in a suitable neighbourhood of a given point $a\in M$ as a tube submanifold of some $\CC^{r}$. We clarify the question of the ‘right’ equivalence between two local tube realizations of the CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$ by introducing two different notions of affine equivalence. One of our key results is a procedure that reduces the classification of equivalence classes to a purely algebraic manipulation in terms of Lie theory.
Mathematics Subject Classification Primary 32V05; Secondary 32V40, 32M25, 17B66
Among all CR-submanifolds of $\CC^{r}$ a special class is formed by the [*tube submanifolds,*]{} that is, by real submanifolds of the form $$T_{F}=\RR^{r}+iF\Leqno{GH}$$ with $F$ an arbitrary submanifold of $\RR^{r}$, called the [*base*]{} of $T_{F}$. CR-manifolds of this type play a fundamental role in CR-geometry as they often serve as test objects. In addition, the interplay between real geometric properties of the base $F$ and CR-properties of the associated tube $T_{F}$ are quite fruitful. An early example of this interplay is well known in the case of open tube submanifolds: [*The tube domain $T_{F}\subset\CC^{r}$ is holomorphically convex if and only if the (open) base $F\subset\RR^{r}$ is convex in the elementary sense.*]{} Clearly, in the context of CR-geometry, domains in $\CC^{r}$ are not of interest. In fact, we will mainly consider CR-manifolds $M=(M,\H
M,J)$ which are holomorphically nondegenerate, i.e., $\xi=0$ is the only holomorphic vector field on $M$, which is a section in the subbundle $\H M$. We note in passing that in the tube situation the general case can be reduced to the nondegenerate one as every such CR-manifold is locally a direct product of some $\CC^k$ and a holomorphically nondegenerate CR-manifold.
For instance, interesting examples of holomorphically nondegenerate tube submanifolds are obtained as follows: Let $\Omega\subset\RR^{r}$ be an open convex cone such that the corresponding tube domain $T_{\Omega}\subset\CC^{r}$ is biholomorphically equivalent to an irreducible bounded symmetric domain. Then the group $G=\GL(\Omega):=\{g\in\GL(r,\RR):g(\Omega)=\Omega\}$ acts transitively on $\Omega$ and for every non-open $G$-orbit $F\subset\RR^{r}$ with $F\ne\{0\}$ the corresponding tube $T_{F}$ is Levi degenerate but still is holomorphically nondegenerate . The example of lowest possible dimension occurs with the future cone $\Omega=\{x\in\RR^{3}:x_{3}>\sqrt{x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}}\}$ in 3-dimensional space-time and $F=\{x\in\RR^{3}:x_{3}=\sqrt{x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}}>0\}$ the future light cone. The future light cone tube $T_{F}$ has been studied by many authors and has remarkable properties, compare and the references therein. Until recently, this tube manifold $T_{F}$ was, up to local CR-isomorphy, the only known example of a 5-dimensional Levi degenerate, holomorphically nondegenerate and locally homogeneous CR-manifold. A full classification of CR-manifolds of this type could be obtained in – surprisingly all possible examples turned out to be locally representable as tube manifolds.
Since tube manifolds are quite easy to deal with it is of interest to decide whether a given CR-manifold $M$ is CR-isomorphic, at least locally around a given point $a\in M$, to a tube submanifold of some $\CC^{r}$. Another question is how many ‘different’ tube realizations a given CR-manifold germ does admit. In the particular case of spherical hypersurfaces the following result has been obtained in by solving a certain partial differential equation coming from the Chern-Moser theory : [*For every $r\ge2$ there exist, up to affine equivalence, precisely $r+2$ closed smooth tube submanifolds of $\CC^{r}$ that are locally CR-isomorphic to the euclidian sphere $S^{2r-1}\subset\CC^{r}$.*]{} In , the same method has been used for a certain more general class of CR-flat manifolds. All the above results rely on Chern-Moser theory and therefore only apply to CR-manifolds that are Levi nondegenerate and of hypersurface type.
In this note we use a different method that applies to all CR-manifolds (for simplicity we work in the category of real-analytic CR-manifolds). This method is more algebraic in nature and starts from the following simple observation: A real submanifold $M\subset\CC^{r}$ is tube if and only if $M$ is invariant under all real translations $z\mapsto z+v$ with $v\in\RR^{r}$. In particular, $\7g:=\hol(M,a)$, the Lie algebra of all (germs of real-analytic) infinitesimal CR-transformations at $a$, contains the abelian Lie subalgebra induced by the above translations. Therefore it is not unexpected that every tube realization of an arbitrarily given CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$ is strongly related to a certain abelian Lie subalgebra $\7v$ of $\hol(M,a),$ see Prop. and Prop. for precise statements.
In a slightly different form the Lie algebra $\7v$ has already been used in for the characterization of tube manifolds (in fact more generally in the context of abstract smooth CR-manifolds and the solution of the local integrability problem for rigid CR-manifolds; on the other hand we do not need to assume that the evaluation map $\varepsilon_a:\7v\to T_aM$ is injective). But, in contrast to our intentions are completely different - we mainly focus on the question how may ‘essentially’ different tube realizations of a given CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$ do exist. This question of equivalence for different local tube realizations of a given CR-manifold is a bit more subtle than it might appear at the first glance. We introduce two different notions of equivalence to which we refer accordingly as to the ‘strict’ and the ‘coarse’ affine equivalence. Our impression is that the latter one is more appropriate in the context of local tube realizations.
In Section we give necessary and sufficient conditions for an abelian subalgebra $\7v\subset\7g$ to give a local tube realization of $(M,a)$. This characterization also includes for every $\7v$ an easy to compute canonical form of a local CR-isomorphism to the corresponding tube realization of $(M,a)$. It is also shown that any two local tube realizations of the germ $(M,a)$ are affinely equivalent (in the strict sense) if and only if the corresponding abelian subalgebras $\7v,\7v'\subset\7g$ are conjugate with respect to the stability group $\Aut(M,a)$.
The ‘coarse’ equivalence relation for tube realizations of the germ $(M,a)$ is, roughly speaking, defined as follows: Two tube realizations $(T,c),(T',c')$ of $(M,a)$ in $\CC^{r}$ are considered to be equivalent in this broader sense if the representing tube submanifolds $T,T'\subset\CC^{r}$ can be chosen in such a way that $T'=g(T)$ for some affine isomorphism $g$ on $\CC^{r}$ (that is, [*without*]{} requiring $c'=g(c)$ in addition).
While it is not surprising that the existence of a tube realization for $(M,a)$ is closely related to the existence of a certain ‘big’ abelian Lie subalgebra of $\7g=\hol(M,a)$, it is not at all clear what the relation between various tube realizations and the corresponding abelian subalgebras in $\hol(M,a)$ should be. One of our main results is then obtained in Section , where we introduce the subgroup $\Glob(M,a)\subset\Aut(\7g)$ and show for a large class of CR-manifolds $M$ that the local tube realizations of $(M,a)$ are equivalent in the coarser sense if and only if the corresponding abelian subalgebras $\7v,\7v'$ are conjugate with respect to the group $\Glob(M,a)$.
In Sections and we apply our general theory to some concrete cases. For instance, we relate the results from with our algebraic point of view, and identify the various abelian subalgebras of $\hol(S^{2r-1},a)$, $S^{2r-1}\subset\CC^{r}$ the standard sphere, which correspond to various defining equations in .
In the last two sections we generalize the notion of a tube submanifold to the notion of a Siegel submanifold. This is motivated by the well known fact that every bounded homogeneous domain can be realized as a Siegel domain, thus giving a lot of additional insight to the structure of those domains. In the forthcoming paper our method will be applied to the class of all Levi non-degenerate real hyperquadrics in $\CC^{r}$ in order to obtain a full algebraic characterization of local tube realizations in such cases.
[**Abstract CR-manifolds.**]{} A triple $(M,\H M,J)$ is called an ([*abstract*]{}) [*CR-manifold*]{} (CR stands for Cauchy-Riemann) if $M$ is a (connected if not stated otherwise explicitly) smooth manifold, $\H M$ is a smooth subbundle of its tangent bundle $\T M$ and $J$ is a smooth bundle endomorphism of $\H M$ with $J^{2}=-\id$. For simplicity we often write just $M$ instead of $(M,\H
M,J)$. For every $a\in M$ the restriction of $J$ to the linear subspace $\H_{a}M\subset \T_{a}M$ makes $\H_{a}M$ to a complex vector space, we call it the [*holomorphic tangent space to $M$ at $a$*]{} (in the literature $\H_{a}M$ is also called the [*complex tangent space*]{} and denoted by $\T^{\,c}_{a}M$). Its complex dimension is called the [*CR-dimension*]{} and the real dimension of $\T_{a}M/\H_{a}M$ is called the [*CR-codimension*]{} of $M$. With $M=(M,\H M,J)$ also $M\conj:=(M,\H M,-J)$ is a CR-manifold; we call it the [*conjugate*]{} of $M$.
A smooth map $g:M\to M'$ between two CR-manifolds is called CR if for every $a\in M$ and $a':=g(a)$ the differential $dg_{a}:\T_{a}M\to \T_{a'}M'$ maps the corresponding holomorphic subspaces in a complex linear way to each other. Also, $g$ is called [*anti-CR*]{} if $g$ is CR as a map $M\conj\to M'$.
For every smooth vector field $\xi$ on $M$ and every $a\in M$ we denote by $\xi_{a}\in \T_{a}M$ the corresponding tangent vector at $a$. Furthermore, $\xi$ is called an [*infinitesimal CR-transformation*]{} of $M$ if the corresponding local flow on $M$ consists of CR-transformations. With $\xi,\eta$ also the usual bracket $[\xi,\eta]$ is an infinitesimal CR-transformation.
It is obvious that every smooth manifold $M$ can be considered as a CR-manifold with CR-dimension 0 (these are called the [*totally real*]{} CR-manifolds). The other extreme is formed by the CR-manifolds with CR-codimension 0, these are precisely the almost complex manifolds. Among the latter the integrable ones play a special role, the complex manifolds. CR-mappings between complex manifolds are precisely the holomorphic mappings.
[**CR-manifolds in this paper**]{} are understood to be those $M=(M,\H M,J)$ that are real-analytic and integrable in the following sense: $M$ is a real-analytic manifold and there is a complex manifold $Z$ such that $M$ can be realized as a real-analytic submanifold $M\subset Z$ with $\H_{a}M=\T_{a}M\cap\,i\T_{a}M$ and $J(\xi)=i\xi$ for every $a\in M$, $\xi\in \H_{a}M$, where $\T_{a}M$ is considered in the canonical way as an $\RR$-linear subspace of the complex vector space $\T_{a}Z$. This notion of integrability is equivalent to the vanishing of the restricted Nijenhuis tensor. We refer to or for further details. The embedding $M\subset Z$ above can always be chosen to be [*generic*]{}, that is, $\T_{a}Z=\T_{a}M+\,i\T_{a}M$ for all $a\in M$. In that case the (connected) complex manifold $Z$ has complex dimension (CR-$\dim
M+\,$CR-$\codim M$).
CR-isomorphisms between CR-manifolds are always understood to be analytic in both directions. In particular, $\Aut(M)$ is the group of all (bianalytic) CR-automorphisms of $M$ and $\Aut_{a}(M):=\{g\in\Aut(M):g(a)=a\}$ is the isotropy subgroup at the point $a\in M$. With $\Aut(M,a)$, also called th [*stability group at $a$*]{}, we denote the group of all CR-automorphisms of the manifold germ $(M,a)$. Then $\Aut_{a}(M)$ can be considered in a canonical way as a subgroup of $\Aut(M,a)$.
With $\hol(M)$ we denote the space of all real-analytic infinitesimal transformations of the CR-manifold $M$ and with $\hol(M,a)$ the space of all germs at $a\in M$ of vector fields $\xi\in\hol(N)$ where $N$ runs through all open connected neighbourhoods of $a$ in $M$. Then $\hol(M)$ as well as every $\hol(M,a)$ together with the bracket $[\;,\;]$ is a real Lie algebra (of possibly infinite dimension). The canonical restriction mapping $\rho_{a}:\hol(M)\to\hol(M,a)$ is an injective homomorphism of Lie algebras. Every isomorphism $g:(M,a)\to(M',a')$ of CR-manifold germs induces in a canonical way a Lie algebra homomorphism $g_{*}:\hol(M,a)\to\hol(M',a')$. Its inverse is the pull back $g^{*}$. Clearly, $g\mapsto g_{*}$ defines a group homomorphism $\Ad:\Aut(M,a)\to\Aut(\hol(M,a))$.
A vector field $\xi\in\hol(M)$ is called [*complete*]{} on $M$ if the corresponding local flow extends to a one-parameter group $\RR\to\Aut(M)$. The image of $1\in\RR$ is denoted by $\exp(\xi)$. In this sense we have the exponential map $\exp:\aut(M)\to\Aut(M)$, where $\aut(M)$ is the set of all [*complete*]{} $\xi\in\hol(M)$. In general, $\aut(M)\subset\hol(M)$ is neither a linear subspace nor closed under taking brackets. But, if there exists a Lie subalgebra $\7g\subset\hol(M)$ of finite dimension with $\aut(M)\subset\7g$, then $\aut(M)$ itself is a Lie subalgebra and on $\Aut(M)$ there exists a unique Lie group structure (in general not connected) such that $\exp$ is a local diffeomorphism in a neighbourhood of $0\in\aut(M)$. Furthermore, the map $\Aut(M)\times M\to M$, $(g,a)\mapsto
g(a)$, is real-analytic.
In case $M$ is generically embedded as a real-analytic CR-submanifold of a complex manifold $Z$ then a vector field $\xi$ on $M$ is in $\hol(M)$ if and only if $\xi$ has an extension $\tilde\xi$ to a holomorphic vector field on a suitable open neighbourhood $U$ of $M$ in $Z$ (that is, $\tilde\xi$ is a holomorphic section over $U$ in its tangent bundle $\T U\,$). The Lie algebras $\hol(Z)$ and $\hol(Z,a)$ are complex Lie algebras and $\7g:=\hol(M,a)$ is in a canonical way a real subalgebra of $\hol(Z,a)$. The CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$ is called [*holomorphically nondegenerate*]{} if $\7g$ is totally real in $\hol(Z,a)$, that is, $\7g\cap\, i\!\7g=\{0\}$. In this case there is a unique antilinear Lie algebra automorphism $\sigma$ of $\7g^{\CC}:=\7g+\,i\7g\subset\hol(Z,a)$ with $\7g=\Fix(\sigma)$. Clearly, real Lie subalgebras of $\7g$ and $\sigma$-invariant complex Lie subalgebras of $\7g^{\CC}$ are in a natural 1-1-correspondence.
In general, a vector field $\xi\in\hol(M)$ only can be integrated to a [*local*]{} 1-parameter group of CR-transformations $g_{t}$ that we also denote by $\exp(t\xi)$. The reason for this notation in the analytic case is the following: To every $a\in M$ and every open neighbourhood $W$ of $a\in Z$ there is a further open neighbourhood $U\subset W$ of $a\in Z$ and an $\epsilon>0$ such that the $g_{t}$ are defined as holomorphic mappings $U\to W$ for $|t|<\epsilon$ and satisfy for every holomorphic mapping $f:W\to\CC^{n}$ the formula $$f\circ g_{t}|_{U}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{1\over
k!}(t\xi)^{k}(f|_{U})\,.$$ In particular, if $f$ gives a local chart for $Z$ around $a$ then the $g_{t}$ on $U$ can be recovered from the right side of this formula.
Let $Z$ be a connected complex manifold of dimension $n$ and $\7e\subset\hol(Z,a)$ an abelian complex Lie subalgebra with $\epsilon_{a}(\7e)=\T_{a}Z$, where $\epsilon_{a}$ is the evaluation map $\xi\mapsto\xi_{a}$. Then $\epsilon_{a}$ induces a complex linear isomorphism from $\7e$ onto $\T_{a}Z$. In particular, $\7e$ also has dimension $n$ and is maximal abelian in $\hol(Z,a)$.
Let $\eta\in\7e$ be an arbitrary element with $\eta_{a}=0$. We have to show $\eta=0$. Fix a linear subspace $\7a\subset\7e$ such that $\epsilon_{a}:\7a\to\T_{a}Z$ is an isomorphism. We may assume that $\7a\subset\hol(U)$ for some open neighbourhood $U\subset Z$ of $a$ and also that every $z\in U$ is of the form $z=\exp(\xi)(a)$ for some $\xi\in\7a$. For every such $z$ then $[\eta,\xi]=0$ implies $\exp(t\eta)(z)=\exp(\xi)\exp(t\eta)(a)=\exp(\xi)(a)=z$ for $|t|$ small, that is, $\eta=0$.
For the sake of clarity we mention that in case $n=\dim Z\ge 2$ there exist [*abelian*]{} subalgebras $\7e\subset\hol(Z,a)$ of [ *arbitrary*]{} dimension. However, in general these do not span $\T_aZ$.
The CR-manifold $M$ is called [*homogeneous*]{} if the group $\Aut(M)$ acts transitively on $M$. Also, $M$ is called [*locally homogeneous*]{} if for every $a,b\in M$ the manifold germs $(M,a)$, $(M,b)$ are CR-isomorphic. By this is equivalent to $\epsilon_{a}(\hol(M,a))=\T_{a}M$ for every $a\in M$. The CR-manifold $M$ is called [*minimal*]{} if every smooth submanifold $N\subset M$ with $\H_{a}M\subset \T_{a}N$ for all $a\in N$ is already open in $M$.
For later use (Proposition ) we state
Let $Z$ be a complex manifold and $M\subset Z$ a (connected real-analytic) generic and minimal CR-submanifold. Then for every closed complex-analytic subset $A\subset Z$ the set $M\backslash A$ is connected.
We first show that the proof of the Lemma can be reduced to the case when $A\subset Z$ is non-singular. Indeed, there is an integer $k\ge1$ and a descending chain $A=A_{0}\supset\cdots\supset
A_{k}=\emptyset$ of analytic subsets such that $A_{j}$ is the singular locus of $A_{j-1}$ for all $j=1,\dots,k$. Put $M_{j}:=M\backslash
A_{j}$. Then $A_{j-1}\backslash A_{j}$ is analytic in $Z_{j}:=Z\backslash A_{j}$ and $M_{j-1}=M_{j}\backslash(A_{j-1}\backslash A_{j})$. Therefore it suffices to show inductively that $M=M_{k},M_{k-1},\dots,M_{0}$ all are connected. For the rest of the proof we therefore assume that $A$ is nonsingular and also, contrary to the claim of the Lemma, that $M\backslash A$ is disconnected. Notice that this implies $$\T_aM\cap\T_aA\;\ne\;\T_aM\Steil{for all}a\in M\cap A\,,\leqno{(*)}$$ since otherwise $M\backslash A=\emptyset$ would be connected as a consequence of $\T_{a}Z=\T_{a}M+i\T_{a}M\subset\T_{a}A\subset\T_{a}Z$.
The intersection $S:=A\cap M$ is a real-analytic set. Again, there is an integer $r\ge1$ and a descending chain $S=S_{0}\supset\cdots\supset
S_{r}=\emptyset$ of real-analytic subsets such that $S_{j}$ is the singular locus of $S_{j-1}$ for all $j=1,\dots,r$. Choose $j\le r$ minimal with respect to the property that $M\backslash S_{j}$ is connected. Then $j>0$ by the above assumption and $M\backslash
S_{j-1}=(M\backslash S_{j})\backslash (S_{j-1}\backslash S_{j})$ is disconnected. In particular, also $(M\backslash S_{j})\backslash N$ is disconnected, where we denote by $N$ the union of all connected components of $(S_{j-1}\backslash S_{j})$ that have codimension 1 in $M$. Clearly, $(*)$ improves to $$\T_aM\cap\T_aA\;=\;\T_aN\Steil{for
all}a\in N\,.\leqno{(**)}$$ Since $M$ is minimal by assumption there exists an $a\in N$ with $\H_aM\not\subset \T_{\!a}N$ and hence with $\H_aM\not\subset \T_{\!a}A$ by $(**)$. Since $\H_aM$ and $\T_aA$ are complex linear subspaces, there is a linear subspace $V\subset
\H_aM\subset \T_{\!a}M$ of real dimension $\ge 2$ with $\H_aM=V\oplus
(\H_aM\cap\, \T_aA)$. But then $V\cap\,\T_aN= V\cap(\T_aM\cap
\T_aA)=0$ gives a contradiction since $T_{a}N$ is a real hyperplane in $T_{a}M$. This shows that $M\backslash A$ cannot be assumed to be disconnected, and the proof is complete.
Notice that the assumption on $M$ in Lemma is automatically satisfied if $M$ is of hypersurface type and has nowhere vanishing Levi form. Indeed, if $M$ is a hypersurface and is not minimal in $a\in M$ then the Levi form of $M$ at $a$ vanishes.
[**Convention for notating vector fields.**]{} In this paper we do not need the complexified tangent bundle $TM\otimes_{\RR}\CC$ of $M$. All vector fields occurring here correspond to ‘real vector fields’ elsewhere. In particular, if $E$ is a complex vector space of finite dimension and $U\subset E$ is an open subset then the vector fields $\xi\in\hol(U)$ correspond to holomorphic mappings $f:U\to E$, and the correspondence is given in terms of the canonical trivialization $TU\cong U\times E$ by identifying the mapping $f$ with the vector field $\xi=(\id_{U},f)$. To have a short notation we also write $$\xi=f(z)\dd z{}\,.$$ As soon as the vector field $\xi=f(z)\dd z{}$ is considered as differential operator, special caution is necessary: $\xi$ applied to the smooth function $h$ on $U$ is $\xi h=f(z)\dd
z{}h+\overline f(z)\dd{\overline z} h$. We therefore stress again that we write $$\xi=f(z)\dd z{}\Steil{ instead of }\xi=f(z)\dd z{}+\overline
f(z)\dd{\overline z}{}\hbox{~~elsewhere}\,,$$ and this convention will be in effect allover the paper.
Throughout this section let $V$ be a real vector space of finite dimension and $E:=V\oplus iV$ its complexification. For every (connected and locally closed) real-analytic submanifold $F\subset V$ the manifold $$T:=T_{F}:=V+iF\;\subset\; E$$ is a CR-submanifold of $E$, called the [*tube*]{} over the [*base*]{} $F$. Obviously, a real-analytic submanifold $M\subset E$ is a tube in this sense if and only if $M+V=M$. Tubes form a very special class of CR-manifolds. For instance, $\Aut(T)$ contains the following abelian translation group isomorphic to the vector group $V$ $$\Gamma:=\{z\mapsto z+v:v\in V\}\,.$$ Since $T=\Gamma(iF)$ it is enough to study the local CR-structure of the tube $T$ only at points $ia\in iF\subset T$. For these $$\T_{ia}T=V\oplus i\T_{a}F\steil{and}\H_{ia}T=\T_{a}F\oplus
i\T_{a}F\subset E$$ is easily seen. In particular, $T$ is generic in $E$. For every further tube $T'=V'+iF'$ in a complex vector space $E'=V'\oplus iV'$ with $F'\subset V'$ every real affine mapping $g:V\to V'$ with $g(F)\subset F'$ extends to a complex affine mapping $\tilde g:E\to E'$ with $\tilde g(T)\subset T'$ and thus gives a CR-map $T\to T'$. Therefore, $F$ (locally) being affinely homogeneous implies that the tube $T$ is (locally) CR-homogeneous. The converse is not true in general.
Suppose that $T=V+iF$ is a tube submanifold of the complex vector space $E=V\oplus iV$ and that $a\in T$ is an arbitrary point. Then the following conditions are equivalent. $T$ is of finite type at $a$. $T$ is minimal at $a$. The smallest affine subspace of $V$ containing $F$ is $V$ itself. It is enough to show the implication 31. We therefore assume (iii) and identify $E=\CC^{n}$ with $\RR^{n}\times\RR^{n}$ in the standard way via $(x+iy)\cong(x,y)$. Without loss of generality we assume that $T$ contains the origin of $E$ and is given in a suitable neighbourhood of it by real-analytic equations $$y_{j}=f_{j}(y_{1},\dots,y_{k}),\quad k<j\le n,$$ where every $f_{j}$ vanishes of order $\ge2$ at the origin of $\RR^k$. The assumption (iii) implies that the germs of the functions $f_{k+1},\dots,f_{n}$ at $0\in\RR^k$ are linearly independent. For all $1\le\ell,m\le k$ the vector fields $$\xi^\ell:=-\dd{x_\ell}+\sum_{j>k}\dD{f_{\!j}}{y_\ell}\dd{x_j}
\Steil{and}\eta^m:=\dd{y_m}-\sum_{j>k}\dD{f_{\!j}}{y_m}\dd{y_j}$$ (expressed in the real coordinates $(x,y)$ of $E$) are sections in the holomorphic subbundle $\H T$ over the tube manifold $T$. Also, for every multi-index $\nu=(\nu_1,\dots,\nu_k)\in\NN^k$ with $|\nu|:=\nu_1+\dots+\nu_k\ge1$ and every $\ell=1,\dots,k$ we have $$(\ad\eta^1)^{\nu_1}(\ad\eta^2)^{\nu_2}\cdots(\ad\eta^k)^{\nu_k}
\xi^\ell\;=\;\sum_{j>k}\Big(\dD{^{|\nu|}}{y^\nu}\big(\dD{f_{\!j}}{y_\ell}
\big)\Big)\dd{x_j}\,.\Leqno{YO}$$ Denote by $S\subset\T_{0}T$ the linear subspace spanned by $\H_{0}T$ and all vector fields . Assume that there exists a non-trivial linear form $\lambda$ on $\T_{0}T$ with $\lambda(S)=0$ and put $f:=\sum_{j>k}f_{j}$ with $d_{j}:=\lambda(\dd{z_{j}}\!)\,$. Then $d_{j}\ne0$ for some $j>k$, that is, $f\not\equiv0$. On the other hand, shows that all partial derivatives of $f$ of order $\ge2$ vanish. By choice of the functions $f_{j}$ also all partial derivatives of $f$ of order $<2$ vanish, a contradiction. Therefore $S=\T_{0}T$ and (i) must hold.
Suppose that $T=V+iF$ is a tube submanifold of the complex vector space $E=V\oplus iV$ and suppose, without loss of generality, that $T$ contains the origin of $E$. Then there exist complex linear subspaces $E',E''$ of $E$ and tube submanifolds $T'\subset E'$, $T''\subset E''$ with the following properties: $T'$ is an $\RR$-linear subspace of $E'$ with $E'=T'+iT'$. $T''$ is holomorphically nondegenerate and of finite type at every point. $E=E'\oplus E''$ and $T$ is open in $T'+T''$.
By Lemma we assume without loss of generality that $V$ is the linear span of $F$. We then verify the claim with $T'=E'$.For every $a\in T$ put $\7h_{a}:=\hol(T,a)\cap
i\hol(T,a)$ and $E_{a}:=\epsilon_{a}(\7h_{a})$. Then $\7h_{a}$ is a complex Lie subalgebra of $\hol(E,a)$ and $E_{a}\subset E$ is a complex linear subspace. Denote by $M\subset T$ the subset of all points at which the function $a\mapsto\dim E_{a}$ takes a global maximum and fix a connected component $S$ of $M$. Then $S$ is open in $T$ and $k:=\dim E_{a}$ does not depend on $a\in S$. Let $\2G$ be the Grassmannian of all $k$-planes in $E$ and consider the map $\phi:S\to\2G$, $a\mapsto E_{a}$. For every $a\in S$ the map $\phi$ is constant on $(a+V)\subset S$. Since $\phi$ is CR we conclude that $T':=E':=E_{a}$ does not depend on $a\in S$. Now fix an arbitrary vector $\alpha\in E'$ and consider the constant vector field $\xi=\alpha\dd z$ on $E$. Since $\xi$ is tangent to $S$ it is also tangent to $T$, that is, the germ $\xi_{a}\in\hol(E,a)$ is contained in $\7h_{a}$ for all $a\in T$. As a consequence we get $E'\subset
E_{a}$ and thus $E'=E_{a}$ for all $a\in T$. There exists a linear subspace $V''\subset V$ with $E=E'\oplus E''$ for $E'':=V''\oplus
iV''$. The image $T''$ of $T$ with respect to the canonical projection $E\to E''$ is a tube submanifold of $E''$ satisfying (iii). The base $F''$ of $T''$ spans the vector space $V''$, that is, $TÜ''$ is of finite type by Lemma . For the proof of the first part in (ii) we may assume without loss of generality that $E'=0$ holds, that is, $E=E''$. But then by the above arguments we have $\7h_{a}=0$ for all $a\in T$, that is, $T=T''$ is holomorphically nondegenerate.
It is known that for every holomorphically nondegenerate minimal CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$ the Lie algebra $\hol(M,a)$ has finite dimension, compare Theorem 12.5.3 in . Calling a CR-manifold germ $(M, a)$ of [*tube type*]{} if it is CR-isomorphic to a germ $(T,c)$ with $T$ a tube manifold we therefore get the
Let $(M,a)$ be a CR-manifold germ of tube type. Then there exist unique integers $k,l\ge0$ and a holomorphically nondegenerate CR-submanifold $M'\subset M$ of finite type with $a\in
M'$ such that $(M,a)$ is CR-isomorphic to the direct product $(\CC^{k},0)\times(\RR^{l},0)\times(M',a)$. Furthermore: $(M,a)$ is holomorphically nondegenerate if and only if $k=0$. $(M,a)$ is of finite type if and only if $\,l=0$. $\hol(M,a)$ has finite dimension if and only if $k=l=0$.
As shown in , to every real-analytic CR-submanifold $M\subset\CC^{n}$ there exists a proper real-analytic subset $A\subset
M$ such that the germ $(M,a)$ is CR-isomorphic to $(\CC^{k},0)\times(M',a)$ for some $k\ge0$ and some holomorphically nondegenerate CR-submanifold $M'\subset M$ containing $a$, provided $a\in M\backslash A$. Corollary implies that $A$ can be chosen to be empty if $M$ is of tube type.
[**An analyticity criterion.**]{} In the following [*$k$-differentiable*]{} always means $\5C^{k}$ for $1\le
k\le\infty$. For every abstract $k$-differentiable CR-manifold $N$ then the tangent bundle $\T N$ is of class $\5C^{k-1}$ and we denote by $\7X^{k-1}(N)$ the $\RR$-linear space of $(k{-}1)$-differentiable infinitesimal CR-transformations on $N$. Unless $k=k{-}1=\infty$, the space $\7X^{k-1}(N)$ is not a Lie algebra in general. But again, for every $k$-differentiable CR-diffeomorphism $\phi:N\to M$ we have a canonical linear isomorphism $\phi_{*}:\7X^{k-1}(N)\to\7X^{k-1}(M)$. Clearly, every real-analytic CR-manifold $M$ can be considered as a $k$-differentiable CR-manifold in a canonical way and $\hol(M)\subset\7X^{k-1}(M)$ in this sense.
Let $M$ be a real-analytic holomorphically nondegenerate CR-manifold and let $V+iF$ be a $k$-differentiable tube submanifold of the complex vector space ${E:=V\oplus\,iV}$. Suppose that $N$ is an open subset of $V+iF$ and that there exists a $k$-differentiable CR-diffeomorphism $\phi:N\to M$ with $\phi_{*}\!\7v\subset\hol(M)$ for $\7v:=\{v\dd z:v\in
V\}\;\subset\;\7X^{k-1}(N)$. Then $N\subset E$ is a (locally-closed) real-analytic subset of $E$ and $\phi$ is a bianalytic CR-diffeomorphism.
Fix an arbitrary point $a\in M$. Since the claim is of local nature we may assume that $M$ is generically embedded in $E$. The local flows of vector fields in $\7v$ commute. Therefore the image $\7w:=\phi_{*}\!\7v$ is an abelian subalgebra of $\hol(M)\subset\hol(M,a)$ and $\epsilon_{a}(\7w^{\CC})=E$. By Proposition we may assume without loss of generality that $M=V+iH$ is a real-analytic tube submanifold of $E$ and that $\7w=\7v\subset\hol(M,a)$. Applying a suitable affine transformation to $M$ we may assume in addition that $a\in N$, $\phi(a)=a$ and $\phi:\7v\to\7v$ is the identity. For suitable open subsets $U,W\subset V$ we may assume furthermore that $F\subset W$, $N=U+iF$ and that there exist $k$-differentiable functions $f,g:U\times W\to V$ satisfying $\phi(z)=f(x,y)+ig(x,y)$ for all $x,y\in U$ with $z=x+iy\in
N$. The condition $\phi_{*}=\id_{\7v}$ implies $\dD fx\equiv\id_{V}$ and $\dD gx\equiv0$ on $U\times F$. The CR-property then gives $\dD
fy|_{c}(v)=0$ and $\dD gy|_{c}(v)=v$ for all $c=(e,f)\in U\times F$ and $v\in \T_{f}F$. Because of $\phi(a)=a$ this implies $\phi(z)=z$ for all $z\in N$ near $a$, that is, the manifold germs $(N,a)$ and $(M,a)$ coincide.
Proposition implies that in case $\7X^{k-1}\!(M,a)=\hol(M,a)$ for every $a\in M$, every $k$-differentiable tube realization $N\subset E$ of $M$ is real-analytic. This happens, for instance with $k=1$, if $M$ is of hypersurface type with nowhere vanishing Levi form. Indeed, by Theorem 3.1 in every 1-differentiable CR-diffeomorphism between open subsets of $M$ is real-analytic.
In the following $M$ is a CR-manifold generically embedded in the complex manifold $Z$ and $a\in M$ is a given point. Then the tube realizations $\phi:(M,a)\to(T,c)$ and $\phi:(M,a)\to(T',c')$ with tubes $T\subset E$, $T'\subset E'$ as in Section are called [*affinely equivalent*]{} if the tube germs $(T,c)$, $(T',c')$ are equivalent under an affine isomorphism $\lambda:E\to E'$, or equivalently, if $\phi'\circ g=\lambda\circ\phi$ for some $g\in\Aut(M,a)$ and some affine isomorphism $\lambda$. Also, we call the subsets $\7v,\7v'\subset\hol(M,a)$ conjugate with respect to $\Aut(M,a)$ if $\7v'=g_{*}(\7v)$ for some $g\in\Aut(M,a)$.
The affine equivalence classes of tube realizations of the germ $(M,a)$ are in 1-1-correspondence to the $\Aut(M,a)$-conjugacy classes of abelian Lie subalgebras $\7v\subset\7g:=\hol(M,a)$ satisfying $\7v$ is totally real in $\hol(Z,a)$, $\7e:=\7v\oplus\,i\!\7v\subset\hol(Z,a)$ spans the full tangent space $\T_{a}Z$.
Suppose that for the tube submanifold $T=V+iF\subset E$ the CR-isomorphism $\phi:(M,a)\to(T,c)$ is given. Then $\7v:=\{\phi^{*}(v\dd z):v\in V\}\subset\7g$ satisfies the conditions (i) and (ii). For every affine isomorphism $\lambda:E\to
E'$ and every tube realization $\phi':(M,a)\to(T',c'):=\lambda(T,c)$ the transformation $g:=\phi'^{-1}\circ\lambda\circ\phi\in\Aut(M,a)$ satisfies $g_{*}(\7v)=\{\phi'^{*}(v'\dd z):v'\in V'\}$ for $V':=\lambda(V)$.Conversely, suppose that an abelian Lie subalgebra $\7v\subset\7g$ with (i), (ii) is given. Then $\7e$ is an abelian complex Lie algebra and by Lemma the evaluation map $\epsilon_{a}:\7e\to\T_{a}Z$ is a complex linear isomorphism. Denote by $E$ the complex vector space underlying $\7e$ and by $V\subset E$ the real vector space underlying $\7v$. By the implicit function theorem there exist open neighbourhoods $U$ of $0\in
E$ and $W$ of $a\in Z$ such that $\psi(\xi):=\exp(\xi)(a)\in W$ is defined for every vector field $\xi\in U$ and $\psi:U\to W$ is a biholomorphic mapping with $\psi(0)=a$. For $\phi:=\psi^{-1}$ then $\phi(W\cap M)$ is an open piece of a tube $T=V+iF\subset E$, that is, $\phi:(M,a)\to(T,0)$ gives a tube realization with $\7v=\{\phi^{*}(v\dd z):v\in V\}$. Now fix a $g\in\Aut(M,a)$. Then also $\7v':=g_{*}(\7v)$ with $\7e':=\7v'\oplus\,i\!\7v'$ satisfies (i), (ii) and thus gives a tube realization $\phi':(M,a)\to(T',0)$ according to the procedure above. Since $\7e$, $\7e'$ are abelian, there is a complex linear isomorphism $\lambda:E\to E'$ with $\lambda(\psi(\xi))=\psi'(g_{*}(\xi))$ for all $\xi$ in a neighbourhood of the origin in $E$. But this means that $\lambda:(T,0)\to(T',0)$ is an affine equivalence.
Notice that $\7e$ is maximal abelian in $\hol(Z,a)$ by Lemma . In case $M$ is holomorphically non-degenerate the condition (i) above is automatically satisfied and $\7v$ is maximal abelian in $\hol(M,a)$.
A different characterization of abelian Lie subalgebras $\7v$ giving rise to tube realizations of $(M,a)$ occurs already in . Instead of (i), (ii) there $\7v$ has to act without isotropy and transversally to the holomorphic tangent bundle.
Tubes $T=V+iF$ have a special property: $\tau(x+iy):=-x+iy$ for all $x\in V$, $y\in F$ defines an anti-CR map $\tau:T\to T$ with $\tau^{2}=\id$ and $\tau(a)=a$ for all $a\in iF\subset T$. This motivates the following considerations.
[**Involutions.**]{} In this subsection $M$ stands for an arbitrary CR-manifold. A real-analytic mapping $\tau:M\to M$ is called an [*involution*]{} of $M$ if it is anti-CR and satisfies $\tau^{2}=\id$. If in addition $\tau(a)=a$ for a given $a\in M$ we call $\tau$ an [*involution of $M$ at*]{} $a$ or of the CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$. Two involutions $\tau$, $\tau'$ of $(M,a)$ are called [*equivalent*]{} if $\tau'=g\tau g^{-1}$ for some $g\in\Aut(M,a)$. Every involution $\tau$ of $(M,a)$ splits various linear spaces, associated with the germ $(M,a)$, into their $\pm1$-eigenspaces. To indicate the dependence on $\tau$ we mark the $+1$-eigenspaces by an upper index $\tau$ and the $-1$-eigenspaces by an upper index $-\tau$, e.g. $\T_{a}M=\T^{\tau}_{a}M\oplus
\T^{-\tau}_{a}M$, $\H_{a}M=\H^{\tau}_{a}M\oplus \H^{-\tau}_{a}M$ and $\7g=\7g^{\tau}\oplus\7g^{-\tau}$ for $\7g:=\hol(M,a)$. Clearly $(\T_{\!a}M)^\tau=\T_{\!a}(M^{\tau})$. Crucial for the explicit determination of all tube realizations for $(M,a)$ is the following reformulation of Proposition , compare e.g. .
Proposition remains valid if $\,$[(i)]{} is replaced by
[(i’)]{} There exists an involution $\tau$ of $(M,a)$ with $\7v\subset\7g^{-\tau}$.
The involution $\tau$ in [(i’)]{} is uniquely determined by $\7v$ and satisfies $\dim_{a}\!M^{\tau}=\hbox{\rm CR-}\!\dim M$, or equivalently, $\,\dim\T^{-\tau}_{a}M=\dim_{\CC}\!Z$.
In particular, for every $g\in\Aut(M,a)$ the involution $\tau'$ corresponding to $\7v':=g_{*}(\7v)\subset\7g$ is given by $\tau'=g\circ\tau\circ g^{-1}$.
(i’) $\Longrightarrow$ (i) is obvious. Therefore let us assume conversely that the abelian subalgebra $\7v\subset\7g$ satisfies (i) and (ii). Without loss of generality we assume by Proposition that $M=V+iF$ is a tube submanifold of $E=V\oplus iV$, that $a\in iF$ and that $\7v=\{v\dd z:v\in V\}$. Then the involution $\tau(x+iy)=-x+iy$ of $(M,a)$ satisfies (i’) and (iii). Now suppose that $\tau'$ is a further involution of $(M,a)$ with the same properties. Then $g:=\tau\circ\tau'\in\Aut(M,a)$ satisfies $g_{*}(\alpha\dd z)=\alpha\dd z$ for all $\alpha\in V$ and hence also for all $\alpha\in E$. But then $g=\id$ and $\tau'=\tau$ .
The explicit determination of all tube realizations for $(M,a)$ up to affine equivalence requires by Proposition that, up to conjugation by the stability group $\Aut(M,a)$, all abelian Lie subalgebras $\7v\subset\hol(M,a)$ have to be found that satisfy the conditions (i), (ii). Proposition restricts the search (and with it the amount of computation) to the following: Determine first, up to conjugation, all involutions of $(M,a)$ that satisfy (iii) and then, for every such involution $\tau$, search for suitable $\7v$’s in $\7g^{-\tau}$. As an application of that method we classify algebraically in the forthcoming paper all local tube realizations of Levi nondegenerate hyperquadrics $Q\subset\CC^{n}$. These are locally CR-equivalent to the hypersurfaces $S^{1}_{pq}$ occurring in the next section and have the special property that every germ $(Q,a)$ has, up to equivalence, a unique involution satisfying (iii).
Fix in the following arbitrary integers $p,q\ge m\ge1$ and denote by $\2G$ the Grassmannian of all linear $m$-spaces in $\CC^{n}$, $n:=p+q$. Then $\2G$ is a compact complex manifold of dimension $m(n-m)$ on which $\SL(n,\CC)$ acts transitively by holomorphic transformations. The group $\Aut(\2G)$ coincides with $\PSL(n,\CC)=\Quot{\SL(n,\CC)}{\hbox{center}}$, unless $p=q>1$ (in which case there is a second connected component of $\Aut(\2G)$). To avoid totally real examples we exclude the case $p=q=m$ for the rest of the section.
Consider on $\CC^{n}$ the real-valued function $\6h$ defined by $$\6h(z)=(u|u)-(v|v)\Steil{for all}z=(u,v)\in\CC^{p}\oplus\CC^{q}$$ with $(\,|\,)$ being the standard inner product and identify $\SU(p,q)\subset\SL(n,\CC)$ with the subgroup of all transformations leaving $\6h$ invariant. Then the connected real submanifold $$S:=S_{m}^{p,q}:=\big\{L\in\2G:\6h(L)=0\big\}\Leqno{TU}$$ is the unique closed (and hence compact) $\SU(p,q)$-orbit in $\2G$. As CR-submanifold $S$ is generically embedded in $\2G$ with CR-dimension $m(n-2m)$ and CR-codimension $m^{2}$. Furthermore, a dense open subset of $S$ can be realized as a real quadric in $\CC^{n-m}$, $\7g:=\su(p,q)=\hol(S)\cong\hol(S,a)$ holds for every $a\in S$, compare for details. As a consequence of Theorem 1.3 in every CR-isomorphism between domains $D_{1},D_{2}$ of $S$ extends to a biholomorphic automorphism of $\2G$ leaving $S$ invariant. Since $S$ has a global (anti-CR) involution (see the following classification) also every anti-CR-isomorphism between domains $D_{1},D_{2}$ of $S$ extends to a global antiholomorphic automorphism of $\2G$ leaving $S$ invariant. For the classification of all involutions of the germ $(S,a)$ it is therefore enough to determine all [*global*]{} involutions of $S$.
[**Classification of all involutions on S.**]{} Let a global involution $\tau$ of $S$ (not necessarily having a fixed point) be given. Then $\tau$ extends to an antiholomorphic automorphism of $\2G$ that we also denote by $\tau$. Also, the involution induced by $\tau$ on $\7l:=\7{sl}(n,\CC)\cong\aut(\2G)$ will be denoted by the same symbol. The fixed point submanifold $\2G^{\tau}$ of $\2G$ is either empty or a real form of $\2G$. One can show that there are integers $\epsilon,\delta$ with $\epsilon^{2}=\delta^{2}=1$ together with an antilinear endomorphism $\tild\tau$ of $\CC^{n}$ such that $\tild\tau^{2}=\epsilon\id$, $\,\6h\circ\tild\tau=\delta\6h$ and $\tau(L)=\{\tild\tau(z):z\in L\}$ for all $L\in\2G$. Depending on the value of $\epsilon$ we have the following two cases.
[$\epsilon=\phantom{-}1:$]{} Then $\7l^{\tau}\cong\7{sl}(n,\RR)$ and $\2G^{\tau}$ can be identified with the real Grassmannian of all real linear m-spaces in $\RR^{n}$.
[$\epsilon=-1:$]{} This case can only occur if $n$ is even and then $\7l^{\tau}\cong\7{sl}(n/2,\HH)$, where $\HH$ is the field of quaternions. Furthermore, $\2G^{\tau}$ is empty if and only if $m$ is odd.
The precise classification requires some work. Here we state only the final result: It turns out that for every given $p,q$ the possible pairs $(\epsilon,\delta)$ stand in a one-to-one relation with the $\SU(p,q)$-conjugation classes of involutions on $S=S_{m}^{p,q}$. More explicitly, every such involution is conjugate to exactly one of the following types [**I**]{} – [**IV**]{}, where we write every (row) $z\in\CC^{n}$ in the form $z=(u,v)$ with $u\in\CC^{p}$ and $v\in\CC^{q}$. Also, for every integer $d\ge1$ we put $J_{d}:=\pmatrix{0&\One\cr-\One&0\cr}\in\GL(2d,\2Z)\,.$
[**I:**]{} $(\epsilon,\delta) =(1,1)$ and $\tild\tau(z)=\overline
z$. The fixed point set $S^{\tau}$ has dimension $m(n-2m)$ and is an orbit of the subgroup $\SO(p,q)\subset\SU(p,q)$. Also $\7l^\tau=
\7{sl}(n,\RR)$ and $ \7g^\tau=\so(p,q)$ for the $\tau$-fixed point subsets.
[**II:**]{} $(\epsilon,\delta) =(1,-1)$, $\;p=q$ and $\tild\tau(z)=(\overline v,\overline u)$. Here $S^{\tau}=\2G^{\tau}$ has dimension $m(n-m)$. Also $\7l^\tau\cong \7{sl}(2p,\RR)$ and $\7g^\tau\cong \7{sp}(p,\RR)$.
[**III:**]{} $(\epsilon,\delta) =(-1,1)$, $\;p=2p'$, $q=2q'$ are even and $\tild\tau(z)=(\overline uJ_{p'},\overline vJ_{q'})$. Here $\7l^\tau\cong \7{sl}(p'+q',\HH)$ and $\7g^\tau\cong \7{sp}(p',q')$.
[**IV:**]{} $(\epsilon,\delta) =(-1,-1)$, $\;p=q$ and $\tild\tau(z)=\overline zJ_{p}=(-\overline v,\overline u)$. Here $\7l^\tau\cong \7{sl}(p,\HH)$ and $\7g^\tau\cong \so(p,\HH)$. Furthermore, $S^{\tau}$ has dimension $m(n-m-1)$ if $m$ is even.
From the above classification we see that in case $m$ odd for every $a\in S$ there exists exactly one conjugation class of involutions of the germ $(S,a)$ which satisfies condition (iii) in Proposition (namely the one given by type [**I**]{} above). Also, for the types [**II**]{}, [**IV**]{}, every $m$ and every $a\in S^{\tau}$ the germ $(S,a)$ never satisfies condition (iii) in .
In this context it might be worthwhile to realize that the following example is nothing but [**II**]{} after a suitable change of coordinates:
[**II’:**]{} For $p=q$ let $\6h(z):=\sum_{k=1}^{p}\Im(
z_{k}\overline z_{p+k})$ and $\tild\tau(z)=\overline z$ for all $z\in\CC^{2p}$.
In general, for a given tube submanifold $T=V+iF$ of $E=V+iV$, there is an infinite subset $A\subset T$ such that for every $a\ne b$ in $A$ the germs $(T,a)$, $(T,b)$ are affinely inequivalent - even if $T$ is locally homogeneous and hence all $(T,a)$, $(T,b)$ are CR-equivalent. As an example consider in $\CC^{2}$ the closed tube hypersurface $T=\RR^{2}+iF$ with $$F:=\{x\in\RR^{2}:\cos x_{1}=e^{x_{2}},\,|x_{1}|<\pi/2\}$$ (the boundary of the middle gray domain in Figure 1, Section ). Consider the function $f(z):=\Im(z_{2})$ on $T$. Then for every $a,b\in T$ the germs $(T,a)$, $(T,b)$ are CR-isomorphic, (in fact, $T$ is locally CR-isomorphic to the euclidian sphere $S^{3}\subset\CC^{2}$) but they are affinely equivalent if and only if $f(a)=f(b)$. Therefore $T$ gives rise to a continuum of mutually affinely inequivalent tube realizations of the CR-germ $(T,0)$. This phenomenon motivates the introduction of a coarser equivalence relation that puts all germs $(T,a)$, $a\in T$, into a single equivalence class. The construction is motivated by the concept of a sheaf:For fixed $E=V^{\CC}$ let $\5T=\5T(V)$ be the set of all (real-analytic) germs $(T,a)$ with $T=V+iF$ an arbitrary tube submanifold of $E$ and $a\in T$. Furthermore define $\pi:\5T\to E$ by $(T,a)\mapsto a$. Then $\5T$ becomes in the standard way a Hausdorff topological space over $E$ – the topology on $\5T$ is the coarsest one such that for every tube submanifold $T\subset E$ the subset $[T]:=\{(T,a):a\in T\}$ is open in $\5T$. The space $\5T$ has in a unique way the structure of a (disconnected) CR-manifold by requiring that $\pi:[T]\to T$ is a CR-isomorphism for every tube submanifold $T\subset E$. Every real affine transformation $g\in\Aff(V)\subset\Aff(E)$ (the respective affine transformation groups) gives rise to a CR-automorphism of $\5T$ by $g(T,a):=(gT,ga)$, that we also denote by $g$. However, it should be noticed that the corresponding action of the Lie group $\Aff(V)$ on $\5T$ is discontinuous. Nevertheless, every connected component of $\5T$ is invariant under the (continuous) action of the translation subgroup $V\subset\Aff(V)$ and therefore may be considered as a [*generalized tube manifold over $E$*]{}. For every (connected) tube submanifold $T\subset E$ denote by $\tilde T$ the connected component of $\5T$ containing $[T]$ and call the pair $(\tilde T,\pi)$ the [*abstract globalization*]{} of $T$ and also of every tube germ $(T,a)$, $a\in T$. Since the translation group $V\subset\Aff(E)$ acts on $\tilde T$ by CR-transformations we may consider $\tilde T$ as tube manifold [*over*]{} $E$ via $\pi$.
The tube manifold germs $(T,a)$, $(T',a')$ in $E=V^{\CC}$ are called [*globally affinely equivalent*]{} if $\;\tilde{T'}=g(\tilde T)$ for the corresponding abstract globalizations and a suitable $g\in\Aff(V)$.
In case $\pi(\tilde T)$ is a (locally closed) submanifold of $E$, we call $\pi(\tilde T)$ the [*globalization*]{} of $(T,a)$ and denote it by $\hat T$. Clearly, then $\pi:\tilde T\to\hat T$ is a CR-isomorphism. Furthermore, $\hat T$ is a tube submanifold of $E$ containing $T$ as an open submanifold and also is maximal with respect to this property. As an example, every closed tube submanifold $T\subset E$ is the globalization of each of its germs $(T,a)$, $a\in
T$.
In the following we assume for the CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$ that the Lie algebra $\7g:=\hol(M,a)$ has finite dimension. Then, in particular, $(M,a)$ is holomorphically nondegenerate and we denote as usual with $\Int(\7g)\subset\Aut(\7g)$ the inner automorphism group of $\7g$, that is, the subgroup generated by all $\exp(\ad\xi)$, $\xi\in\7g$. Finally, for every $a\in M$ let
$\rho_{a}:\hol(M)\hookrightarrow\hol(M,a)$ be the restriction mapping. Then we have
Suppose that $\rho_{a}:\hol(M)\to\7g=\hol(M,a)$ is bijective. Then $g\mapsto\rho_{a}g_{*}\rho_{a}^{-1}$ defines a group homomorphism $\Aut(M)\to\Aut(\7g)$ that sends $H$ to $\Int(\7g)$, where $H\subset\Aut(M)$ denotes the subgroup generated by $\exp(\aut(M))$. For every $g\in\Aut(M)$ and $b:=g(a)$ also $\rho_{b}\!:\hol(M)\to\hol(M,b)$ is bijective. Furthermore, for every abelian subalgebra $\7w\subset\hol(M)$ such that $\rho_{a}(\7w)\subset\7g$ gives a local tube realization, also $\rho_{b}(g_{*}\!\7w)\subset\hol(M,b)$ gives a local tube realization and both are affinely equivalent.
From $\rho_{a}\!\Ad(\exp\xi)=\rho_{a}\!\exp(\ad\xi)=
\exp(\ad\rho_{a}(\xi))\rho_{a}$ for all $\xi\in\aut(M)$ we see that $H$ maps into $\Int(\7g)$. The other statements are obvious.
The following global statement will be one of the key ingredients in the proof of the following Theorem . Both of these results allow to reduce the classification problem for tube realizations of $(M,a)$ in many cases to a purely algebraic one.
Let $Z$ be a complex manifold and $M\subset Z$ a generically embedded minimal CR-submanifold. Assume that, for a given point $a\in M$, $\7g:=\hol(M,a)$ has finite dimension and every germ in $\7g$ extends to a vector field in $\aut(M)$. Let $\7v,\7v'\subset\7g$ be abelian subalgebras giving rise to local tube realizations of $(M,a)$ according to Proposition and assume that every germ in $\7e:=\7v^{\CC}\subset\hol(Z,a)$ extends to a vector field in $\aut(Z)$. Then the local tube realizations of $(M,a)$ given by $\7v,\7v'$ are globally affinely equivalent if $\7v=\lambda(\7v')$ for some $\lambda\in\Int(\7g)$.
For simpler notation we identify the Lie algebras $\hol(M)$ and $\7g $ via the isomorphism $\rho_{a}:\hol(M)\to\7g$. Since $\aut(M)=\hol(M)$, for every $\lambda\in\Int(\7g)$ with $\7v=\lambda(\7v')$ there exists a transformation $g\in G$ with $\lambda=\Ad(g)=g_{*}$, where $G$ is the group $H$ from Lemma . For $b:=g(a)$ the abelian subalgebras $\7v'\subset\7g$ and $\rho_{b}(\7v)\subset\hol(M,b)$ give affinely equivalent local tube realizations. Therefore we have to show that the abelian subalgebras $\7v\subset\7g$ and $\rho_{b}(\7v)\subset\hol(M,b)$ give globally affinely equivalent tube realizations of the germs $(M,a)$ and $(M,b)$.To begin with let $E$ and $V$ be the vector spaces underlying $\7e$ and $\7v$, compare the proof of Proposition . Then the locally biholomorphic map $\psi:E\to Z$, $\xi\mapsto\exp(\xi)(a)$, is the universal covering of an open subset $O\subset Z$ with $Z\backslash O$ analytic in $Z$. Denote by $T$ the connected component of $\psi^{-1}(M)$ that contains the origin of $E$. By Lemma the intersection $M\cap\,O$ is connected, that is, there is a point $c\in T$ with $\psi(c)=b$. Now $T$ is a tube submanifold of $E$ and the tube germ $(T,0)$ is affinely equivalent to the tube realization of $(M,a)$ given by $\7v\subset\hol(M,a)$. Also the tube germ $(T,c)$ is affinely equivalent to the tube realization of $(M,b)$ given by $\rho_{b}(\7v)\subset\hol(M,b)$. This proves the claim.
In case $M$ in Proposition is closed in $Z$, the tube realization of $(M,a)$ given by $\7v$ is affinely equivalent to the germ $(T,0)$ with $T\subset E$ a suitable $\,$[closed]{}$\,$ tube submanifold containing the origin. In other words, the germ $(T,0)$ has a closed globalization $\hat T$ in $E$.
With the notation of the proof for Proposition the intersection $M\cap O$ is closed in $O$. Hence also $T\subset E$ is closed.
Since every $M=S^{m}_{pq}$, compare , is closed in $Z=\2G$ and the assumptions of Proposition are satisfied for $M\subset
Z$, we have: [*Every tube submanifold of $\CC^{r}$ locally CR-equivalent to $S^{m}_{pq}$ extends to a closed tube submanifold of $\CC^{r}$ with the same property*]{}. For the special case $m=1$ this statement is already contained in . In case the manifold $M$ is not closed in $Z$ the globalization of a local tube realization for $M$ may be no longer closed in $E$. For a typical example compare the lines following .
In certain cases also the converse of Proposition is true. Let us denote for $\7g=\hol(M,a)$ by $$\Glob(M,a)\subset\Aut(\7g)\hbox{ the subgroup generated by }$$ $$\Int(\7g)\Steil{together
with}\Ad\big(\Aut(M,a)\big)=\{g_{*}:g\in\Aut(M,a)\}\,.$$ Clearly, $\Int(\7g)$ is a connected subgroup of $\Glob(M,a)$ and coincides with the connected identity component of $\Aut(\7g)$ if $\7g$ is semi-simple. For the complex manifold $Z$ and the CR-submanifold $M\subset Z$ we will need the following
[**Condition P:**]{} [*Every CR-isomorphism of germs $(M,a)\to(M,b)$ with $a,b\in M$ extends to an automorphism $g\in\Aut(Z)$ with $g(M)=M$.*]{}
[**Condition Q:**]{} There exists an antiholomorphic automorphism $\tau$ of $Z$ with $\tau(M)=M$.
Notice that if Conditions [P]{} and [Q]{} are satisfied for $M\subset Z$ simultaneously then also every anti-CR-isomorphism of germs $\theta:(M,a)\to(M,b)$, $a,b\in M$, extends to an antiholomorphic automorphism $\theta$ of $Z$ leaving $M$ invariant. Indeed, for $c:=\tau(b)$ the CR-isomorphism $\tau\circ\theta:(M,a)\to(M,c)$ extends to a $g\in\Aut(Z)$ with $g(M)=M$. But then $\tau^{-1}\circ g$ is the antiholomorphic extension of $\theta$ to $Z$.
Let $Z$ be a compact complex manifold and $M\subset Z$ a homogeneous generically embedded closed CR-submanifold satisfying condition [P]{}. Then, given $a\in M$, any two local tube realizations of the germ $(M,a)$ given by the abelian Lie subalgebras $\7v,\7v'\subset\7g$ are globally affinely equivalent if and only if $\7v=\lambda(\7v')$ for some $\lambda\in\Glob(M,a)$. Furthermore, the Lie algebra $\7g:=\hol(M,a)$ has finite dimension.
$\Aut(Z)$ is a complex Lie group in the compact-open topology with Lie algebra $\aut(Z)=\hol(Z)$ since $Z$ is compact. Every $\xi\in\7g$ defines a local flow in a small open neighbourhood of $a\in M$ and thus a one parameter subgroup of $\Aut(Z)$ by condition [P]{}. Therefore every such $\xi$ extends to a vector field in $\hol(Z)$ tangent to $M$. Identifying $\7g$ and $\hol(M)$ as before via the isomorphism $\rho_{a}$ we have $\7g=\hol(M)\subset\hol(Z)$. In particular, $\7g$ has finite dimension. Let $G\subset\Aut(M)$ be the subgroup generated by $\exp(\aut(M))$. Then $G$ acts transitively on $M$ since by assumption $M$ is homogeneous. Therefore every $g\in\Aut(M)$ is of the form $g=g_{1}g_{2}$ with $g_{1}\in G$ and $g_{2}(a)=a$. This implies $$\Ad(\Aut(M))\;\subset\;\Int(\7g)\Ad(\Aut(M,a))\;=
\;\Glob(M,a)\,.\leqno{(*)}$$ [**‘if’**]{} In case $\lambda\in\Ad(\Aut(M,a))$ the abelian Lie algebras $\7v,\7v'$ already give affine equivalent local tube realizations of $(M,a)$ by Proposition . It is therefore enough to discuss the case $\lambda\in\Int(\7g)$. But this follows immediately with Proposition . By Corollary there are closed tube submanifolds $T,T'$ of $E=V^{\CC}$ containing the origin such that $(T,0)$ and $(T',0)$ are the local tube realizations of $(M,a)$ determined by $\7v$ and $\7v'$. Also there are locally biholomorphic mappings $\psi,\psi':E\to Z$ with $\psi(0)=\psi'(0)=a$ and such that $\psi(T)$ as well as $\psi'(T')$ are open in $M$, compare the proof of Proposition . Now assume that $(T,0)$ and $(T',0)$ are globally affinely equivalent. Then there exists a complex affine automorphism $h$ of $E$ with $T=h(T')$ (but not necessarily with $h(0)=0$). By condition [P]{} there is a unique $g\in\Aut(Z)$ with and $g(M)=M$. Put $b:=g(a)$ and $c:=h(0)$. Then $\psi(c)=b$ and $\lambda:=\Ad(g)\in\Glob(M,a)$ by $(*)$. For $\7V:=\{v\dd z:v\in V\}\subset\hol(E)$ we have where $\rho_b$ is the restriction map, introduced just before . This implies $\rho_{b}(\7v)=\rho_{b}(\lambda(\7v'))$ by $(\dagger)$ and hence $\7v=\lambda(\7v')$ as desired.
As an example for a pair $M\subset Z$ satisfying all the assumptions in we may take the complex projective space $Z=\PP_{r}$ together with the compact homogeneous hypersurface $S=S_{1}^{p,q}$ from as $M$, where the integers $p,q,r\ge1$ satisfy $p+q=r+1\ge3$. Condition [P]{} for example, is satisfied by Theorem 6 in . Then $L:=\Aut(Z)=\PSL(r+1,\CC)$ and $G:=\{g\in L:g(S)=S\}$ can be canonically identified with $\Aut(M)$. The real Lie group $G$ has $(1+\delta_{p,q})$ connected components, the connected identity component $G^{0}=\PSU(p,q)$ is a real form of $L^{0}$. For the Lie algebras we have $\7l:=\hol(Z)=\7{sl}(r+1,\CC)$ with real form $\7g:=\hol(S)=\su(p,q)$. If we fix $a\in S$ and identify the Lie algebras $\7g$, $\hol(S,a)$ via the restriction operator $\rho_{a}$ we have $\Glob(S,a)=\Ad(G)\cong G$. In particular, $\Glob(S,a)=\Int(\7g)$ if $p\ne q$.
Now suppose that $\7e\subset\7l$ is a complex abelian subalgebra such that the subgroup $\exp(\7e)\subset L$ has an open orbit $O$ in $\PP_{r}$. By Lemma then $\7e$ has dimension $r$ and is maximal abelian in $\7l$. The orbit $O$ consists of all points $c\in
Z=\PP_{r}$ with $\epsilon_{c}(\7e)=\T_{c}Z$, and the complement $A:=\PP_{r}\!\backslash O$ is the union $A=H_{1}\cup
H_{2}\cup\cdots\cup H_{k}$ of $k\le r+1$ complex projective hyperplanes $H_{j}$ in $\PP_{r}$. Clearly, the conjugacy class of $\7e$ in $\7l$ modulo the action of $L$ depends on the $L$-orbit of $A$ in the space of all analytic subsets in $\PP_{r}$.
Suppose in addition that $\7e=\7v^{\CC}$ for $\7v:=\7e\cap\7g$ and fix a point $a\in O\cap S$. Put $E:=\CC^{r}$, $V:=i\RR^{r}$ and choose a complex linear isomorphism $\Xi:E\to\7e$ with $\Xi(V)=\7v$. Then the locally biholomorphic map $\psi:E\to O$, $\,z\mapsto\exp(\Xi z)a,\,$ realizes $E=\CC^{r}$ as universal cover of the domain $O$. The intersection $O\cap S$ is a closed CR-submanifold of $O$ and divides $O\backslash S$ into the two connected components $O^{\pm}:=O\cap
S^{\pm}$. In general the pre-image $\psi^{-1}(S)$ in $E$ decomposes into several connected components which only differ by a translation in $E$. Let $T$ be one of these. Then by Corollary $T$ is a closed tube submanifold of $E$ and a covering of $O\cap S$ via $\phi$.
In the next section we will discuss the special case $p=1$.
In this section we consider for fixed $r\ge2$ the euclidian hypersphere $$S:=\{z\in\CC^{r}:(z|z)=\sum z_{k}\overline z_{k}=1\}\,.\Leqno{AR}$$ $S$ is the boundary of the euclidian ball $B:=\{z\in\CC^{r}:(z|z)<1\}$, a bounded symmetric domain of rank 1. We always consider $\CC^{r}$ as domain in the complex projective space $\PP_{r}$ by identifying the points $(z_{1},\dots,z_{r})\in\CC^{r}$ and $[1,z_{1},\cdots,z_{r}]\in\PP_{r}$. In this sense $S$ can also be written as $$S=\big\{[z_{0},\cdots,z_{r}]\in\PP_{r}:z_{0}\overline
z_{0}=\sum_{k>0}z_{k}\overline z_{k}\big\}\,,$$ which is the case $p=1,$ $q=r$ at the end of the preceding section. Every $g\in\Aut(S)$ extends to a biholomorphic automorphism of $\PP_{r}$ leaving the ball $B=S^{+}$ as well as the outer domain $\PP_{r}\!\backslash\overline
B=S^{-}$ invariant and thus gives isomorphisms of the groups $$G:=\Aut(S)\cong\Aut(S^{\pm})\cong\{g\in\Aut(\PP_{r}):g(S)=S\}
\cong\PSU(1,r)\,,$$ which we identify in the following. In particular, $S$ is homogeneous and $G$ is a real form of $L:=\Aut(\PP_{r})=\PSL(r+1,\CC)$. It is well known that $\Aut_{a}(S)=\Aut(S,a)$ holds for every $a\in S$ and that $\Aut(S,a)$ acts transitively on the ball $B$.
In the following we describe some abelian Lie subalgebras $\7v\subset\7g:=\hol(S)$ that lead to local tube realizations of $S$. Every vector field in $\7l:=\7g^{\CC}=\hol(\PP_{r})$ is polynomial of degree $\le2$ in the coordinate $z=(z_{1},\dots,z_{r})$ of $\CC^{r}$ and $$\7g=\big\{(\alpha+zu-(z|\alpha)z)\dd
z:\alpha\in\CC^{r},u\in\7u(r)\big\}\,.$$ With $E:=\CC^{r}$ and $V:=i\RR^{r}$ we start with an arbitrary but fixed $\alpha\in V$ and consider the abelian subalgebra $$\7v:=\RR\big(\alpha-(z|\alpha)z\big)\dd z\,\oplus\;\{zu\dd
z:u\in\7u(r)\steil{diagonal with}\alpha u=0\}\subset\7g\,.$$ Then $\7e:=\7v^{\CC}\subset\7l$ has an open orbit $O\subset\PP_{r}$ and, fixing a complex linear isomorphism $\Xi:\CC^{r}\to\7e$ as at the end of the preceding section, we get the universal covering map $\phi:\CC^{r}\to O$. we have $O=(\CC^{*})^{r}$ and $\phi$ can be chosen as $\phi(z)=(e^{z_{1}},\dots,e^{z_{r}})$. Then $T:=\phi^{-1}(S)=F+i\RR^{r}$ is the tube with base $$F=\{x\in\RR^{r}:e^{2x_{1}}+e^{2x_{2}}+\dots+e^{2x_{r}} =1\}\,.$$ With $e^{2x_{1}}-1=2e^{x_{1}}\sinh x_{1}$ it is obvious that $F$ is affinely equivalent in $\RR^{r}$ to the hypersurface $$\Pi_{-}:=\big\{x\in\RR^{r}:\sinh x_{1}=\sum_{k>1}e^{x_{k}}\big\}$$ occurring in Theorem 2 of . Notice that $\PP_{r}\backslash
O=H_{0}\cup H_{1}\cup\cdots\cup H_{r}$ is the union of $r{+}1$ projective hyperplanes in general position with $H_{1},\dots,H_{r}$ intersecting $S$ transversally and $H_{0}$ not meeting $S$.
[**In case $\alpha=(i,0,\dots,0)$**]{} we have $O=\big\{[z]\in\PP_{r}:(z_{0}^{2}+z_{1}^{2})z_{2}z_{3}\cdots
z_{r}\ne0\big\}$ and $\phi$ can be chosen as $$\phi(z)=[\cos z_{1},\sin z_{1},e^{z_{2}},\dots,e^{z_{r}}]\steil{for
all}z\in\CC^{r}\,.$$ $\phi^{-1}(S)$ has a countable number of connected components which differ by a translation in $\RR^{r}$. One of them is the tube $T:=F+i\RR^{r}$ with base $$F=\big\{x\in\RR^{r}:2(\sin x_{1})^{2}+\sum_{k>1}e^{2x_{k}}
=1,\;|x_{1}|<\pi4\big\}\,.$$ With $2(\sin
x_{1})^{2}=1-\cos2x_{1}$ it is clear that $F$ is linearly equivalent in $\RR^{r}$ to $$\Pi_{+}:=\big\{x\in\RR^{r}:\cos
x_{1}=\sum_{k>1}e^{x_{k}},\,|x_{1}|<\pi/2\big\}$$ from . Here $\PP_{r}\backslash O$ again is the union of $r{+}1$ projective hyperplanes in general position, but all of them intersect $S$ and two even tangentially. Figure 1 depicts in case $r=2$ the base of $\Pi_{+}$ as the boundary of the ‘central’ gray domain in $\RR^{2}$. Also, the tube over the white region is the universal cover of $S^{-}\cap O$, and the tube over every gray region is the universal cover of $\{z\in B:z_{2}\ne0\}$ via $\phi$.
=9true cm$$\hbox{\epsffile{tube.eps}%
\Put{2}{-27}{$x_{1}$}%
\Put{-43.5}{-44}{$x_{2}$}
}$$ -5pt
Figure 1
Notice that the abelian subalgebras $\7v\subset\7g$ giving the two tube realizations $\Pi_{\pm}$ represent just the two conjugation classes of [*Cartan subalgebras*]{} of $\7g\cong\su(r,1)$ (= maximal abelian subalgebras consisting of ad-semisimple elements).
To get further local tube realizations another description of $S$ is convenient: Consider the classical Cayley transform $\gamma\in\Aut(\PP_{r})$ defined by $$\gamma([z]):=\big[z_{0}-z_{1},z_{0}+z_{1},
\sqrt2z_{2},\dots,\sqrt2z_{r}\big]\,.\Leqno{CA}$$ Then the biholomorphic image $\gamma(S)$ in $\PP_{r}$ is of the form $$S':=\gamma(S)=\big\{z\in\CC^{r}:z_{1}+\overline
z_{1}=\sum_{k=2}^{r}z_{k}\overline
z_{k}\big\}\;\cup\;\big\{[0,1,0,\dots,0]\big\}\,.$$ With $\7g=\hol(S)$ and $\7l=\7g^{\CC}$ as before let $\7g':=\hol(S')=\gamma_{*}\!\7g$. For fixed $1\le s\le r$ let $\7v'$ be the linear span of the vector fields
$i\dd{z_{1}}\!$, $\;iz_{r}\dd{z_{r}}$ and $i(\dd{z_{j}}-z_{j}\dd{z_{1}}\!)\;\;$ for $\;1<r\le s$ and $s<j\le r$
(written in the coordinate $z$ of $\CC^{r}$). Then $\7v'$ is an abelian subalgebra of $\7g'$ and $\7e':=\7v'\oplus\,i\!\7v'\subset\7l$ has the open orbit $$O':=\{z\in\CC^{r}:z_{2}z_{3}\cdots z_{s}\ne0\}$$ in $\PP_{r}$. As a consequence, $\PP_{r}\!\backslash O'$ is the union of $s$ mutually different projective hyperplanes. As $\phi':\CC^{r}\to O'$ we can choose $$\phi'(z):=\Big((z_{1}-{1\over2}\sum_{j>s}z_{j}^{2}\,
,e^{z_{2}},\dots,e^{z_{s}},z_{s+1} ,\dots,z_{r})\Big)$$ and obtain the corresponding tube realization with base $$F_{s}:=\Big\{x\in\RR^{r}:x_{1}=\sum_{j=2}^{s}e^{2x_{j}}+
\sum_{j>s}x_{j}^{2}\Big\}\,.$$ $F_{s}$ is affinely equivalent to the hypersurface $\Pi_{s-1,r-1}$ in and the tube $F_{s}+i\RR^{r}$ is the universal covering of $$\{z\in S:(z_{1}-1)z_{2}\cdots z_{s}\ne0\}$$ via the map $\phi:=\gamma^{-1}\phi'\,$.
So far we have obtained $r+2$ local tube realizations of $S$ which are mutually globally affinely inequivalent and closed in $\CC^{r}$. Among these there is precisely one affinely homogeneous one – the tube with base $F_{1}=\{x\in\RR^{r}:x_{1}=\sum_{j>1}x_{j}^{2}\}$. This is the unique algebraic tube realization and also the only case where $\phi:\CC^{r}\to O$ is bijective and where $O\cap S$ is simply connected.
By the examples above give, up to affine equivalence, all closed smooth tube submanifolds in $\CC^{r}$ that are locally CR-equivalent to the standard sphere $S=S_{1r}$.
Our methods work best for CR-manifolds that are homogeneous (or at least locally homogeneous). One way to get large classes of CR-manifolds of this type is as follows: Choose a connected complex Lie group $L$ acting holomorphically and transitively on a complex manifold $Z$, that is, $Z=L/P$ for a closed complex Lie subgroup $P$ of $L$. Choose furthermore a real form $G$ of $L$, that is, a connected real Lie subgroup such that $\7l=\7g^{\CC}$ for the corresponding Lie algebras. Then for every $a\in Z$ the $G$-orbit $S:=G(a)$ is an (immersed) CR-submanifold that is generically embedded in $Z$ (since $\epsilon_{a}(\7l)=\T_{a}Z$). Clearly, the cases [*$\;S$ open in $Z\;$*]{} and [*$\;S$ totally real in $Z\;$*]{} are not interesting in our situation since for these the local CR-structure is trivial and for every $a\in S$ there exists exactly one tube realization of $(S,a)$ up to affine equivalence.
A case well understood in the group level is when $Z$ is a [*flag manifold*]{}, that is, $L$ is semisimple and $P$ is a parabolic subgroup. Then, in particular, $Z$ is a compact rational projective variety. The simplest flag manifold is the complex projective space $\PP_{r}$ of dimension $r\ge1$. In this case we may take $L=\SL(r{+}1,\CC)$ which is the universal cover of the group $\Aut(\PP_{r})$. The only real forms $G$ of $L$ having an orbit in $\PP_{r}$ that is neither open nor totally real are, up to conjugation, the subgroups $\SU(p,q)$ with $p\ge q\ge1$ and $m:=p+q=r+1$. For the sake of completeness note that the real form $G=\SL(m,\RR)$ has as unique non-open orbit the real projective space $\PP_{r}(\RR)\subset Z$. This orbit is totally real and admits up to affine equivalence a unique closed local tube realization in $E=\CC^{r}$, namely $\RR^{r}\subset\CC^{n}$. The real form $\SU(m)$ and, in case $m$ is even, also the real form $\SL(m/2,\HH)$ act transitively on $\PP_{r}$.
$\SU(1,1)$ is conjugate to $\SL(2,\RR)$ in $L$, so we assume $r>1$ in the following. Then $G$ has again a unique non-open orbit in $Z$, the compact hypersurface $S=S_{pq}$, compare . With $\gamma\in\Aut(\PP_{r})$ the Cayley transform defined in $$Q:=\gamma(S)\cap\CC^{r}=\Big\{z\in\CC^{r}:z_{1}+\overline
z_{1}=\sum_{j=2}^{r}\epsilon_{j}z_{j}\overline
z_{j}\Big\},\quad\epsilon_{j}:=\cases{-1&$j\le p$\cr1&$j>
p$\cr}\,,\Leqno{WQ}$$ is the non-singular hyperquadric with Levi form of type $(p-1,q-1)$. Now fix an integer $d$ with $1\le d\le r$. The biholomorphic automorphism $$(z_{1},\dots,z_{r})\longmapsto\Big(z_{1}+{1\over2}\sum_{j=2}^{d}
\epsilon_{j}z_{j}^{2},\,z_{2},\dots,z_{r}\Big)$$ of $\CC^{r}$ maps $Q$ to the submanifold $$Q':=\Big\{z\in\CC^{r}:z_{1}+\overline
z_{1}={1\over2}\sum_{j=2}^{d}\epsilon_{j}(z_{j}+\overline
z_{j})^{2}+\sum_{j=d+1}^{r}\epsilon_{j}z_{j}\overline
z_{j}\Big\}\,.$$ Notice that $Q'$ has Siegel form, compare Section , $$Q':=\{(v,w)\in\CC^{d}\oplus\CC^{r-d}:(v+\overline v)-F(w,w)\in
C\}\,,\Leqno{SI}$$ where $F(w,w):=\big(\sum^{r-d}_{j=1}\epsilon_{d+j}w_{j}\overline
w_{j},0,\dots,0\big)\in\RR^{d}$ and $$C:=\Big\{x\in\RR^{d}:x_{1}=
{1\over2}\sum^{d}_{j=2}\epsilon_{j}x_{j}^{2}\Big\}\,.$$ In particular, $Q'$ is a tube manifold in case $d=r$.
The next class of flag manifolds, to which our methods can easily by applied, is given by the irreducible compact hermitian symmetric spaces $Z$. Let $L$ be the universal covering of the connected identity component of $\Aut(Z)$. Then $L$ is a simple complex Lie group acting transitively on $Z$ and every real form of $L$ has finitely many orbits in $Z$ that are all generically embedded CR-submanifolds. There exists a real form $G$ of $L$ with an open orbit $D$ that is biholomorphically equivalent to a bounded symmetric domain. Suppose that $D$ is of tube type and choose a $G$-orbit $S\subset Z$ that is neither open nor totally real. Then $S$ is Levi degenerate (in fact is 2-nondegenerate) and $\hol(S)=\hol(S,a)$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra $\7g$ of $G$ for every $a\in S$, compare . As a special example consider for fixed $p\ge2$ and $m:=2p$ the Grassmannian $Z$ of all linear subspaces of dimension $p$ in $\CC^{m}$. Then $Z$ has complex dimension $n:=p^{2}$, $L=\SL(m,\CC)$ and we can take $G=\SU(p,p)$. Now let $E:=\CC^{p\times
p}$ be the space of all complex $p{\times}p$-matrices and $V:=\{z\in
E:z^{*}=z\}$ the $\RR$-linear subspace of all hermitian matrices, where $z^{*}$ is the transpose conjugate of the matrix $z$. The $G$-orbits in $Z$ are in 1-1-correspondence to the cones $$C^{p}_{j,k}:=\big\{x\in V:x\steil{has type}(j,k)\big\},\quad
j,k\ge0\steil{and}j+k\le p\,,\Leqno{OC}$$ in such a way that for every $G$-orbit $S$ with corresponding $C^{p}_{j,k}$ the tube submanifold $$T^{p}_{j,k}:=V+iC^{p}_{j,k}\;\subset\; E\Leqno{ST}$$ is CR-equivalent to an open dense subset of $S$, see . Notice that $T^{p}_{0,0}$ is the only closed tube submanifold of $E$ among the $T^{p}_{j,k}$ in and corresponds to the unique closed $G$-orbit in $Z$ (totally real and diffeomorphic to the unitary group $\U(p)$). On the other hand, all non-open tubes $T^{p}_{j,k}$, that is $j+k<p$, are their own globalization in the sense of Section . Every cone $C^{p}_{j,k}$ is an orbit of the group $\GL(n,\CC)$ acting linearly on $V$ by $x\mapsto gxg^{*}$, that is, every tube $T^{p}_{j,k}$ is affinely homogeneous. All tubes $T^{p}_{j,k}$ with $0<j+k<p$ satisfy the conditions [P]{} and [Q]{} of Section .
In the following we generalize the notion of a tube CR-manifold. Let $V$ be a real and $W$ a complex vector space each of finite dimension. Let furthermore $F:W\times W\to V^{\CC}$ be a $V$-hermitian (vector valued) form, that is, complex linear in the first, antilinear in the second variable and $F(w,w)\in V$ for every $w\in W$. Throughout we assume that $F$ is nondegenerate, that is, $F(w,W)=0$ implies $w=0$ for every $w\in W$. For every real-analytic submanifold $C\subset V$ and $\Im(x+iy):=y$ for all $x,y\in V$ then $$\Sigma:=\{(z,w)\in V^{\CC}\oplus W:\Im z-F(w,w)\;\in\;C\}\Leqno{SG}$$ is a real-analytic CR-submanifold of $E:=V^{\CC}\oplus W$ and is called a [*Siegel CR-submanifold*]{}. The CR-geometry of $\Sigma$ is closely related to the [*associated tube*]{} $T:=\Sigma\cap V^{\CC}=V+iC$ in $V^{\CC}$. The submanifold $\Sigma$ is generically embedded in $E$ and $\Aut(\Sigma)$ contains the nilpotent subgroup $$N:=\big\{\big(z,w\big)\mapsto
\big(z+v+2iF(w,c)+iF(c,c),w+c\big):v\in V,c\in W\big\}$$ acting by affine transformations on $E$. Obviously $\Sigma=N(T)$ if we consider $T$ in the canonical way as submanifold of $\Sigma$. The Lie algebra $$\7n=\{(2iF(w,c)+v)\dd z+c\dd w:v\in V,c\in W\}\subset\aut(\Sigma)$$ of $N$ is nilpotent of step $\le2$ and can be considered as a subalgebra of $\hol(\Sigma,a)$ with $\epsilon_{a}(\7n^{\CC})=E$ for every $a\in \Sigma$.
In a way, the nilpotent Lie subalgebras $\7n\subset\hol(M,a)$ play the same role for Siegel realizations of a CR-manifold germ $(M,a)$ as the abelian subalgebras $\7v\subset\hol(M,a)$ do for tube realizations.
Next we are interested in finite dimensionality conditions for $\7g:=\hol(\Sigma,a)$, where $\Sigma$ is as in . We start by recalling (see e.g. for details) the Let $M$ be a CR-manifold of [*constant degeneracy*]{} (for instance if $M$ is locally homogeneous). Then there exists an infinite descending chain of complex subbundles $$\H
M=\H^{\,0}\!M\supset\H^{\,1}\!M\supset\cdots\supset
\H^{\,k}\!M\supset\dots$$ where for every $a\in M$ the fiber $\H_{a}^{\,k}\!M$, the $k$Levi kernel at $a$, is defined recursively as follows: Choose a subset $\Xi\subset\Gamma(M,\H M)$ with $\epsilon_{a}(\Xi)=\H_{a}M$, where $\Gamma(M,\H M)$ is the space of all smooth sections in $\H M$ over $M$. For every $\eta\in\Gamma(M,\H^{\,k}\!M)$ the vector $\eta_{a}\in\H_{a}^{\,k}\!M$ is in $\H_{a}^{\,k+1}\!M$ if and only if $$[\xi,\eta]_{a}+i[\xi,i\eta]_{a}\,\in\,\H_{a}^{\,k}\!M\Steil{for
all}\xi\in\Xi$$ (this condition does not depend on the choice of $\Xi$). In particular, $M$ is $k$-nondegenerate at every point if and only if $\H^{\,k}\!M=0$, and $k$ is minimal with respect to this property.
Suppose that $\Sigma$ from as well as the associated tube $T=\Sigma\cap V^{\CC}$ have constant degeneracy. Then for every $a\in
T\subset \Sigma$ and every $k\ge0$ there exists a complex linear subspace $W^{k}_{a}\subset W$ with $\H_{a}^{\,k}\!\Sigma\;=\;\H_{a}^{\,k}T\oplus
W^{k}_{a}$. Furthermore, $W^{0}_{a}=W$ and $F(W^{k+1}_{a},W)\subset\H^{k}_{a}T$. In particular, $H^{k}T=0$ implies $H^{k+1}\Sigma=0$.
We extend every $\xi\in\Gamma(T,\T \Sigma)$ to a smooth vector field $\tilde\xi\in\Gamma(\Sigma,\T \Sigma)$ by requiring that for every $c\in W$ and $\gamma\in N$ defined by $\gamma(z,w)=(z+2iF(w,c)+iF(c,c),w+c)$ we have $\tilde\xi_{\gamma(z,0)} =d\gamma_{z}(\xi_{z})$ for all $z\in
T$. If we write $$\xi=f(z)\dd z+g(z)\dd w$$ with suitable smooth functions $f:T\to V^{\CC}$ and $g:T\to W$, a simple computation shows $$\tilde\xi=(f(z-iF(w,w))+2iF(g(z),w))\dd z+g(z)\dd w\,.$$ From the construction it is clear that $\xi\in\Gamma(T,H^{k}\Sigma)$ implies $\tilde\xi\in\Gamma(\Sigma,H^{k}\Sigma)$ for all $k\in\NN$. Every $\xi\in\Gamma(T,\T \Sigma)$ has a unique decomposition $\xi=\xi^{1}+\xi^{2}$ with $\xi^{1}\in\Gamma(T,\T T)$ and $\xi^{2}\in\Gamma(T,T\times W)$. Let $\Xi$ be the space of all $\tilde\xi\in\Gamma(\Sigma,\H \Sigma)$ where $\xi\in\Gamma(T,\H \Sigma)$ has constant second part $\xi^{2}$, that is, $\xi^{2}=c\dd w$ for some constant vector $c\in W$. Then $\epsilon_{a}(\Xi)=H_{a}\Sigma$ is obvious. For $k=0$ the claim is obvious. Therefore assume as induction hypothesis that the claim already holds for some fixed $k\ge0$.Fix an arbitrary $\eta\in\Gamma(T,\H^{k}\Sigma)$. Then $\eta_{a}=(\alpha,\beta)$ with $\alpha\in\H^{k}_{a}(T)\subset V^{\CC}$ and $\beta\in W$. A simple calculation shows that for every section $\xi=h(z)\dd z+c\dd
w\in\Gamma(T,\H T)$ with $\tilde\xi\in\Xi$ there exists a vector $e\in
W$ such that $$[\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta]_{a}+i[\tilde\xi,i\tilde\eta]_{a}=
\big([\xi^{1},\eta^{1}]_{a}+i[\xi^{1},i\eta^{1}]_{a}-4iF(c,\beta)\dd
z\big)+e\dd w\,.\leqno{(*)}$$ Since $h(z)$ and $c$ can be chosen independently for $\xi$ we derive from $(*)$ and the induction hypothesis that $(\alpha,\beta)\in\H^{k+1}_{a}\Sigma$ implies $\alpha\in\H^{k+1}_{a}T$ and $F(W,\beta)\subset\H^{k}_{a}T$. Now consider conversely an arbitrary $\alpha\in\H^{k+1}_{a}T$ and fix an $\eta\in\Gamma(T,\H^{k+1}T)$ with $\eta_{a}=\alpha$. Then $(*)$ holds with $\beta=e=0$ for every $\xi$ with $\tilde\xi\in\Xi$, that is, $\alpha\in\H^{k+1}_{a}\Sigma$. This completes the induction step $k\to
k{+}1$.
As an application we state
Let $\Sigma$ be an arbitrary Siegel submanifold as in and $T$ the associated tube manifold. Then $\Sigma$ is holomorphically nondegenerate if $T$ has the same property. $\Sigma$ is of finite type if $T$ has the same property or, if the set $F(W,W)$ spans the vector space $V^{\CC}$.
\(i) Assume that $T$ is holomorphically nondegenerate. To show that $\Sigma$ is holomorphically nondegenerate we only have to show that $\Sigma$ is holomorphically nondegenerate at some point, compare Theorem 11.5.1 in . We may therefore assume without loss of generality that $T$ is of constant degeneracy and that $\H^{k}T=0$. But then, as a consequence of Lemma , there exists a domain $U\subset \Sigma$ of constant degeneracy with $\H^{k+1}U=0$.(ii) In a first step assume that $T$ is of finite type in $a\in T$. Then the vector fields in $\Gamma(T,\T T)$ together with all their iterated brackets span the tangent space $\T_{a}T$. For all $\xi,\eta\in\Gamma(T,\T T)$ we have $\tilde{[\xi,\eta]}=[\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta]$, where the extensions $\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta\in\Gamma(\Sigma,\T \Sigma)$ are defined as in the proof of . This shows that also $\Gamma(\Sigma,\H \Sigma)$ together with its iterated brackets spans the tangent space $\T \Sigma_{a}$. From $N(T)=\Sigma$ we get this property at every point of $\Sigma$.Next assume that $F(W,W)$ spans $V^{\CC}$. For every $c\in W$ and $\xi:=c\dd
w\in\Gamma(T,\H \Sigma)$ then $$\tilde\xi,\tilde{i\xi}\in\Gamma(\Sigma,\H
\Sigma)\steil{and}\big[\tilde\xi,\tilde{i\xi}\big]=-4F(c,c)\dd z\,.$$ Since, by assumption, the vectors $F(c,c)$ span $V$, $\Sigma$ is of finite type at every point of $T$ and hence also at every point of $\Sigma$.
Irreducible bounded symmetric domains come in six types and for all types the following considerations could be carried out in a uniform (but more involved) approach. For simplicity we restrict our attention only to the first type and there only to those domains that are not of tube type: Fix integers $q>p\ge1$ and denote by $Z:=\2G_{p,q}$ the Grassmannian of all $p$-dimensional linear subspaces in $\CC^{n}$, $n:=p+q$. Then $Z$ is a compact complex manifold of complex dimension $pq$, on which the complex Lie group $L:=\SL(n,\CC)$ acts transitively by holomorphic transformations in a canonical way. Because of our assumption $p\ne q$ the automorphism group $\Aut(Z)$ is connected and has $L$ as universal cover. The real form $G:=\SU(p,q)$ of $L$ has ${p+2\choose2}$ orbits in $Z$. These can be indexed as $M^{p,q}_{j,k}$, where $j,k\ge0$ are integers with $j+k\le p$. Indeed, choose a $G$-invariant hermitian form $\Psi$ of type $(p,q)$ on $\CC^{n}$ and let $M^{p,q}_{j,k}\subset Z$ be the set of all linear subspaces, on which $\Psi$ has type $(j,k)$. For instance, the open orbit $M^{p,q}_{p,0}$ is a bounded symmetric domain biholomorphically equivalent to the operator ball $$B:=\{z\in\CC^{p\times q}:(\One-zz^{*})\hbox{ positive
definit}\}\,,\Leqno{ZX}$$ where the matrix space $\CC^{p\times q}$ is embedded in $Z$ as open dense subset by identifying every $c\in\CC^{p\times q}$ with its graph $\{(x,xc):x\in\CC^{p}\}\subset\CC^{n}$. In this way $M^{p,q}_{0,0}$, the unique closed $G$-orbit in $Z$, corresponds to the extremal boundary of $B$ $$\partial_{e}B:=\{z\in\CC^{p\times q}:\One=zz^{*}\}\,,$$ and coincides also with the Shilov boundary of $B$. Notice that this compact orbit already occurs as $S^{p,q}_{p}$ in Section . Using a suitable Cayley transformation $\gamma\in\Aut(Z)$ it can be shown that every $\gamma(M^{p,q}_{j,k})$ in the coordinate neighbourhood $\CC^{p\times q}\subset Z$ is the CR-submanifold of Siegel type $$\Sigma^{p,q}_{j,k}:=\{(z,w)\in\CC^{p\times
p}\oplus\CC^{p\times(q{-}p)}:\Im z-ww^{*}\in
C^{p}_{j,k}\}\,,\Leqno{ZY}$$ where $\Im z=\Quot{(z-z^{*})}{2i}$ and the cone $C^{p}_{j,k}$ is as in . For $V:=\{z\in\CC^{p\times
p}:z=z^{*}\}$ and $W:=\CC^{p\times(q{-}p)}$ the map $F:W\times W\to
V^{\CC}$, $(v,w)\mapsto vw^{*}$, satisfies $F(w,w)=0$ only for $w=0$ and its image $F(W,W)$ contains all rank-1-matrices in $\CC^{p\times
p}$. In particular, $F(W,W)$ spans $V^{\CC}$. Therefore, by Proposition , all Siegel manifolds and hence all $G$-orbits in $Z$ are of finite type. Now fix a $G$-orbit $M=M^{p,q}_{j,k}\subset Z$ that is not open in $Z$, that is, $j+k<p$. Denote by $T\subset\CC^{p\times p}$ the tube over $C^{p}_{j,k}$. Then, if $j=k=0$ the tube $T$ is totally real and hence $M\cong\partial_{e}B$ is Levi nondegenerate. In all other cases, that is $0<j+k<p$, the tube $T$ is $2$-nondegenerate, compare Theorem 4.7 in . This implies with Lemma that every such $M$ is Levi degenerate but is holomorphically nondegenerate. In particular, for every non-open $G$-orbit $M$ in $Z$ and every $a\in M$ the Lie algebra $\hol(M,a)$ has finite dimension and contains the simple Lie algebra $\7g:=\su(p,q)$. On the other hand, since $G$ has a bounded symmetric domain as orbit, for every $a\in M$ there is a local coordinate $z$ around $a\in Z$ such $a$ is given by $z=0$ and that $\7g^{\CC}$ contains all translation vector fields $c\dd z$ as well as the Euler field $z\dd z$. With Proposition 3.1 in it follows $\hol(M)=\hol(M,a)=\su(p,q)$ for every $a\in M$ and every $G$-orbit $M$ in $Z$ which is neither open nor closed in $Z$.
Every $G$-orbit $M\subset Z$ satisfies Condition [Q]{} of Section . In case $M$ is neither open nor closed in $Z$ also Condition [P]{} is satisfied.
The antilinear involution $z\mapsto \overline z$ of $\CC^{p\times q}$ leaves the ball $B$ in invariant and extends to an antiholomorphic involution $\tau$ of $Z=\2G_{p,q}$. Therefore, $\tau$ leaves invariant every $G$-orbit in $Z$. Now assume that the $G$-orbit $M$ is neither open nor closed in $Z$. Then $\7g:=\hol(M)\cong\su(p,q)$ and for every $a\in M$ the canonical restriction mapping $\rho_{a}:\7g\to\hol(M,a)$ is an isomorphism of Lie algebras. For every $a\in M$ denote by $\7g_{a}:=\{\xi\in\7g:\xi_{a}=0\}$ the isotropy subalgebra at $a$. By Proposition 2.11 in , $\7g_{a}=\7g_{b}$ for $a,b\in Z$ only holds if $a=b$. The group $\Aut(M)\cong\PSU(p,q)$ is connected and for $H:=\Aut(M)\cup\Aut(M)\tau$ the homomorphism $\Ad:H\to\Aut(\7g)$ is an isomorphism, compare Proposition 4.5 in . In particular, $\Aut(\7g)$ has two connected components. Now suppose that $\phi:(M,a)\to(M,b)$ is either a CR-isomorphism or an anti-CR-isomorphism of germs, where $a,b\in M$ are arbitrary points. Then $\rho^{-1}_{b}\phi_{*}\rho_{a}$ is in $\Aut(\7g)$. In case $\rho^{-1}_{b}\phi_{*}\rho_{a}$ is contained in the connected identity component $\Int(\7g)$ of $\Aut(\7g)$ there exists a transformation $g\in G$ such that $\rho^{-1}_{c}\psi_{*}\rho_{a}=\id$ for $c:=g(b)$ and $\psi:=g\,\phi:(M,a)\to(M,c)$. This implies $a=c$ and even $\psi=\id$ since $\rho^{-1}_{c}\psi_{*}\rho_{a}$ leaves invariant all isotropy subalgebras $\7g_{x}$ for all $x\in M$ near $a$. As a consequence, $\phi$ extends to the global transformation $g^{-1}\in G$ in case $\rho^{-1}_{b}\phi_{*}\rho_{a}\in\Int(\7g)$. But the case $\rho^{-1}_{b}\phi_{*}\rho_{a}\notin\Int(\7g)$ cannot occur since otherwise $\rho^{-1}_{e}(\tau\phi)_{*}\rho_{a}\in\Int$ for $e:=\tau(b)$ by the above reasoning would imply that $\tau\phi$ is a CR-mapping, or equivalently, that $\phi$ is anti-CR.
By the above considerations we know that for every non-open $G$-orbit $M=M^{p,q}_{j,k}$ in $Z$ there is an integer $1\le k\le 3$ such that $M$ is $k$-nondegenerate. In case $j+k=0$ we have $k=1$, and we claim that $k=2$ in all other cases (compare also ): Indeed, instead of $M$ we consider the Siegel manifold $\Sigma=\Sigma^{p,q}_{j,k}$ with $V^{\CC}=\CC^{p\times p}$, $W=\CC^{p\times (q{-p})}$ and $F(w,w)=ww^{*}$, compare . With $\rho:=j+k$ we write all $z\in
V^{\CC}$ and $w\in W$ as block matrices $$z=\pmatrix{z_{11}&z_{12}\cr
z_{21}&z_{22}\cr}\steil{and}w=\pmatrix{w_{1}\cr w_{2}\cr}\;,$$ where $z_{11}\in\CC^{\rho\times\rho}$, $w_{1}\in\CC^{\rho\times (q{-p})}$ and so forth. Fix an element $a\in T=\Sigma\cap V^{\CC}$ with $a_{rs}=0$ for $(r,s)\ne(1,1)$. Then it is known that $$H^{k}_{a}T=\{z\in
V^{\CC}:z_{rs}=0\steil{if}k+r+s>3\}\,,$$ compare 480. This implies $w_{2}=0$ for every $w\in W^{1}_{a}$ and thus $W^{2}_{a}=0$, that is, $H^{1}_{a}\Sigma\ne0$ and $H^{2}_{a}\Sigma=0$.
The antiholomorphic involution $\theta$ of $Z$ given on $E=\CC^{p\times q}\subset\2G_{p,q}$ by $\theta(z)=-\overline z$ leaves every Siegel manifold $\Sigma=\Sigma^{p,q}_{j,k}$ in invariant and has fixed points there. For every such fixed point $a\in \Sigma$ then $\T_{a}^{-\theta}\Sigma=\RR^{p\times q}$, that is, .iii holds in this situation. Assuming in the following that $\Sigma$ is not open in $E$ we can have a local tube realization of $(\Sigma,a)$ associated with the involution $\theta$ only if there is a maximal abelian subalgebra of $\7g=\su(p,q)$ with dimension $pq$. It can be shown that this is not possible if $p>1$.
-4pt to 3cm G. Fels
e-mail: [email protected]
W. Kaup
Mathematisches Institut, Universität Tübingen,
Auf der Morgenstelle 10,
72076 Tübingen, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
In this section we introduce tube manifolds and discuss necessary and sufficient conditions for a given CR-manifold to be of tube type, that is, to be locally CR-isomorphic to a tube manifold.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that every closed Lorentzian surface contains at least two closed geodesics. Explicit examples show the optimality of this claim. Refining this result we relate the least number of closed geodesics to the causal structure of the surface and the homotopy type of the Lorentzian metric.'
address: 'Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Hamburg'
author:
- Stefan Suhr
title: Closed geodesics in Lorentzian surfaces
---
Introduction {#last}
============
The[^1] study of closed geodesics in Riemannian geometry has been the source of deep insights (e.g. Morse theory) into the properties of positive definite variational problems and the structure of Riemannain manifolds in general. A natural attempt is thus to transfer this body of knowledge to Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Some of the topological techniques known from Riemannian geometry carry over only in rather special cases, namely in the presence of a (timelike) Killing vector field (compare [@mas1] or [@bmp1]). In general all Morse theoretic tools fail, though. This is due to the fact that the index of a geodesic in a pseudo-Riemannian manifold is always infinite. The known results addressing more generic situations, i.e. without Killing vector fields, rely on maximizing techniques for the length functional. The classical theorems of Tipler ([@tip1]) and Galloway ([@ga1]) fall into this category.
The best result, with respect to generality, is the theorem by Galloway ([@ga2]) stating that any closed, i.e. compact without boundary, Lorentzian surface contains at least one closed timelike or lightlike periodic geodesic. Here we propose the following distinction between closed and periodic lightlike geodesics. A lightlike geodesics $\gamma \colon I\to M$ in a pseudo-Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ is periodic if there exists $s,t\in I$ with $\gamma(s)=\gamma(t)$ and $\dot{\gamma}(t)$ is collinear to $\dot{\gamma}(s)$. On the other hand call $\gamma$ closed if $\dot{\gamma}(t)=\dot{\gamma}(s)$, i.e. the orbit of the geodesic flow of $(M,g)$ defined by $\dot{\gamma}$ is closed. The difference between closed and periodic but non-closed can be characterized in terms of completeness: A lightlike periodic geodesic $\gamma$ is closed iff $\gamma$ is complete (compare [@ca1] for a discussion). The proof relies on the observation that each cycles of a periodic geodesic is a reparameterization of the previous cycle by an affine function. If the slope of this affine function is larger than $1$, the reparameterization accelerates the geodesic and the geodsic will be incomplete in the positive direction. If the slope of the affine function lies strictly between $0$ and $1$, the geodesic is decelerated anf the geodesic is incomplete in the negative direction. Another noticeable difference between closed and periodic but non-closed geodesics is the fact that the later ones are not critical points of the energy functional on the space of loops. This is an easy consequence of the formula for the first variation of the energy. Refer to example \[E58\] and the example \[E60\] for periodic and non-closed lightlike geodesics.
We will explain in example \[E58\] why the argument in the proof of Galloway’s theorem implies the existence of a closed timelike or periodic lightlike geodesic only. Therefore it is not clear at this point if the geodesic flow of a closed Lorentzian surface contains any closed flowlines. These notes will settle this question with the following theorem (see section \[last3\]):
Every closed Lorentzian surface contains two closed geodesics, one of which is definite, i.e. time- or spacelike. This lower bound is optimal.
The least number of closed geodesic in a Lorentzian surface $(M,g)$ depends in a precise way on the connected component of $g$ in the set of Lorentzian metrics (proposition \[T61\]). Explicit examples show this relation to be optimal (example \[E60\]).
The text is structured as follows. First we will review some results concerning the existence of closed causal geodesics in closed Lorentzian manifolds. The focus will lie mainly on results which restrict the causal structure of the Lorentzian manifold only. This will leave out the entire literature on closed geodesics in stationary or static space-times.
In section \[last3\] we study the problem of the least number of closed geodesics in a closed pseudo-Riemannian (i.e. Lorentzian) surface. We will show that every closed Lorentzian surface contains a timelike or spacelike closed geodesic. Further the geodesic flow of a closed Lorentzian surface contains at least two closed flowlines. Previously known examples show that these lower bounds on the multiplicity of closed geodesics are optimal. For a spacetime structure on the torus $T^2$ we are able to improve this number to four. The methods to derive these results rely on an analysis of the space of closed curves with constant causal character.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
$M$ always denotes a closed surface of vanishing Euler charateristic, i.e. $M$ is diffeomorphic to the $2$-torus $T^2$ or the Klein bottle $K^2$. We always assume that a fixed complete Riemannian metric $g_R$ is chosen on all manifolds. If not noted otherwise Riemannian metrics on covering spaces are assumed to be equal to the lifted metric.
By a [*nonspacelike*]{} curve we understand the usual notion of piecewise $C^1$ nonspacelike curves (see [@onei] pg. 146). A curve is [*nontimelike*]{} if it is nonspacelike for $(M,-g)$. A curve is [*causally constant*]{} if it is either nonspacelike or nontimelike.
By $\Lambda M_\pi$ we understand the space of all continuous loops representing the free homotopy class $\pi$, and by $\Lambda(M,[g])_\pi$ we understand the space of causally constant loops representing $\pi$, where $[g]$ denotes the conformal class of $g$.
Historical remarks on closed causal geodesics {#HR}
=============================================
The study of closed causal geodesics in Lorentzian geometry was initiated by F. Tipler in [@tip1] with the following result.
\[TTIP\] Let $(M,g)$ be a compact spacetime with a covering space containing a compact Cauchy hypersurface. Then $(M,g)$ contains a closed timelike geodesic.
The method used in the proof is an adaptation of the Birkhoff process, known in Riemannian geometry, to minimize the arclength in $\Lambda M_\pi$. It relies heavily on the causal structure of the covering space. The last development in this direction is due to Guediri ([@guediri1]) and, with a generalized version, Sanchez in [@sa2].
\[P50\] Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Lorentzian manifold admitting a globally hyperbolic cover $(\overline{M},\overline{g})$. Assume that a conjugacy class $\mathcal{C}\subset \mathcal{D}(\overline{M},M)$ satisfies:
1. $\mathcal{C}$ contains a closed timelike curve $\gamma$.
2. $\mathcal{C}$ is finite.
Then there exists at least one closed timelike geodesic in $\mathcal{C}$.
Galloway formalized the adaptation of the Birkhoff process by introducing $t$-homotopies.
Let $(M,g)$ be a Lorentzian manifold. A continuous mapping $H\colon I \times [0,1]\to M$, subject to certain boundary conditions (either fixed endpoints or closed curves) is called a t-homotopy if the curves $t\mapsto H(t,\tau)$ are causal for all $\tau \in [0,1]$.
The notion of $t$-homotopy reformulates naturally to a statement about the connected components of the set of causal curves in the set of continuous mappings $I\to M$. The Riemannian metric $g_R$ introduces a complete metric topology on $C^0(I,M)$. Two causal curves $\gamma_{1,2}\colon I\to M$ are then $t$-homotopic iff they lie in the same connected component of the set of causal curves with domain $I$ (this is always understood with respect to given boundary conditions and therefore readily extend to, for example, loops). $t$-homotopy classes are therefore the connected components of the set of causal curves.
To state the condition for the existence of closed timelike geodesics, recall the definition of wideness from [@ga1]: Given two Lorentzian metrics $g_1,g_2$ on $M$, $g_2$ is said to be [*wider*]{} than $g_1$ if every $g_1$-causal vector is $g_2$-timelike. This algebraic condition translates to the geometric picture of the time cones of $g_2$ being larger than those of $g_1$. Drawing inspiration from globally hyperbolic spacetimes, Galloway poses the following condition: A $t$-homotopy class $\mathcal{C}\subset\Lambda M$ of a given Lorentzian metric $g$ is [*stable*]{} if there exists a Lorentzian metric $\hat{g}$, wider than $g$, such that $$\sup_{\gamma\in \mathcal{C}}L^{\hat{g}}(\gamma)<\infty,$$ where $L^{\hat{g}}$ denotes the length functional of $\hat{g}$. Galloway then goes on to prove the following theorem.
\[T39\] Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Lorentzian manifold. Then each stable free $t$-homotopy class $\mathcal{C}\subset\Lambda M$ contains an arclength maximizing closed causal curve. If $\sup_{\gamma\in\mathcal{C}}L^g(\gamma)>0$, this curve is necessarily a closed timelike geodesic.
The proof consists of a reformulation of the Birkhoff’s shortening process for loops in Riemannian manifolds for the case of Lorentzian manifolds.
In a subsequent study Galloway then proved the following result (Note that we use the distinction introduced in section \[last\]).
\[T40\] Every closed Lorentzian surface contains a closed timelike or periodic lightlike geodesic.
The proof of theorem \[T40\], given in [@ga2], does not imply the existence of a closed geodesic, i.e. the tangent curve is a periodic orbit of the geodesic flow, in any closed Lorentzian surface. To make this claim precise we will show that the construction in [@ga2] does not necessarily yield a complete periodic (i.e. closed) lightlike geodesic.
First we give a sketch of Galloway’s argument and then discuss an example displaying the claimed phenomenon.
Let $M$ be a closed $2$-manifold equipped with a Lorentzian metric $g$. Since periodic geodesics in any covering manifold $M'\to M$ project to periodic geodesics in $M$, we can assume that $M$ is orientable and time orientable. This together with the assumption that dim $M=2$ implies that $M$ is diffeomorphic to a $2$-torus.
One of the special features of Lorentzian metrics $g$ on $2$-manifolds is, that $-g$ is Lorentzian as well. Since it is well known that compact Lorentzian manifolds contain closed timelike curves, it follows that $(M,g)$ contains a smooth closed spacelike curve, i.e. an immersed compact smooth spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma$. We can even choose $\Sigma$ to be embedded. i.e. simple closed.
It follows now that $\Sigma$ does not separate $M$, since this would yield a contractible spacelike curve in the universal cover. Therefore it is possible that $\Sigma$ is not acausal (in fact this will be the case in our subsequent example).
This problem can be resolved by passing to the so-called Geroch-covering $M_\Sigma$ of $M$ relative to $\Sigma$ ([@ger0]). The Geroch covering of a spacetime $(M,g)$ relative to a complete spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma$ is defined as follows: The time orientation of $(M,g)$ induces an orientation of the normal bundle $T^\perp \Sigma$ of $\Sigma$. Fix a point $p_0\in M$ and consider the set $$C:=\{(p,\gamma)|\;p\in M, \gamma \text{ is a continuous path from $p$ to $p_0$}\}.$$ Define the equivalene relation $``\sim"$ by $(p,\gamma)\sim (p',\gamma')$ if $p=p'$ and the intersection numbers of $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ with $\Sigma$ coincide. The manifold $M_\Sigma:=C/\sim$ is called the Geroch covering of $M$ relative to $\Sigma$.
$\pi_\Sigma\colon M_\Sigma\to M$, $[(p,\gamma)]\mapsto p$ is a regular cover such that (1) each component $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ of $\pi_\Sigma^{-1}(\Sigma)$ is a compact sapcelike hypersurface which separates $M_\Sigma$ and (2) $\overline{J^-(p)}\cap J^+(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ as well as $\overline{J^+(p)}\cap J^-(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ are compact for all $p\in M_\Sigma$.
By property (1) every component $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ is acausal. Now if $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ is a Cauchy-hypersurface the theorem of Tipler (theorem \[TTIP\]) implies the existence of a closed timelike geodesic and we are done.
If $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ is not a Cauchy-hypersurface the Cauchy-horizon $H(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ of $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ is not empty (see [@ger1] for the definition). Since the argument is invariant under switching the time orientation, we can assume that $H^+(\widetilde{\Sigma})\neq\emptyset$. The remainder of the proof now consists of showing that any past inextendible null geodesic generator of $H^+(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ projects to a periodic lightlike geodesic in $M$.
Now we will show via an example that the geodesics constructed above are not necessarily closed. Notice that these geodesics are nevertheless periodic in our terminology. The following family of metrics is a slight modification of the first example given in [@ga2] (see below).
\[E58\] Denote with $x,y$ the standard coordinates on ${\mathbb R}^2$. Consider on ${\mathbb R}^2$ the Lorentzian metric $$\overline{g}_\e:= (\cos^2 (2\pi x) -\e) [dy^2-dx^2] -2\sin(2\pi x) dxdy$$ where $\e\in (0,1/4)$. Since ${\mathbb R}^2$ is simply connected, $({\mathbb R}^2,\overline{g}_\e)$ is time orientable. Choose the time orientation such that $\partial_x$ is futurepointing in $x=0$. Observe that $({\mathbb R}^2,\overline{g}_\e)$ is not globally hyperbolic. This follows directly from the fact that $J^+((0,0))\cap J^-((0,2\pi))$ contains $\{\frac{\pi}{2}\}\times (-\infty,0)$ and is therefore not compact.
It is obvious that $\overline{g}_\e$ descends to a Lorentzian metric $g_\e$ on the $2$-torus ${\mathbb R}^2/{\mathbb Z}^2$. Observe that $g_\e$ is time orientable. The set $\{x=0\}$ projects to a smooth compact spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma\subseteq T^2:={\mathbb R}^2/{\mathbb Z}^2$. $\Sigma$ is not acausal in $(T^2,g_\e)$ by construction. Observe that in every point $p\in {\mathbb R}^2$ there exists a $v_y\in {\mathbb R}$ such that $\partial_x+v_y\partial_y$ is timelike future pointing. Since $\overline{g}_\e$ is ${\mathbb Z}^2$-invariant this implies that there exists a timelike curve $\gamma\colon [0,1]\to {\mathbb R}^2$ with $\gamma(0)\in \{x=0\}$ and $\gamma(1)\in
\{x=1\}$. Projecting $\gamma$ to $T^2$ yields a chronological curve with endpoints on $\Sigma$.
According to [@sa1] (or by direct calculation of the geodesic equations) the lightlike geodesics parameterizing $\{\cos^2 2\pi x =\e\}$ are not complete. By construction these geodesics project to periodic lightlike geodesics in $T^2$.
It is easy to see that the Geroch covering $T^2_\Sigma$ of $T^2$ relative to $\Sigma$ is ${\mathbb R}^2/[\{0\}\times {\mathbb Z}]$. Notice that the induced metric is not globally hyperbolic, since the covering space $({\mathbb R}^2,\overline{g}_\e)$ is not globally hyperbolic. It is then easy to see that the Cauchy horizon of $\widetilde{\Sigma}:=\{x=0\}\subset T^2_\Sigma$ is equal to $\{x=\pm x_\e\}$ where $x_\e$ is the smallest positive real number such that $\cos^2 2\pi x_\e =\e$. We have seen above that the null geodesic generators of $H(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ are incomplete. Therefore they are periodic, but not closed lightlike geodesics. In fact this is the case for all periodic lightlike geodesics in $(T^2,g_\e)$.
One should note, though, that $(T^2,g_\e)$ contains closed timelike geodesics (e.g. $\{x=1/4\}$), but these do not intersect $D(\Sigma)\cup H(\Sigma)$.
The original example in [@ga2] is the metric $-\overline{g}_\e$ with $\e=0$. For later purposes we explain it in detail.
\[E59\] Consider ${\mathbb R}^2$ with the natural coordinates $\{x,y\}$ and the Lorentzian metric $$\overline{g}:=\cos^2(2\pi x)[dx^2-dy^2]+2\sin(2\pi x)dxdy.$$ $\overline{g}$ is obviously invariant under the translations $(x,y)\mapsto (x,y+t)$ for all $t\in{\mathbb R}$ and the map $(x,y)\mapsto (x+1/2,-y)$. Thus the metric $\overline{g}$ descends to a Lorentzian metric $g$ on the Klein bottle $K^2={\mathbb R}^2/\Gamma$ where $\Gamma:=\langle (x,y)\mapsto (x,y+1), (x,y)\mapsto
(x+1/2, -y)\rangle$. In [@ga2] it is shown that $(K^2,g)$ does not contain any spacelike closed geodesics.
Using [@sa1] we see that the geodesic parameterization of the unique closed smooth lightlike curve in $(K^2,g)$ is complete. Therefore it is a closed lightlike geodesic in our terminology. Again from [@sa1] follows that $[x=0]$ is the trace of the single closed timelike geodesic of $(K^2,g)$. Concluding we see that $(K^2,g)$ contains exactly two geometrically distinct closed geodesics.
Finally we mention two results concerning closed timelike geodesics in Lorentzian manifolds satisfying special assumptions.
Let $(T^2,g)$ be a Lorentzian $2$-torus with geodesically connected universal covering. Then, it contains a closed timelike geodesic.
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Lorentzian manifold with dim $M\ge 2$ that admits a Killing vector field $K$ that is timelike somewhere. Then there is some non trivial periodic non self-intersecting timelike geodesic in $(M, g)$. If either one of the following two conditions is satisfied, then there are at least two non trivial periodic non self-intersecting geodesics in $M$:
- $\max_{q\in M} g(K_q,K_q)\neq 0$;
- $K$ is never vanishing.
When either condition is satisfied, if in addition $K$ has at most one periodic integral line, then there are infinitely many geometrically distinct non trivial periodic non self-intersecting geodesics in $(M, g)$.
It should be pointed out, that example \[E59\] shows the optimality of one part of the theorem. The part claiming that any Lorentzian manifold with a Killing vector field, timelike somewhere and subject to the conditions (a) or (b), contains at least two non trivial periodic non self-intersecting closed geodesics is optimal by the example.
Generalities about Lorentzian metrics
=====================================
The lightlike distributions
---------------------------
Locally every Lorentzian surface $(M,g)$ gives rise to two transversal lightlike distributions. In general these distributions are not globally well defined. Note that they are globally well defined if and only if the underlying manifold is orientable. This can be seen as follows: If the lightlike distributions are well defined, every choice of $g_R$-unit vector field lying in one of the distributions is well defined up to multiplication with $-1$. Note that the sign of $g|_{\operatorname*{conv}(v,w)\times\operatorname*{conv}(v,w)}$ is locally constant for any continuous choice of lightlike basis $\{v,w\}$ of the tangent spaces. In the case of a $2$-dimensional vector space the bases $\{v,w\}$ and $\{-v,-w\}$ share the same orientation. Therefore $M$ is orientable. Conversely if $M$ is orientable, we can locally choose a positively oriented basis in the lightlike distributions. Again this basis is globally well defined only up to sign. But in this case the distributions are still well defined.
Assume now that $M$ is orientable. Then $M\cong T^2$ and $\pi_1(M)\cong H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})\cong {\mathbb Z}^2$ operates by a co-compact action on the universal cover $\widetilde{M}$. Furthermore the image of any pair of generators $v,w$ of $H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})$ defines a basis of $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$. Choose such a base $\{v,w\}\subset H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})$ of $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ and let $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}$ be the dual basis of $H^1(M,{\mathbb R})$ with representatives $\omega_i\in\alpha_i$ (We will always use the deRham-cohomology, i.e. $\omega_i$ is a smooth closed $1$-form). For an absolutely continuous curve $\zeta\colon [a,b]\to M$ define $\zeta(b)-\zeta(a)\in H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ by the equation $$\alpha_i(\zeta(b)-\zeta(a)):=\int_\zeta \omega_i.$$ This definition depends of course on the chosen representatives $\omega_i\in\alpha_i$, but for any pair of representatives there exists a constant such that the difference between both of $\zeta(b)-\zeta(a)$ is uniformly bounded independent of $\zeta$.
We associate to a lightlike distribution $\mathfrak{D}$ on $M$ the class $m^{\mathfrak{D}}\in P H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ in the projective space over the first real homology vector space of $M$ as follows: Consider a curve $\zeta\colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ everywhere tangential to $\mathfrak{D}$. Then there exists a unique line $l\subset H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ such that the distance of any $\zeta(T_2)-\zeta(T_1)$ to $l$ is bounded by a uniform constant depending only on $\mathfrak{D}$. The line $l$ is independent of $\zeta$. This follows from [@hehi] Part A, section 4.3, since $\zeta$ parameterizes (not necessarily injective) a leaf of a nonsingular foliation of $M$. Call $m^\mathfrak{D}:=[l]\in PH_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ the [*rotation class*]{} of $\mathfrak{D}$. Introduce an arbitrary norm $\|.\|$ on $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$. Note that the rotation class satisfies $$m^\mathfrak{D}=\lim_{\|\zeta(T)-\zeta(T')\|\to\infty}[span(\zeta(T)-\zeta(T'))]\in PH_1(M,{\mathbb R})$$ for any curve $\zeta$ tangential to $\mathfrak{D}$.
Call $(M,g)$ space orientable if $(M,g)$ admits a spacelike nonsingular vector field. Note that this is equivalent to $(M,-g)$ being time orientable. In this notation the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) The lightlike distributions are orientable.
(ii) $(M,g)$ is time and space orientable.
(iii) $M$ is orientable and $(M,g)$ is time orientable
(iv) $M$ is orientable and $(M,g)$ is space orientable
Recall that any Lorentzian manifold admits a twofold time orientable covering. Therefore any Lorentzian manifold admits a, at most, fourfold orientable and time orientable covering.
Assume now that the lightlike distributions are well defined and orientable, i.e. there exists two future pointing lightlike vector fields $X^+$ and $X^-$ such that $\{X^+_p,X^-_p\}$ is a positively oriented basis of $TM_p$ for all $p\in M$. Define $\mathfrak{D}^+$ through $X^+\in \mathfrak{D}^+$ and $\mathfrak{D}^-$ through $X^-\in \mathfrak{D}^-$. Abridge $m^\pm:=m^{\mathfrak{D}^\pm}$.
Lorentzian metrics on surfaces
------------------------------
We collect in this paragraph some more or less well known facts about the connected components of the set of Lorentzian metrics in a suitable geometric way.
A vector field without zeros is said to be causally constant, if either $g(X,X)\ge 0$ or $g(X,X)\le 0$ everywhere. The existence of causally constant vector fields is equivalent to space resp. time orientability.
Assume $(M,g)$ to be space and time orientable. Then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the $2$-torus $T^2={\mathbb R}^2/{\mathbb Z}^2$ and $TM$ is parallelizable. Consider the space of unit vector fields $\Gamma(T^{1,R}M)$ of $(M,g_R)$. Consider then the projection $\pi_{S^1}\colon T^{1,R}M\to S^1$ defined by the composition of a bundle isomorphism $T^{1,R}M\cong M\times S^1$, where the isomorphism is induced by the differential of any diffeomorphism $S^1\times S^1\to M$, with the projection onto the second factor of $ M\times S^1$. Thus for a unit vector field $X\in \Gamma(T^{1,R}M)$ and a closed curve $\gamma\colon S^1\to M$, the degree of $X\circ \gamma$ is naturally defined as the degree of $\pi_{S^1}\circ X\circ \gamma$. Fixing a closed curve $\gamma\colon S^1\to M$ the degree of $X\circ \gamma$ is independent of the choice of causally constant vector field $X\in \Gamma(T^{1,R}M)$.
Let $(M,g)$ be space and time orientable. For $\sigma\in \pi_1(M)$ define the [*rotation number*]{} $n_\sigma(g)$ of $g$ along $\sigma$ to be the degree of $X\circ\gamma$, where $X$ is any causally constant $g_R$-unit vector field and $\gamma$ is any curve representing $\sigma$.
Note that for a nonspacelike or nontimelike curve $\gamma$ the rotation number of $g$ along the homotopy class $[\gamma]$ vanishes. Then the map $\Gamma(T^{1,R}M)\to Lor(M)$, $X\mapsto g_R-2X^\flat\otimes X^\flat$ $(\flat:=\flat^{g_R})$ induces an isomorphism of $\pi_0(\Gamma(T^{1,R}M))$ to $\pi_0(Lor(M))$. Therefore two Lorentzian metrics $g$ and $g'$ on $M$ are homotopic in $Lor(M)$ if and only if for a pair of generators $\{\sigma,\tau\}$ of $\pi_1(M)$, $n_{\sigma}(g)=n_{\sigma}(g')$ and $n_{\tau}(g)=n_{\tau}(g')$.
\[P49\] Let $(M,g),(N,g')$ be space and time orientable closed Lorentzian surfaces.
1. Set $k_g:=\min\{|n_\sigma(g)|+|n_\tau(g)|\}$, where the minimum is taken over all pairs of generators $\{\sigma,\tau\}$ of $\pi_1(M)$. Then $g$ is isometric to a Lorentzian metric $g'$ with $n_{\sigma}(g')=k_g$ and $n_{\tau}(g')=0$.
2. Assume for $(M,g)$ and $(N,g')$, $k_g=k_{g'}$. Then there exists a diffeomorphism $F\colon M \to N$ such that $F^\ast g'$ is homotopic to $g$ in $Lor(M)$.
\(1) Let $\{\sigma,\tau\}$ be a pair of generators of $\pi_1(M)$ and set $m:=n_\sigma(g)$, $n:=n_\tau(g)$. Define $\widetilde{m}:=\frac{m}{gcd(m,n)}$ and $\widetilde{n}:=\frac{n}{gcd(m,n)}$. Choose $a,b\in\mathbb Z$ such that $\widetilde{n}b+\widetilde{m}a=1$. If $n_{a\sigma+b\tau}(g)\ge 0$ set $A:=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\widetilde{n} & a \\ -\widetilde{m} & b
\end{smallmatrix}
\right)$. Otherwise define $A:=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\widetilde{n} & -a \\ -\widetilde{m} & -b
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Then there exists a diffeomorphism of $F\colon M\to M$ with $F_\ast \colon \pi_1(M)\to \pi_1(M)$ identical to $A$ relative to the base $\{\sigma,\tau\}$. For $g':=F^\ast g$ holds $n_{\sigma}(g')=k_g$ and $n_{\tau}(g')=0$, since $n_{\sigma}(g')$ is a generator of the image of $n_{.}(g')\colon \pi_1(M)\to {\mathbb Z}$, $\zeta\mapsto n_\zeta(g)$.
\(2) Taking the previous remarks into account, (2) follows readily from (1).
Closed geodesics in Lorentzian surfaces {#last3}
=======================================
Theorem \[T40\] is unsatisfactory when adopting the point of view of dynamical systems, especially closed orbits of geodsic flows, towards Lorentzian geometry. As we have seen above, periodic lightlike geodesics are i.g. not closed geodesics in the sense that the tangent curves are not closed orbits of the geodesic flow. This leaves us with the possibility for Lorentzian surfaces without any closed geodesics in the terminology defined in the introduction. To clarify this gap we claim the following theorems (We call a geodesic $\gamma$ [*definite*]{} if $g(\dot{\gamma},\dot{\gamma})\neq 0$).
\[T60\] Every closed Lorentzian surface contains a definite (i.e. timelike or spacelike) closed geodesic. This lower bound is optimal.
\[T60a\] The geodesic flow of a closed Lorentzian surface has at least two closed orbits. This lower bound is optimal.
Example \[E59\] shows the optimality of the assertions. The induced Lorentzian metric on the Klein bottle has exactly two closed geodesics, one is timelike the other lightlike. Note that for Lorentzian surfaces spacelike geodesics locally maximize the energy functional among spacelike curves. This is due to the fact that for $dim\, M=2$ and $(M,g)$ Lorentzian, $(M,-g)$ is Lorentzian as well.
The theorems follow from a seperate analysis of two different cases.
The method of proof for theorem \[T60a\] shows the following corollary as well.
Every time and space orientable closed Lorentzian surface contains four closed geodesics, two of which must be definite, i.e. every spacetime structure on the $2$-torus contains at least four closed geodesics.
class A and class B surfaces
----------------------------
$(M,g)$ belongs to class $A$ if there exists a finite time and space orientable cover $(M',g')$ such that $m^+\neq m^-$ for $(M',g')$. The complementary case $m^+=m^-$ is denoted with class $B$.
Note that this definition is independent of the chosen finite cover.
In the case that $(M,g)$ is class A, time and space orientable, the homology classes $\zeta(T)-\zeta(T')$ lie at a bounded distance from two halflines $\overline{m}^+,\overline{m}^-$ of $m^+,m^-$ for $\zeta$ future pointing and $T'\le T$. The set $\operatorname*{conv}(\overline{m}^+\cup\overline{m}^-)$ is a proper cone in $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$.
We can characterize class A in more traditional terms of causality theory.
\[P60\] Let $(M,g)$ be a closed Lorentzian surface. Then the properties are equivalent.
(i) $(M,g)$ is class $A$,
(ii) the time orientation covers of $(M,g)$ and $(M,-g)$ are vicious and
(iii) the time orientation cover of $(M,g)$ is vicious and the universal cover is globally hyperbolic.
Part of the proposition goes back to the diploma thesis of E. Schelling ([@schelling]). Satz 4.1 therein proves that the Abelian cover of any class A surface is globally hyperbolic (see appendix \[AB\]).
Both viciousness and global hyperbolicity lift to finite coverings and pass to finite factors. Therefore we can assume that $(M,g)$ is time and space orientable.
(i)$\Rightarrow$ (ii): Assume that $(M,g)$ is class $A$. It suffices to show viciousness for $(M,g)$, since for $(M,-g)$ and the appropiate choice of time orientation of $(M,-g)$, the set $\{X^-_p,-X^+_p\}$ is a positively oriented basis of future pointing vectors. Therefore the rotation halflines for $(M,-g)$ are $\overline{m}^-$ and $-\overline{m}^+$.
Denote with $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$ the foliations of $M$ tangential to $\mathfrak{D}^\pm$ and with $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^\pm$ their lift to the universal cover $\widetilde{M}$. Every leaf of the foliations $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^\pm$ separates $\widetilde{M}\cong{\mathbb R}^2$, since the foliations are non-singular (Poincare-Bendixson). Furthermore the leafs of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^\pm$ through $x\in \widetilde{M}$ lies at a bounded distance from $x+m^\pm:=\{y\in\widetilde{M}|\;y-x\in m^\pm\}$ for any $x\in\widetilde{M}$.
Consider a $k\in H_1(M^2,{\mathbb Z})\cong \pi_1(M^2)$ with $k\in \operatorname*{int}\operatorname*{conv}(\overline{m}^+\cup\overline{m}^-)$. Since $m^+\neq m^-$ the halflines $\overline{m}^+$ and $k-\overline{m}^-$ intersect exactly once. But then the future pointing lightlike geodesic through $x$ and tangential to $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^+$ intersects the past pointing lightlike geodesic through $x+k$ and tangential to $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^-$ exactly once. The resulting curve is future pointing and not a lightlike geodesic. Therefore $x+k\in I^+(x)$ for all $x\in \widetilde{M}$. This property implies the viciousness of $(M,g)$.
(ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii): If $(M,-g)$ is vicious there exists a pair of generators $\{\sigma,\tau\}$ of $\pi_1(M)$ which are represented by timelike loops. If the prime fundamental class $\sigma$ of every timelike loop is unique, up to inversion, we can choose $\tau'\in\pi_1(M)$ such that $\sigma,\tau'$ generate $\pi_1(M)$. The viciousness of $(M,-g)$ implies that every point lies on a timelike loop. It is then easy to construct a timelike loop representing $\sigma^k\ast
\tau'$ for some $k\in{\mathbb Z}$. This contradicts the uniqueness of $\sigma$.
To show that the universal cover of $(M,g)$ is globally hyperbolic is now easy. First every Lorentzian metric on a simply connected surface is causal. Second, since timelike and spacelike loops in $M$ with prime fundamental class can intersect at most once, every pair of lifts to $\widetilde{M}$ intersects at most once. Since the set of fundamental classes represented by spacelike loops generates $\pi_1(M)$, this shows that the sets $J^+(x)\cap J^-(q)$ are bounded (It is clear that they are closed).
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(i): Since $(M,g)$ is vicious every point lies on a timelike loop. Consequently $\overline{m}^+$ and $\overline{m}^-$ cannot coincide. If we assume $m^+=m^-$ then $\overline{m}^+=-\overline{m}^-$. In this case the causal diamonds $J^+(x)\cap J^-(y)$ in the universal cover cannot be compact. In fact since future pointing lightlike curves tangential to different lightlike distributions in $M$ run in, up to a constant, opposing directions, it is easy, using the viciousness of $(M,g)$, to find a constant $C<\infty$ such that for any pair of causally related points $y\in J^+(x)\subset\widetilde{M}$ of Riemannian distance at least $C$ and every $K>0$ there exits $z\in J^+(x)\cap J^-(y)$ and $\operatorname*{dist}(x,z),\operatorname*{dist}(y,z)\ge K$.
We obtain the corollaries.
\[C60\] A closed Lorentzian surface $(M,g)$ is class $A$ if and only if $(M,-g)$ is class $A$.
\[C60a\] The universal cover $(\widetilde{M},\widetilde{g})$ of a class A surface $(M,g)$ is geodesically connected.
Since $(\widetilde{M},\widetilde{g})$ as well as $(\widetilde{M},-\widetilde{g})$ are globally hyperbolic, it remains to note that every pair of points $(p,q)\in \widetilde{M}\times\widetilde{M}$ is causally related for $(\widetilde{M},\widetilde{g})$ or $(\widetilde{M},-\widetilde{g})$. But this fact follows from the observation that the leaf of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^+$ through $p$ intersects the leaf of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^-$ through $q$ exactly once, if $(M,g)$ is class A.
For closed Lorentzian surfaces $(M,g)$ such that the fundamental classes of all causally constant loops belong to a subgroup $\langle \sigma \rangle <\pi_1(M)$ generated by $\sigma \in \pi_1(M)$, the universal cover of $(M,g)$ is not geodesically connected. This condition is satisfied for all Lorentzian surfaces with $k_g\neq 0$.
All Lorentzian metrics $g$ with $k_g>0$ are of class $B$.
If $m^+\neq m^-$, proposition \[P49\] implies $k_g=0$.
Closed geodesics in class A surfaces
------------------------------------
In the case of class $A$ surfaces we can refine theorem \[T60\] to the following result.
\[T60b\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class $A$. Then every free homotopy class contains a closed geodesic. More precisely, if the free homotopy class contains timelike (spacelike) loops only, then all closed geodesics in this class are timelike (spacelike). If a free homotopy class is represented by time- and spacelike loops, then the class contains at least one timelike and one spacelike closed geodesic. If the free homotopy class is represented by lightlike loops only, then all causally constant loops (up to parameterization) in that class are contained in that foliation and are closed lightlike geodesics.
Note that parts of theorem \[T60b\] were already observed in lemma \[A2\].
Before we proceed to prove theorem \[T60b\], we want to make some comments on how this result generalizes known ones about conformally stationary Lorentzian surfaces. We have the following simple proposition.
Every closed conformally stationary Lorentzian surface is class A.
We can assume w.l.o.g. that $(M,g)$ is time and space orientable. If $(M,g)$ is class B then it contains a compact leaf of either lightlike foliation. The conformal Killing vector field $X$ has to be transversal to this compact leaf since $X$ is assumed to be timelike. Further the flow of $X$ maps compact leafs to compact leafs. If the rotation class of $X$ differs from $m^\pm$, then every flowline of $X$ intersects every leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^+$ and $\mathfrak{F}^-$. But in this case both lightlike foliations have to consist entirely of compact leafs. We saw earlier that in this case $(M,g)$ is class A.
If the rotation class of $X$ is equal to $m^\pm$ and $(M,g)$ is class B then the flow of $X$ has a periodic orbit and all orbits converge to a periodic one. Under these circumstances and together with the observation that compact leafs of $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$ are mapped to compact ones by the flow of $X$, we see that there exists a compact leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$ which intersects a periodic orbit of $X$ twice and has the same fundamental class. This is impossible. Therefore $(M,g)$ has to be class A.
Theorem \[T60b\] now implies.
Every conformally stationary closed Lorentzian surface contains infinitely many closed time and spacelike geodesics.
This proof of the existence of a closed geodesic in a conformally stationary closed surfaces is limited to the case $\dim M=2$. The case $\dim M\ge 3$ will require completely different methods. For $\dim M\ge 3$ the compactness argument is no longer valid.
Now we turn to the proof of theorem \[T60b\].
Every fundamental class of a class A surface is representable by a causally constant loop.
Choose time and space orientations for the universal cover. Then we orient the lightlike foliations $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^\pm$ to be future pointing. Note that any pair of leafs not belonging to the same lightlike foliation intersect exactly once. This is due to the fact that the leafs of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^\pm$ through $x\in\widetilde{M}$ lie in a bounded neighborhood of the lines $x+m^+$ and $x+m^-$.
Let $\pi$ be a fundamental class of $M$. The leaf of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^+$ through $x$ intersects the leave of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}^-$ through $x+\pi$ in $y$. If $y\in J^+(x)\cap J^-(x+\pi)$ or $y\in
J^-(x)\cap J^+(x+\pi)$ the resulting curve $\gamma_{x}$ connecting $x$ with $x+\pi$ will be nonspacelike. If $y\in J^+(x+\pi)\cap J^+(x)$ or $y\in J^-(x+\pi)\cap J^-(x)$ the resulting curve $\gamma_{x}$ will be nontimelike.
\[L60\] Let $(M,g)$ be a Lorentzian surface and $Z\subset M$ an annulus bounded by lightlike curves and such that $(Z,g|_Z)$ contains a timelike or spacelike loop. Then $Z$ contains a closed maximal timelike or spacelike geodesic. If the interior of $Z$ does not contain any closed smooth lightlike curves the “or” is exclusive, i.e. all closed geodesics of $(\operatorname*{int}Z,g|_{\operatorname*{int}Z})$ are either timelike or spacelike.
Note that theorem \[schell10\] is a special case of the claim. Observe that no assumption is made in lemma \[L60\] whether the interior of $Z$ contains closed leafs of $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$.
The first part will follow from the second assertion since any annulus bounded by lightlike curves that contains at least one causally constant and nonlightlike loop has to contain an annulus bounded by lightlike curves and the interior does not contain any other closed smooth lightlike curves. Recall that under this assumption the only causally constant loops in $(Z,g|_Z)$ are either all nonspacelike or nontimelike.
Now consider the space $\Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$ of loops in $Z$ of constant causal character with prim fundamental class in $\pi_1(Z)$. All loops in $\Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$ can be given a Lipschitz parameterization. Therefore the Riemannian length functional is well defined on $\Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$. Note that every curve in $\Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$ is free of self-intersections. Indeed if $\gamma\in \Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$ has self-intersections, consider a lift $\widetilde{\gamma}$ of $\gamma$ to the universal cover of $Z$ and a translate $\widetilde{\gamma}
+kv$ intersecting $\widetilde{\gamma}$ (wlog $k\ge 0$). Now construct a closed curve $\widetilde{\beta}$ in the universal cover as follows: Follow $\widetilde{\gamma}+kv$ from the starting point to an intersection with $\widetilde{\gamma}$. Change to $\widetilde{\gamma}$ and follow $\widetilde{\gamma}$ until the endpoint. To get back to the starting point just follow $\widetilde{\gamma}+k'v$ for each $1\le k'\le k$. This curve has, by assumption, constant causal character and is closed in the universal cover. Therefore the universal cover of $Z$ contains a nullhomotopic loop with constant causal character. This is impossible by the theorem of Poincare-Bendixson ([@hirschsmale]).
To prove that $\Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$ contains a closed geodesic, we show that the subset of $\Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$ consisting of curves parameterized w.r.t. constant $g_R$-arclength is compact relative to the topology of uniform convergence, i.e. the Riemannian length functional is bounded on that subset.
Assume $\sup_{\gamma\in \Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])}\{L^{g_R}(\gamma)\}=\infty$. Extend $Z$ by two collars to a larger annulus $Z'$. Next choose a $g'\in Lor(Z)$ strictly wider than $g$ and extend $g'$ to $Z'$ such that $\partial Z'$ consists of compact leafs of the lightlike foliations of $(Z',g')$. Consider a sequence $\{\gamma_n\}\in \Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])$ with $L^{g_R}(\gamma_n)\to\infty$. W.l.o.g. we can assume that the $\gamma_n$ are smooth. Reparameterize each $\gamma_n$ w.r.t. $g_R$-arclength and consider the Borel propability measures $$\mu_n:=\frac{1}{L^{g_R}(\gamma_n)}(\frac{d}{ds}\gamma_n)_\sharp (\mathcal{L}^1)$$ on $TZ$, where $s$ is the $g_R$-arclength parameter. The sequence $\{\mu_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ is bounded in $C^0(TZ,{\mathbb R})'$ and therefore contains a converging subsequence. Choose a point $w\in TZ$ in the support of the limit measure. $w$ is a $g$-causal vector and consequently $g'$-timelike. But then we can construct a closed timelike curve in $(Z',g')$ with selfintersection. First note that $\pi_{TZ}(w)\in Z\subset \operatorname*{int}Z'$. Choose a convex neighborhood $U$ of $\pi_{TZ}(w)$ in $(Z',g')$ and a sequence $s_k\in {\mathbb R}$ such that $\gamma_{n_k}(s_k)\to \pi_{TZ}(w)$ for some sequence $n_k\in{\mathbb N}$. Since $$\mathcal{L}^1((\frac{d}{ds}\gamma_n)^{-1}(TU))\ge \e L^{g_R}(\gamma_n)$$ for some $\e=\e(U)>0$, $\gamma_n$ has to leave $U$ and return more than once arbitrarily close to $\pi_{TZ}(w)$. Therefore we can choose parameter values $a_k,b_k$ belonging to different connected components of $\gamma_n^{-1}(U)$ such that $\gamma_{n_k}(a_k),
\gamma_{n_k}(b_k)\to \pi_{TZ}(w)$. Since all tangents of $\gamma_n$ are equi-timelike relative to $g'$ in the sense that $\operatorname*{dist}(\frac{d}{ds}\gamma_n,\operatorname*{Light}(Z',[g']))\ge\e$ for some $\e>0$, we can deform $\gamma_n$ in $U$ to intersect itself for some $n$ sufficiently large. This is impossible by the first part of the proof. Therefore we have $\sup_{\gamma\in \Lambda_1(Z,[g|_Z])}\{L^{g_R}(\gamma)\}<\infty$.
Theorem \[T39\] then ensures the existence of a closed maximal geodesic in $(Z,g|_Z)$. Note again that with $(M^2,g)$ Lorentzian, $(M^2,-g)$ is Lorentzian as well, so theorem \[T39\] is applicable.
We can divide the homotopy classes $\pi$ representable by causally constant curves into four sets. Those for which $\Lambda(M,[g])_\pi$ consits solely of timelike loops, those such that $\Lambda(M,[g])_\pi$ consists of spacelike loops, those such that $\Lambda(M,[g])_\pi$ consists of lightlike loops and those such that $\Lambda(M,[g])_\pi$ contains timelike as well as spacelike loops.
By corollary \[C60\] the second case follows from the first. The first case has been treated essentially in [@schelling]. Lemma \[A2\] and corollary \[CD10\] in appendix \[AB\] show that every integer homology class in the time-orientation cover of a class A surface that is contained in the interior of the convex hull of $\overline{m}^+\cup
\overline{m}^-$ contains a closed future pointing timelike geodesic. Since the assumption that a homotopy class that gives rise to a foliation of the time orientation cover by future pointing timelike curves is equivalent to the image in $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ being contained in that interior, the first case follows.
The case that the free homotopy class contains timelike as well as spacelike loops follows from lemma \[L60\]. Because in that case the free homotopy class contains at least two disjoint closed lighlike loops. Any pair of disjoint lightlike loops then bounds an annulus in $M$. Thus the assumptions of lemma \[L60\] are satisfied.
At last we have to prove that if the free homotopy class is represented by lightlike loops only, then all these loops are closed lightlike geodesics. First it is easy to see that all lightlike geodesics parameterizing the lightlike loops are periodic. Next it follows that these periodic geodesics form a foliation of $M$, since $g$ is smooth.
Now assume that one periodic geodesic $\gamma$ in that foliation is incomplete. Then [@hawk] proposition 6.4.4 implies that there exists a timelike loop freely homotopic to $\gamma$. This contradicts our assumption that all causally constant loops in that free homotopy class are lightlike. Therefore all the periodic geodesics in the foliation are closed.
Closed geodesics in class B surfaces {#lastB}
------------------------------------
In the case of $m^+=m^-$ no leaf of either one of the lightlike foliations can intersect all leafs of the other foliation. Therefore both foliations contain a compact leaf and $m^+,\; m^-$ are rational. Additionally, since the lightlike distributions are transversal, neither lightlike foliation can consist entirely of closed orbits. Furthermore any pair of smooth closed lightlike curves must be disjoint. Therefore we conclude that there exists a pair of closed leafs $\zeta_{1,2}$ of the lightlike foliations in $(M,g)$ bounding an annulus $Z$ in $M$ such that $(\operatorname*{int}Z,g_{\operatorname*{int}Z})$ contains no closed lightlike curves. Note that $(Z,g_Z)$ is time and space orientable. This follwos directly from that fact that $Z$ is orientable and the boundary curves are lightlike, i.e. causally constant. Therefore lemma \[L60\] implies theorem \[T60\] for class B surfaces. Together with theorem \[T60b\] this implies theorem \[T60\] for all closed Lorentzian surfaces.
Theorem \[T60\] ensures the existence of at least one closed geodesic in every compact Lorentzian surface. If $(M,g)$ contains only finitely many closed geodesics then, by theorem \[T60b\], $m^+$ and $m^-$ must coincide.
Consider the number of annuli bounded by closed smooth lightlike curves in $(M,g)$. If this number is at least two, then lemma \[L60\] implies the existence of at least two closed geodesics. Therefore the only interesting case is if the number of annuli is equal to one. In this case $(M,g)$ contains exactly one closed lightlike curve $\gamma$ (up to parameterization). The proof consists now of showing that $\gamma$ can be parameterized as a closed lightlike geodesic.
By switching from $g$ to $-g$ we can assume that $(M,g)$ contains only non-spacelike closed curves. Then there exists an $\e>0$, a neighborhood $U$ of $\gamma$ and a smooth function $f\colon S^1\times (-\e,\e)\to {\mathbb R}$ with $f|_{S^1\times\{0\}}\equiv 0$ such that $(U,g|_U)$ is isometric to the Lorentzian annulus $(S^1\times (-\e,\e),g')$, where $g'$ is expressed in the natural coordinates $(\phi,s)$ as $g'=-d\phi (ds-f(\phi,s)d\phi)$. The lightlike distributions of $(S^1\times (-\e,\e),g')$ are spanned by $\partial_s$ and $\partial_\phi +f(\phi,s)\partial_s$. Then the property that $(S^1\times (-\e,\e),g')$ contains only nonspacelike closed curves can be expressed as $\int_0^T f(\phi(\tau),s(\tau))d\tau \le 0$, where $\tau\mapsto (\phi(\tau),s(\tau))$ is any curve tangential to $\partial_\phi +f(\phi,s)\partial_s$ with $\phi(T)=\phi(0)$ and $\dot{\phi}\ge 0$.
The $\phi$-coordinate part of the equation of the geodesic is $\ddot{\phi}+\partial_s f \dot{\phi}^2=0$. Consider a solution $\tau\mapsto (\phi(\tau),0)$ with $\phi(T)=\phi(0)$. Then the lightlike geodesic parameterizing $\{s=0\}$ is closed if and only if $\int_0^T \partial_s f(\phi(\tau),0)d\tau=0$. This integral equation is an easy consequence of the above integral inequality.
A closer look reveals that the least number of closed geodesics in $(M,g)$ can be connected to the homotopy class of $g$ in $Lor(M)$. Recall the definition of $k_g:=\min\{|n_\sigma(g)|+|n_\tau(g)|\}$, where $g$ is time and space orientable Lorentzian metric on $M$ and $\sigma,\tau$ generate $\pi_1(M)$.
\[T61\] Let $(M,g)$ be a space and time orientable closed Lorentzian surface. Then $(M,g)$ contains
1. $4\cdot k_g$ closed leafs of the lightlike foliations and
2. $2\cdot k_g$ closed timelike as well as $2\cdot k_g$ closed spacelike geodesics.
For $(M,g)$ not time and space orientable we set $k_g:=k_{g'}$, where $(M',g')$ is a time and space orientable minimal cover. Minimal is the sense that there is no time and space orientable cover with smaller deck transformation group. Then we obtain the following corollary, via simple counting argument.
Every closed Lorentzian surface $(M,g)$ contains at least $k_g$-many timelike as well as spacelike closed geodesics.
\[E60\] Explicit examples show that this lower bound on the multiplicity is optimal. Consider for $k\in {\mathbb Z}$ on $\mathbb R^2$ the Lorentzian metrics: $$\overline{g}_k(x,y):= \sin(4\pi k x)[dx^2-dy^2]+\cos(4\pi k x)[dxdy]$$ These metrics induce Lorentzian metrics $g_k$ on $T^2={\mathbb R}^2/{\mathbb Z}^2$ with $k_{g_k}=|k|$. Then the equation of the geodesic for $\overline{g}_k$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{x}&-2\pi k \sin(4\pi kx)\cos(4\pi kx) \dot{x}^2\\
&+4\pi k\cos^2(4\pi kx) \dot{x}\dot{y}+2\pi k \cos(4\pi kx)\sin(4\pi kx) \dot{y}^2=0\\
\ddot{y}&-2 \pi k(1+\sin^2(4\pi kx))\dot{x}^2\\
&+4\pi k\sin(4\pi kx) \cos(4\pi kx) \dot{x}\dot{y}-2 \pi k\cos^2(4\pi kx) \dot{y}^2=0.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that closed causally constant curves cannot leave strips bounded by lightlike curves. Consequently any closed geodesic must be contained in one of the strips $x^{-1}(\frac{l}{k}+\frac{i}{4k},\frac{l}{k}
+\frac{i+1}{4k}),\; 0\le l\le k-1,\;0\le i\le 3$. If $\gamma\colon (\alpha_\gamma,\omega_\gamma)\to {\mathbb R}^2$, $t\mapsto \gamma(t)=:(x(t),y(t))$ is a geodesic with $\dot{x}(t_0)=0$ $(t_0\in (\alpha_\gamma,\omega_\gamma))$ in $x^{-1}(\frac{l}{k},\frac{l}{k}+\frac{1}{4k})$ or $x^{-1}(\frac{l}{k}+\frac{1}{2k},\frac{l}{k}+\frac{3}{4k})$ $(0\le l\le k-1)$, then $$\ddot{x}(t_0)=-2\pi k\cos(4\pi kx(t_0)) \sin(4\pi kx(t_0)) \dot{y}^2(t_0)<0.$$ Therefore the closed geodesics in these strips have to be constant in the $x$-coordinate. Note that in the present sign convention these closed geodesics are timelike. The timelike closed geodesics parameterize the sets $x^{-1}(\frac{8l+1}{8k})$ and $x^{-1}(\frac{8l+5}{8k})$. The same argument, only with signs reversed, applies to the closed (spacelike) geodesics in $x^{-1}(\frac{l}{k}+\frac{1}{4k},\frac{l}{k}+\frac{1}{2k})$ and $x^{-1}(\frac{l}{k}+\frac{3}{4k},\frac{l+1}{k})$. This shows that $(T^2,g_k)$ contains exactly $2\cdot k_g$ many closed timelike and $2\cdot k_g$ many closed spacelike geodesics. The number of closed leafs of the lightlike foliations is exactly $4\cdot k_g$. The geodesic flow of these manifolds is discussed in greater generality in [@sa1], Appendix, case (2C)(b)).
The claim is trivial for $k_g=0$. Therefore we can assume that $k_g>0$.
\(1) Consider the two transversal lightlike oriented foliations $\mathfrak{F}^+,\mathfrak{F}^-$ of $(M,g)$. We know that $\mathfrak{F}^+$ or $\mathfrak{F}^-$ contain closed leafs, since $k_g>0$.
Choose a prime fundamental class $\pi\in\pi_1(M)$ whose image spans the subspace representing $m^+=m^-$. Then all simply closed lightlike curves in $(M,g)$ have fundamental class either $\pi$ or $\pi^{-1}$. Divide the periodic orbits of $\mathfrak{F}^+$ into $\{\zeta^+_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ such that $[\zeta^+_\alpha]=\pi$ and $\{\eta^-_\beta\}_{\beta\in B}$ s.t. $[\eta^-_\beta]=\pi^{-1}$. The assertion will follow from: $\sharp A$, $\sharp B\ge k_g$.
Choose a vector field $X^+\in \Gamma(TM)$ tangential to $\mathfrak{F}^+$ and compatible with the orientation of $\mathfrak{F}^+$. Assume to the contrary that $\sharp A <k_g$. Cut $M$ along the $\zeta^+_\alpha$ in $\sharp A$-many annuli. These annuli contain, except on the boundary, no closed orbits of $\mathfrak{F}^+$ with fundamental class $\pi$. Let $Z$ be one of the annuli defined by $\mathfrak{F}^+$. Then $X^+$ restricts to a vector field on $Z$ tangential to the boundary. Identifying the boundary curves pointwise gives a torus $T^2$. $X^+|_Z$ projects to a vector field $X'$ on $T^2$. Choose a fundamental class $[\alpha]\in \pi_1(T^2)$ not contained in the image of $\pi_1(Z)$ under the projection. Now define the rotation number of $\mathfrak{F}^+|_Z$ as the degree of $X'\circ \alpha$. Note that any curve in $Z$ connecting the boundary components can be extended along the boundary such that the projection to $T^2$ of the extension is closed. The fundamental class of the projection is not in the image of $\pi_1(Z)$. Therefore the rotation number can be defined for curves connecting the boundary components of $Z$. The claim is that the absolute value of the rotation number on any annulus is at most one. Assume the rotation number to be non-vanishing. Then the number of Reeb-components in $Z$ must be even and at most two, since the boundaries of Reeb-components represent inverse homotopy classes in $\pi_1(Z)$. Note that the boundary must be part of the limit of these Reeb-components. Denote with $Z'$ the annulus bounded by the limit curves of the Reeb-components that are not the boundary. Since $\mathfrak{F}^+|_{Z'}$ contains no Reeb-components, $Z'$ gives rise to a regular curve $\gamma_{Z'}$ connecting the boundary components of $Z'$ and transversal to $\mathfrak{F}^+|_{Z'}$. Extend $\gamma_{Z'}$ to a curve $\gamma_Z$ connecting the boundary components of $Z$ such that the additional arcs do not intersect $Z'$. Since $TZ$ is trivial one can choose a vector field $Y_Z$ along $\gamma_Z$ equal to $X^+$ on $\gamma_{Z}|_{\partial Z\cup Z'}$ and transversal to $\dot{\gamma}_Z$ on $\gamma_Z\setminus \gamma_{Z'}$. The rotation number of $Y_Z$ along $\gamma_Z$ obviously vanishes. The rotation of $X^+$ along $\gamma_Z$ in one of the Reeb-components is $\pm 1/2$. Consequently the entire rotation number can only be $\pm 1$ (compare [@hehi] theorem 4.2.15).
Choose any fundamental class $\pi'$ such that $\{\pi,\pi'\}$ generate $H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})_{\mathbb R}$. Let $\gamma\colon S^1\to M$ be any representative of $\pi'$. By deforming $\gamma$ suitably we can assume that the restriction of $\gamma$ to every annulus connects the boundary components of this annulus. It is easy to see that the sum of the rotation numbers of the restrictions of $\gamma$ to the annuli is $k_g$. Since the rotation number on each annulus is $\pm 1$ or $0$, the sum is strictly smaller than $k_g$. This contradicts the assumption. Therefore $\sharp A, \sharp B\ge k_g$. The claim now follows since $(M,g)$ contains two transversal lightlike foliations.
\(2) Consider the annuli in $M$ bounded by closed leafs of $\mathfrak{F}^+$ and containing exactly one Reeb-component of $\mathfrak{F}^+$. Let $Z$ be one of these annuli. Choose vector fields $X^+$ tangential to $\mathfrak{F}^+$ and $X^-$ tangential to $\mathfrak{F}^-$ such that $X^-|_{\partial Z}$ points “outwards” and $\operatorname*{conv}\{X^+,X^-\}$ consists of timelike vectors. Note that the orbits of $X^+$ parameterizing $\partial Z$ represent inverse fundamental classes. Consider the $\alpha$-limit of the $X^-$-orbits through points in $\partial Z$. These $\alpha$-limits are compact leafs of $\mathfrak{F}^-$ and must be contained in $Z$ (Reeb-components do not have transversals). The boundary curves of $Z$ together with the associated $\alpha$-limits form two sub-annuli $Z^\pm$. Labels are distributed as follows: Denote $Z^-$ the annulus whose boundary orbits, one of $X^+$ and one of $X^-$, share the same fundamental class. Exactly one of the annuli satisfies this condition. In fact the $\alpha$-limit of the orbits of $X^+$ through points in $Z^\circ$ is the boundary curve of $Z^-$ belonging to $\mathfrak{F}^+$. The other annulus will be denoted by $Z^+$. Note that on $Z^-$ the lightlike vector fields which are not tangential to the boundary point outwards. Therefore $Z^-$ contains points whose $\omega$-limit of both $X^+$ and $X^-$ do not belong to $Z^-$. This shows that $Z^-$ contains a closed timelike curve. Lemma \[L60\] then implies the existence of a closed timelike geodesic in $Z^-$. The same argument applies to $Z^+$ except that $X^+$ has to be replaced by $-X^+$. This shows that $Z^+$ contains a closed spacelike geodesic. Part (1) showed that every lightlike foliation contains at least $2\cdot k_g$-many Reeb components. This implies part (2) of the proposition.
Schelling’s Diploma Thesis {#AB}
==========================
The results of [@schelling] represent important special cases of the results in the present text. For that reason and since they are not published anywhere, we will recollect the relevant parts in this appendix.
The diploma thesis [@schelling] considers closed Lorentzian $2$-manifolds $(M,g)$ such that both lightlike distributions are orientable. We have seen earlier that this implies $M$ to be orientable and therefore $M$ has to be diffeomorphic to the $2$-torus. First we review the results on the case $m^+\neq m^-$.
\[A1\] Let $(M,g)$ be a $2$-dimensional closed oriented spacetime such that $m^+\neq m^-$. Then the Abelian cover is globally hyperbolic.
The claim is contained in proposition \[P60\]. Therefore we skip the proof.
\[A2\] Let $h\in \operatorname*{int}\operatorname*{conv}(\overline{m}^+\cup \overline{m}^-)\cap H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})$. Then there exists a closed timelike geodesic $\gamma\colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ representing $h$ and maximizing arclength among all causal curves with homology class $h$.
The proof is an adaptation of well known techniques from [@hed1]. It includes a maximization argument on the space of closed causal curves representing $h$ very much like the argument for Tipler’s theorem. In fact it is possible to reduce the claim to Tipler’s theorem: Choose any simply connected smooth spacelike curve $\eta$ in $(M,g)$. Since $(M,g)$ is vicious (proposition \[P60\]) $\eta$ is not acausal in $(M,g)$. Further the proof of proposition \[P60\] directly implies that the Geroch covering of $M$ relative to $\eta$ is globally hyperbolic. Now Tipler’s theorem implies the claim. It should be noted that this is not the argument employed in [@schelling]. Therein the claim is proved directly, repeating Tipler’s argument in this special case.
As in [@hed1], the fact that we are considering geodesics in $2$-manifolds, gives further information on the minimal period of the closed geodesic:
\[CD10\] Let $\gamma\colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ be a closed timelike geodesic with homology class $h$ maximizing arclength among all causal representatives of $h$. Denote with $T$ the minimal period of $\gamma$. Then the class $h$ is relative prim in $H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})$, i.e. for any $h'\in H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})$ and $\lambda >0$ with $h=\lambda h'$ we have $\lambda =1$ and $h'=h$.
The proof relies on the observation that if $\gamma\ast\gamma$ is not maximal among all causal curves representing $2h$, then the closed timelike geodesic maximizing the arclength for $2h$ will intersect $\gamma\ast\gamma$ at least twice. These intersection are transversal since $\gamma\ast\gamma$ is not maximal. From this we could construct a causal curve representing $h$ with greater arclength that $\gamma$. This is a contradiction to our assumption.
[@schelling] contains partial results for the case $m^+ = m^-$ as well. In [@schelling] the approach is different from the one in this article, insofar as [@schelling] focuses on the dynamics of the foliations $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$. Our approach, on the other hand, relies rather on the set of causally constant loops.
Two disjoint closed leafs $\zeta_{1,2}$ of $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$ are called [*neighboring*]{} if the interior of the annulus bounded by $\zeta_{1,2}$ contains no closed leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^+$ or $\mathfrak{F}^-$. This notion naturally extends to the universal covering, by referring to periodic leafs rather than closed ones.
Let $\zeta^\pm$ be neighboring leaves of $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$. Denote $B$ the strip bounded by $\zeta^\pm$. Let $p\in B^\circ\cup \zeta^-$ and $q\in B^\circ
\cup \zeta^+$. Denote $\zeta^+_p$ the leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^+$ through $p$ and $\zeta^-_q$ the leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^-$ through $q$. Then $\zeta^+_p$ and $\zeta^-_q$ intersect exactly once. Further the intersection lies in $B^\circ$.
As we have seen above, the matter of finding maximal timelike geodesics in the case $m^+ = m^-$ is more subtle than in the case of $m^+ \neq m^-$. In [@schelling] a criterion is given whenever between two neighboring leafs of $\mathfrak{D}^\pm$ a maximal timelike periodic geodesics exists. The results of section \[lastB\] extend these special cases to the general case.
Let $m^+=m^-$. A non-periodic future pointing lightlike geodesic $\eta$ is [*affiliated*]{} to a periodic leaf $\zeta$ of $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$, if $\eta$ is either $\omega$-asymptotic towards $\zeta$ or $\eta$ intersects $\zeta$.
Denote by $\eta^\pm_p$ the future pointing geodesic parameterization of the leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^\pm$ through $p\in M$ with $\eta^\pm_p(0)=p$.
\[schell10\] Let $m^+=m^-$ and $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ be neighboring leafs. Denote by $B$ the connected component between $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$. Let $p\in B^\circ$. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
1. $\eta^+_p$ and $\eta^-_p$ are affiliated to different $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$.
2. $B$ contains a maximal periodic timelike geodesic.
[Smith]{}
L. Biliotti and F. Mercuri and P. Piccione, *On a [G]{}romoll-[M]{}eyer type theorem in globally hyperbolic stationary spacetimes*, Comm. Anal. Geom., $\mathbf{16}$, (2008), 333–393.
M. Caponio and M. Javaloyes and A. Masiello. *On the energy functional on Finsler manifolds and applications to stationary spacetimes*, arXiv:math/0702323v3, (2009)
Y. Carri[è]{}re and L. Rozoy, *Complétude des métriques lorentziennes de [${\bf T}\sp 2$]{} et difféormorphismes du cercle*, Bol. Soc. Brasil. Mat. (N.S.), $\mathbf{25}$, (1994), 223–235.
J. Flores, M. Javaloyes, P. Piccione. *Periodic [G]{}eodesics and [G]{}eometry of compact [L]{}orentzian [M]{}anifolds with a [K]{}illing [V]{}ector [F]{}ield*, Math. Z., $\mathbf{267}$, (2011), 221–233.
G. Galloway. *Closed timelike geodesics*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., $\mathbf{285}$, (1984), 379–388.
G. Galloway. *Compact [L]{}orentzian manifolds without closed nonspacelike geodesics*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., $\mathbf{98}$, (1986), 119–123.
R. Geroch. *Topology in [G]{}eneral [R]{}elativity*, J. Mathematical Phys., $\mathbf{8}$, (1967), 782–786.
R. Geroch. Domain of dependence, J. Mathematical Phys., $\mathbf{11}$, (1970), 437–449.
M. Guediri. *On the existence of closed timelike geodesics in compact spacetimes*, Math. Z., $\mathbf{239}$, (2002), 277–291.
S. Hawking and G. Ellis. *The large scale structure of space-time*, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, London (1973)
G. Hector and U. Hirsch. *Introduction to the geometry of foliations. [P]{}art [A]{}*, Aspects of Mathematics, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig (1986).
G. Hedlund. *Geodesics on a two-dimensional [R]{}iemannian [M]{}anifold with periodic [C]{}oefficients*, Ann. of Math. (2) $\mathbf{33}$, (1932), 719–739.
M. Hirsch and S. Smale. *Differential equations, dynamical systems, and linear algebra*, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 60, New York-London: Academic Press (1974).
A. Masiello. *Variational methods in [L]{}orentzian geometry* Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical (1994).
E. Minguzzi and M. S[á]{}nchez. *The causal hierarchy of spacetimes* in Recent developments in pseudo-[R]{}iemannian geometry, ESI Lect. Math. Phys., (2008) 299–358.
B. O’Neill. *Semi-[R]{}iemannian geometry*, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 103, New York-London: Academic Press (1983).
R. Penrose. *Techniques of differential topology in relativity*, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, No. 7, Philadelphia: SIAM (1972).
A. Romero and M. S[á]{}nchez. *On completeness of certain families of semi-[R]{}iemannian manifolds*, Geom. Dedicata, $\mathbf{53}$, (1994), 103–117.
M. S[á]{}nchez. *Structure of [L]{}orentzian tori with a [K]{}illing vector field*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., $\mathbf{349}$, (1997), 1063–1080.
M. S[á]{}nchez. *On causality and closed geodesics of compact [L]{}orentzian manifolds and static spacetimes*, Differential Geom. Appl., $\mathbf{24}$, (2006), 21–32.
E. Schelling. *Maximale [G]{}eodätische auf [L]{}orentzmannigfaltigkeiten*, Diplomarbeit, Freiburg, 1995.
F. Tipler. *Existence of closed timelike geodesics in [L]{}orentz spaces*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., $\mathbf{76}$, (1979), 145–147.
[^1]: 53C22, 53C50, closed geodesics, Lorentzian manifolds
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
biblabel\[1\][\#1]{}
makefntext\[1\][\#1]{}
**Efficient mixing of colloids, particles or molecules is a central issue in many processes. It results from the complex interplay between flow deformations and molecular diffusion, which is generally assumed to control the homogenization processes. In this work we demonstrate on the contrary that despite fixed flow and self-diffusion conditions, the chaotic mixing of colloidal suspensions can be either boosted or inhibited by the sole addition of trace amount of salt as a co-mixing species. Indeed, this shows that local saline gradients can trigger a chemically-driven transport phenomenon, diffusiophoresis, which controls the rate and direction of molecular transport far more efficiently than usual Brownian diffusion. A simple model combining the elementary ingredients of chaotic mixing with diffusiophoretic transport of the colloids allows to rationalize our observations and highlights how small-scale out-of-equilibrium transport bridges to mixing at much larger scales in a very effective way. Considering chaotic mixing as a prototypal building block for turbulent mixing, this suggests that these phenomena, occurring whenever the chemical environment is inhomogeneous, might bring interesting perspective from micro-systems up to large-scale situations, with examples ranging from ecosystems to industrial contexts.**
{#section .unnumbered}
Transport and mixing of molecules or particles play a central role in many processes, from large scales phenomena such as industrial chemical reactors, dispersion of pollutants or deposition of sediments involved in biochemical cycles [@dai1995signifi; @lee1992organic], down to the rapidly developing Lab-on-a-Chip micro-systems. In this field, strong limitation to mixing involved by small-scales viscous flows have triggered research for specific strategies [@Bringer2004; @Schonfeld2004] to optimize and facilitate (bio-)chemical analysis [@Burns1996] or synthesis [@Watts2003] operations in microsystems. The generic route for efficient mixing proceeds through the stretch and fold mechanism that generates ever-thinner structures of the substances to mix. This is achieved either from turbulent flow properties [@ottino1990mixing; @villermaux2006coarse] in large-scales situations, or through laminar chaotic flows in viscous regimes [@stroock2002chaotic; @raynal2007towards] and, accordingly, mixing has been mostly approached from the “large” hydrodynamic scales perspective, focusing on flow characteristics. In all such processes however, mixing or homogenization involves a continuous interplay of global deformation within the flow, and local molecular transport –generically assumed to occur through Brownian diffusion [@villermaux2000mixing; @villermaux2006coarse; @stroock2002chaotic; @Sundararajan2012].
![Salt effect on chaotic mixing of suspended particles. [**A.**]{} Sketch of chaotic mixing experimental setup: a suspension of fluorescent colloids (orange) and a raw buffer solution (black) are injected at constant flow rate into separate feeding channels (not shown) and merge into the main channel of a Staggered Herringbone Micromixer [@stroock2002chaotic] ($w = 200\,\mu\mbox{m}$, $h = 115\,\mu\mbox{m}$, $\lambda = 2\,\mbox{mm}$, $\alpha_1 = 0.35$) where a chaotic mixing of the two solutions takes place. [**B.**]{} Evolution of the suspension mixing process in the presence of salt: cross-section images of the central portion of the mixing channel at different locations $l$ after solutions’ merging (white scale bar: $50\,\mu\mbox{m}$; mean flow velocity $U=8.6\,$mm/s). Central row: reference mixing process without salt (*saltless* configuration); Upper and lower rows: effects of additional salt solute ($20\,$mM LiCl) either into colloidal suspension (*salt-in* configuration) or into the co-flowing buffer solution (*salt-out* configuration). []{data-label="fig:set-up"}](figure1.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
In this communication, we start from this molecular-scale perspective and ask if we can trigger a different molecular transport phenomenon, in place of the canonical diffusion, and impact in this way the global mixing properties. To explore this bottom-up approach to mixing, we consider an overlooked phenomenon –colloidal *diffusiophoresis*– recently studied in the context of surface-driven flow and non-equilibrium transport [@prieve1987diffusiophoresis; @Munson2002; @ajdari2006giant; @palacci2010colloidal; @palacci2012osmotic]. Local gradients of small chemicals –such as a salt– induce a migration of particles with transport properties that can be orders of magnitude higher than bare particles diffusion [@abecassis2008boosting; @abecassis2009osmotic]. We demonstrate here how this non-equilibrium phenomenon can be harnessed to take control of the molecular-scale transport involved in mixing and thus modify the overall mixing properties of suspended particles. Indeed we show for the first time that creating an inhomogeneous *chemical* environment by adding only traces of salt deeply alters the mixing dynamics of colloidal suspension, which can be either boosted or inhibited. Moreover, we present a simple model which allows to bridge between the new non-equilibrium nano-scale transport and the large-scale mixing properties.
Experimentally, the mixing of a suspension made of fluorescent colloids (200 nm diameter polystyrene, 0.02% w/v) with an aqueous buffer solution (1mM Tris, pH=9) is studied under laminar chaotic flows. This is done thanks to a Y-shaped microfluidic device (Fig. \[fig:set-up\]A) where the two solutions to mix merge into the main channel of a Staggered Herringbone Micromixer (SHM) [@stroock2002chaotic; @stroock2004investigation; @aubin2003characterization; @yang2005geometric]. Cross-section images are captured with confocal microscope at different channel locations $l$ from the inlet (See Supp. Mat. for further details $^\dag$). This allows to follow the evolution of the mixing process with elapsed time $t=l/U$ or with the number of stretch and fold cycles $l/\lambda$, with $U$ the mean downstream flow velocity and $\lambda$ the length of one SHM cycle. This SHM was shown to generate a chaotic mixing process [@stroock2002chaotic], see Fig. \[fig:set-up\]B middle.
Now, keeping the global hydrodynamics unchanged, we observe Fig. \[fig:set-up\]B that adding a small amount of a *passive* molecular solute ($20\,$mM LiCl salt) to one of the two solutions has a very noticeable impact on the mixing process. Indeed when salt is added to the colloidal suspension ([*salt-in*]{} configuration, Fig \[fig:set-up\]B top), initial stages of mixing show an increased concentration of the colloidal suspension associated with thinner and brighter fluorescent filaments with sharper edges as compared to the [*saltless*]{} reference mixing. A “pinch of salt” in the particles’ phase thus suppresses the homogenization within the mixing process, usually provided by the coupling with local diffusion. On the contrary, when salt is added to the buffer solution (~~ ~~configuration, Fig. \[fig:set-up\]B bottom), mixing is again modified but with opposite consequences. Initial stages of mixing now show thicker and dimmer fluorescent filaments with blurred edges (see [*e.g.*]{} $l/\lambda=4$ in Fig. \[fig:set-up\]B). There a trace concentration of salt has a clear enhancing mixing effect. Importantly, we stress that with salt contrasts from $\sim1\,$mM in buffer solvent to $20\,$mM in salty solution, no density or viscosity mismatches nor any floculation or interparticle interaction can be at stake here.
![Normalized sttandard deviation $\sigma = \sqrt{\langle c ^2 \rangle - \langle c\rangle^2}/\langle c \rangle$ of the colloids concentration $c$ in the channel cross-section as a function of the location $l/\lambda$ for the three mixing configurations (mean flow velocity $U=8.6\,$mm/s): *salt-in* (red), *saltless* (black), *salt-out* (blue). Three corresponding cross-sections are shown for illustration (*saltless* case). Mixing length $l_m$ (see text) is defined at a standard deviation threshold set to $\sigma_c=0.3$. []{data-label="fig:pictures"}](fig2.pdf){width="36.00000%"}
These observations are confirmed by a more quantitative analysis, using the normalized standard deviation of the colloids concentration field $\sigma = \sqrt{\langle c ^2 \rangle - \langle c\rangle^2}/\langle c \rangle$ to quantify mixing (where the concentration in colloids $c$ was checked to be proportional to the fluorescent intensity). As shown in Fig. \[fig:pictures\], this analysis confirms the previous picture: the presence of salt in the outer solution results in a faster decrease of the concentration inhomogeneities as compared to the [*saltless*]{} case, while, on the opposite, salt added to the colloidal suspension delays homogenization. In the following, we define a mixing length $l_m$ using a threshold value as $\sigma(l_m)=\sigma_c=0.3$.
With all flow parameters unchanged, our experiments clearly points to the importance of molecular effects in mixing processes. Such effects are known to occur in the homogenization step, where it is classically assumed that coupling with molecular diffusion allows for local cross-filament transport. Signature of molecular diffusivity has been reported so far in chaotic [@stroock2002chaotic; @stroock2004investigation] or moderately turbulent [@villermaux2000mixing; @villermaux2006coarse] mixing flows. Qualitatively, mixing is achieved when the diffusional spreading length $L_D$ compares with the typical width of the stretched filaments, say $L_S$. One readily expects $L_D\sim\sqrt{Dl_m/U}$, with $D$ the molecular diffusivity of the mixed species, while in a fully chaotic flow $L_S\sim(w/2)\exp{(-l_m/\delta)}$, with $w$ the channel width and $\delta$ the stretching length [@stroock2002chaotic]. This predicts a weak signature of molecular effects on the mixing length $l_m$ in the form $l_m\sim\log(Uw/D)$.
![[**A**]{} Reduced mixing length $l_m/\lambda$ as a function of molecular diffusivity $D$ (mean flow velocity $U=8.6\,$mm/s): ($\Box$) Rhodamine B dye, ($\Diamond$) Rhodamine-PEG5000, ([$\circ$]{}) 200 nm diameter colloids (saltless, black) and with 20 mM LiCl salt with colloidal suspension (salt-in, red) or with coflowing solution (salt-out, blue). [**B**]{} Diffusiophoretic transport in chaotic mixing: sketch of the underlying salt gradients at the edges of mixing filaments of colloidal suspension. For salt-in and salt-out configurations, total cross-filament flux of colloids (red beads) reads $\vec{j}_c = \vec{j}_D + \vec{j}_{DP}$, with bare diffusive flux $\vec{j}_D$ dominated by orders of magnitude [@abecassis2008boosting; @palacci2010colloidal] by diffusiophoretic transport $\vec{j}_{DP}$. One thus expects boosted-mixing (salt-out, left) or anti-mixing (salt-in, right). []{data-label="fig:sketchDiffusio"}](figure3.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
As shown in Fig. \[fig:sketchDiffusio\], this crude argument captures the main effect of molecular diffusivity on mixing in [*saltless*]{} solutions. In this graph, the mixing length $l_m$ is plotted – for a given flow velocity $U$ – versus the molecular diffusivity of the suspended particles, from molecules to colloids (see Supp. Mat. for further details $^\dag$), with diffusivities spanning more than 2 orders of magnitude. The measured evolution is compatible with the log dependency expected for chaotic flows, as reported previously for this SHM geometry whereby the effect of changing flow velocity $U$ was probed [@stroock2002chaotic].
Now, as is evident from Fig. \[fig:sketchDiffusio\], the salt effects as a co-mixing solute do not fit into this Brownian diffusion paradigm for molecular transport. With colloids diffusivity rigorously unchanged, [*salt-in*]{} and ~~ ~~configurations delay or boost mixing as if the molecular transport was changed by about 3 orders of magnitudes (as would be measured in “diffusivity scale” fig. \[fig:sketchDiffusio\]A). As we show now, this is a striking manifestation of the onset and influence of new out-of-equilibrium local transport (here diffusiophoresis) overtaking classical diffusion.
Diffusiophoretic transport refers to the migration of particles (colloids or macromolecules) induced by gradients of solute. This subtle phenomenon of osmotic origins was studied in pioneering works by Anderson, Prieve, and coworkers [@prieve1987diffusiophoresis; @anderson1989colloid] and recently received in-depth characterization of its effects on the migration, trapping or patterning of particles [@abecassis2008boosting; @abecassis2009osmotic; @Jiang:2009ke; @palacci2010colloidal; @palacci2012osmotic]. For salt as a solute with concentration field $C_s$, saline gradients induce a diffusiophoretic drift velocity of a particle as $$V_{DP} = D_{DP} \nabla\log C_s,
\label{eq:DDP}$$ where the diffusiophoretic (DP) mobility $D_{DP}$ has the dimension of a molecular diffusivity [@anderson1989colloid]. While the theoretical expression of $D_{DP}$ includes particle’s surface charge and salt-type corrections [@anderson1989colloid; @abecassis2008boosting], it is typically much larger than the bare colloid diffusion coefficient ($D_{DP}/D\gg1$), and close to small molecules fast diffusivities (here ${D_{\rm DP}}\simeq 290\,\mu\mbox{m}^2/s$ [@palacci2010colloidal]).
Coming back to the colloidal suspension mixing problem, it is now possible to propose a rationalization of the observed salt effects on the basis of this diffusiophoretic mechanism. As sketched in Fig. \[fig:sketchDiffusio\].B, the salt concentration fields $C_s$ exhibits strong gradients localized at the edges of the stretched filaments, thereby triggering a supplementary DP migration of the nearby colloids toward high salt concentrations, see Eq. \[eq:DDP\]. This will induce an accelerated spreading of the colloids profile for ~~~~ and conversely inhibit mixing for [*salt-in*]{}, in full agreement with the observed behavior in Fig. \[fig:sketchDiffusio\].A. This effect is measured systematically for colloids, for all flow velocities or SHM geometries probed as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:interplay\] where the [*salt-in*]{} and ~~ ~~mixing lengths, normalized by the [*saltless*]{} reference case $l_m^0$, are plotted against the Peclet number. Finally we need to emphasize that this effect shows up here although the salt concentration remains quite low ($20\,$mM). This is a key consequence of the $\log$ dependency in Eq. \[eq:DDP\] allowing response even for traces of solutes as recently demonstrated [@palacci2012osmotic].
Going beyond this analysis towards a more quantitative description of this effect constitutes an important challenge. It involves coupling two intrinsically complex mechanisms: the description of mixing and its complex interplay between flow deformation and local transport; together with the description of molecular-scale non-equilibrium phenomenon controlling here local colloids dynamics. A first step in this direction can be performed by considering the simplified coupling framework proposed by Ranz for the chaotic laminar mixing process [@ranz1979applications]. It consists in considering the reference frame of a stretched filament, whose axis are aligned with maximal compression and stretching directions, and to reduce the homogenization to a 1D cross-filament dynamics. For solute species where transport is only ruled by diffusion and flow-advection (*i.e.* single solute or [*saltless*]{} colloids), the Ranz model writes: $$\partial_t c -\gamma\, x\, \partial_x c = D \partial_x^2 c,
\label{RanzSalt}$$ with $x$ the direction perpendicular to the filament interface and $\gamma\propto U$ the principal strain rate. Transverse filament thickness evolves as $s(t)\sim s_0\exp{(-\gamma t)}$, with $s_0=w/2$ the initial width. This equation is solved by a change of variables $\xi=x/s(t)$ and $\tau=D\int_0^tdt'/s^2(t')$, yielding a simple diffusion equation from which concentration profiles are obtained [@ranz1979applications; @villermaux2008bridging]. This yields a mixing time for purely advection-diffusion dynamics in the form: $$t_m^0=\frac{1}{2\gamma}\log\left(\mathrm{Pe}/2 \right),
\label{eq:lm}$$ where the Peclet number is defined in the model as $\mathrm{Pe} = \gamma s_0^2/D\propto U w/2D$. This predicts a logarithmic dependence of the mixing length $l_m^0=U\,t_m^0$ in terms of the Peclet number. Despite the simplicity of Ranz model, it is well consistent with our experimental results for single species mixing (Fig. \[fig:sketchDiffusio\].A), in agreement with literature [@stroock2002chaotic; @stroock2004investigation; @villermaux2008bridging]. It is now possible to extend this framework to include the supplementary colloid DP migration. While the salt concentration $C_s$ is still ruled by Eq.(\[RanzSalt\]), the cross-filament dynamics of the colloids concentration $c$ in [*salt-in*]{} and ~~ ~~now writes: $$\partial_t c -\gamma\, x\, \partial_x c + \partial_x\left[V_{DP}\, c \right]= D_c \partial_x^2 c,
\label{RanzColl}$$ with $V_{DP}$ given by (\[eq:DDP\]), and $D_c$ the colloids diffusivity. In the reduced variables $(\xi, \tau_s)$ associated to salt dynamics, Eq.(\[RanzColl\]) transforms to $$\partial_{\tau_s} c + \partial_\xi\left[\left(\frac{sV_{DP}}{D_s}\right)\, c \right]\simeq0 ,
\label{RanzColl2}$$ where a diffusive term of order $D_c/D_s\ll1$ was neglected. Information on the filament interface position $\xi=\Xi(\tau_s)$ can be obtained using the method of characteristics, leading to $d\,\Xi/d\tau_s=s(\tau_s)V_{DP}(\Xi(\tau_s),\tau_s)/D_s$. For short times and small interface displacements $\tau_s, \xi \ll1$, the salt concentration $C_s(\xi,\tau_s)$ reduces to $c_0(1+\xi/\sqrt{\pi\tau_s})/2$ and one may obtain an expression for the interface displacement $\Delta\Xi = \Xi(\tau_s) - \Xi(0)$ as: $$\Delta\Xi\simeq \pm 2\frac{D_{DP}}{D_s}\sqrt{\frac{\tau_s}{\pi}},
\label{eq:FrontPos}$$ valid for short times; the sign $\pm$ corresponds to the ~~ ~~and [*salt-in*]{} cases respectively.
Let us now focus on the ~~ ~~case. One defines the –reduced– mixing time $\tau_s^\mathrm{out}$ as the time when the interface reaches the next colloidal suspension filament ($\xi=\pm1/2$). This is obtained as $\tau_s^\mathrm{out} ={D_s}/{2{D_{\rm eff}}}$, where we introduced an effective diffusion coefficient defined as ${D_{\rm eff}}=8{D_{\rm DP}}^2/(\pi D_s)$, in line with Ab[é]{}cassis [*et al.* ]{}[@abecassis2008boosting; @abecassis2009osmotic; @palacci2010colloidal]. One deduces accordingly, $$l_m^\mathrm{out}\equiv U\times t_m^\mathrm{out} = \frac{U}{2\gamma}\log\left(\mathrm{Pe}_\mathrm{eff}/2\right),
\label{eq:lmeff}$$ where we defined an effective Péclet number in the form $\mathrm{Pe}_\mathrm{eff}= 2\gamma s_0^2/{D_{\rm eff}}= \mathrm{Pe} \times (2D_c/{D_{\rm eff}})$.
Comparing with Eq. (\[eq:lm\]), this suggests that in the ~~ ~~configuration, the effect of diffusiophoresis can be mapped onto the classical mixing framework, provided the bare molecular diffusivity $D_c$ is replaced by an effective diffusivity ${D_{\rm eff}}/2$ (${D_{\rm eff}}=157\,\mu$m$^2$/s). Accordingly the relevant Peclet number is defined in terms of the [*effective diffusion*]{} coefficient ${D_{\rm eff}}$. Since ${D_{\rm eff}}\gg D_c$, we now expect large particles to mix as fast as small molecules in co-mixing configuration. While the mixing length is only a weak (logarithmic) function of the Peclet number, the huge change in effective diffusion leads a quantitative change in the mixing efficiency. This prediction is tested in Fig. \[fig:interplay\] where the experimental mixing lengths $l_m/\lambda$ obtained for various velocities and salts are plotted against the effective Peclet number $\mathrm{Pe}_\mathrm{eff}$ defined above. Although we do not expect this generalized Ranz model to capture the full complexity of the mixing process, it indeed provides an insightful framework that well captures the importance and basic mechanisms of this molecular co-mixing phenomenon.
![Reduced mixing length $l_m/\lambda$ as a function of –effective– Péclet number $\mathrm{Pe}_\mathrm{eff}$ for different velocities, molecular species and salt content (SHM geometrical parameters as in fig. \[fig:set-up\]). No salt: rhodamine B ($\Box$), rhodamine PEG5000 ($\Diamond$), [*saltless*]{} 200 nm colloids ([$\circ$]{}) ; 20 mM LiCl salt contrast: ~~ ~~200 nm colloids ([$\bullet$]{}); $\mathrm{Pe}_\mathrm{eff}$ calculated according to eq. (\[eq:lmeff\]). The black dashed line represents a $\log$ evolution of $\mathrm{Pe}_\mathrm{eff}$ [**Inset.**]{} Salt effects on mixing length for colloids $l_m/l_m^0$ as a function of Pe number, for different SHM geometrical characteristics. Salt-less mixing length $l_m^0$ is used as a normalization for [*saltless*]{} (red) and ~~ ~~ (blue) data. SHM specifications as in fig. \[fig:set-up\] except for $\alpha$: $\alpha_1 = 0.35$ ([$\circ$]{}), $\alpha_2 = 0.40$ ($\bigtriangleup$) and $\alpha_3 = 0.36$ ($\bigtriangledown$). []{data-label="fig:interplay"}](fig4.pdf){width="42.00000%"}
Finally, in contrast to the ~~~~ configuration, the analysis for the [*salt-in*]{} case requires accounting for the –up to now neglected– diffusive transport, which becomes the dominant mechanism for mixing at long time. While the above framework indeed predicts a focusing of the colloid profiles at early times –thus with *no possible diffusivity mapping*–, a full quantitative analysis is far more complex and we leave it for future investigations.
In conclusion, we demonstrate that traces of salt can considerably impact the chaotic mixing of suspensions: here synthetic colloids, but it generalizes to molecules [@Munson2002; @palacci2010colloidal], silica [@abecassis2008boosting] or clay particles, etc.. This arises from a shift in molecular transport, with canonical diffusion overtaken by diffusiophoresis. Unlike physically-applied fields, the chemical driving force under diffusiophoresis evolves under flow as a mirror of the colloids distribution, thus providing especially relevant and efficient transport unusually bridging across widely separated scales.
Beyond the here-demonstrated interest at microfluidic scale, we stress that diffusiophoresis should show up whenever colloids, particles or molecules evolve in an inhomogeneous chemical background. Combined with the fact that chaotic mixing can be viewed as a prototypal building block for turbulent mixing, this suggests that tuning the local transport properties may yield possible implications at upper-scales [@VolkRaynal2014], in a broad range of situations from bio-reactors to estuaries environment where fresh water full of sediments meets the salty seawater, see [*e.g.*]{} [@thill2001evolution]. Indeed, in the context of marine biology, the local non-equilibrium dynamics of bio-organisms, revealed at the micro-scale, has been hinted as a crucial factor for ocean-scale distribution [@paerl1996mini; @malits2004effects; @stocker2012marine; @taylor2012trade; @Durham2013].
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
We thank F. Raynal, M. Bourgoin and R. Volk for helpful discussions, P. Sundararajan for providing initial SHM master and design, G. Simon and R. Fulcrand for technical support. Microfabrication was performed using the NanoLyon facilities (INL). We acknowledge financial support from ANR SYSCOM and from LABEX iMUST (ANR-10-LABX-0064/ ANR-11-IDEX-0007) under project MAXIMIX.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study geodesics on planar Riemann surfaces of infinite type having a single infinite end. Of particular interest is the class of geodesics that go out the infinite end in a most efficient manner. We investigate properties of these geodesics and relate them to the structure of the boundary of a Dirichlet polygon for a Fuchsian group representing the surface.'
author:
- Andrew Haas and Perry Susskind
title: The geometry at infinity of a hyperbolic Riemann surface of infinite type
---
introduction
============
A flute surface $S$ is most simply described as a connected domain in the complex plane, for which all but one of the components in the complement of $S$ is isolated from the others. Flute surfaces were first considered by Basmajian [@bas1] as examples of the simplest sort of hyperbolic Riemann surface of infinite type. A flute surface has a single infinite end. The presence of such an infinite end, even one of this simple sort, allows for many different possibilities for the geometry of the surface, which have no parallels in the theory of finite surfaces. In this paper, our main concern is with the behavior of the geometry associated to the infinite end of the surface, as described by the special classes of infinite critical and subcritical geodesic rays. These are geodesic rays that head either directly, or almost directly, out the infinite end of the surface. In the theory of Fuchsian groups, these types of rays are related to the existence of Dirichlet and Garnett points in the limit set of a Fuchsian group representing the surface [@haas; @Waterman; @Sullivan].
Our approach is to employ a sequence of cut and paste operations to construct flute surfaces with complex end structure, where the building blocks are the simple untwisted flutes surfaces studied in [@bas1; @haas]. We refer to the surfaces constructed in this way as [*quilted*]{} flute surfaces. The geometry out the infinite end of a quilted flute surface is considerably more complex than the end geometry of an untwisted flute. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that there are certain fundamental similarities.
The boundary at infinity of a Dirichlet polygon for a Fuchsian group may be regarded as one measure of the complexity of the end geometry of the surface represented by the group. Applying our construction of quilted surfaces we show that, up to a sparse set, one can exercise surprising control over the boundary at infinity of a Dirichlet polygon for a quilted surface group. To this end we prove
\[C\] Let $K$ be a compact subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}}$. There is a Fuchsian group $G$ representing a quilted flute surface and a point $\tilde{p}\in{\Bbb{H}}^2$ so that the boundary at infinity of the Dirichlet polygon for $G$ centered at $\tilde{p}$ consists of the union of the set $K$ and a countable set of isolated parabolic fixed points of $G$.
The paper is structured as follows. We begin in Section \[review\], with a review of some facts about flute surfaces. In Section \[quilts\] we construct quilted flute surfaces and derive some of their basic properties. In Section \[number4\] we investigate a special class of canonical critical rays that go out the infinite end of a quilted flute surface. The complexity of the set of such rays is one measure of the complexity of the surface. Before moving on to probe more results about quilted surfaces we must turn to the hyperbolic plane. In Section \[lemmas\] we prove several lemmas, crucial to the proofs in later sections. In Section \[example2\] we develop an intrinsic version of Theorem \[C\] for quilted surfaces and show how this can be used to to prove Theorem \[C\]. In the last section we look at the finer structure of the set of infinite critical and subcritical geodesics rays. The main result of Section \[close\] is that there is an underlying geodesic scaffolding, heading out the infinite end, which all infinite critical and subcritical geodesic rays must approach asymptotically. This is a broad generalization of a similar result about untwisted flutes, that appeared in [@haas]. In obtaining these results we employ a number of lemmas. Several of these are results about plane hyperbolic geometry which are interesting in their own right.
Basic properties of flute surfaces {#review}
==================================
The main reference for the material in this section is [@haas].
Define an [*end*]{} [E]{} of a manifold $M$ as follows. Let $
K_1 \subset K_{2} \subset ...\subset M$ be a nested sequence of compact subsets of $M$ so that $\bigcup^{\infty}_{i=1} K_{i} = M$. An end [E]{} is a sequence of connected components $\{{\sf E}_i\}$ in the complement of $K_{i}$ so that ${\sf E}_{i+1} \subset {\sf
E}_i$. This definition can be made independent of the given exhaustion $\{ K_i\}$. A ray $\sigma$ is said to [*go out the end*]{} [E]{}, if for each integer $i > 0$ all but a compact segment of $\sigma$ belongs to ${\sf E}_i.$
Let $S$ be a hyperbolic surface. An end [E]{} of $S$ is called a [*puncture*]{} if there is a subset $D$ of $S$ which is conformally equivalent to the punctured disc $\{ z \ | \
0<|z|<1\}$ and for $i$ large, $ {\sf E}_i\subset D$. Similarly, we call [E]{} a [*hole*]{} if there is a subset $D$ of $S$ which is conformally equivalent to an annulus $\{ z \ |\ 1<|z|<r\}$ for some $r>1$ and for $i$ large, $ {\sf E}_i\subset D$. [E]{} is a [*finite end*]{} if it is either a puncture or a hole; otherwise it is an [*infinite end*]{}.
An end ${\sf E} = \{{\sf E}_i\}$ is said to be of the [*second kind*]{} if $S$ contains a half-plane $P$ and for all $i>
0$, ${\sf E}_i\bigcap P\not=\emptyset$. If an end is not of the second kind then it is of the [*first kind*]{}. A puncture is of the first kind and a hole is of the second kind.
Let ${\bf S}$ denote the infinite cylinder ${\bf C}={\rm
S}^1\times(0,\infty),$ with the set of points $\{ (1,n)|\,n\in \Bbb{N}
\}$ deleted, and define the space $\mathcal{ F}$ of isometry classes of complete metrics of constant curvature -1, that is, hyperbolic metrics on the surface [S]{}. Define an involution $r:
{\sf S}\rightarrow {\sf S}$ by $r(e^{i\theta},t)
=(e^{-i\theta},t)$. Let $\mathcal{ F}_0 \subset \mathcal{ F}$ be the set of isometry classes in $\mathcal{ F}$ for which there exists a representative surface on which $r$ is an isometry. Henceforth we shall treat elements of $\mathcal{ F}$ and $\mathcal{ F}_0$ as hyperbolic surfaces and suppose, in the latter case, that $r$ is an isometry. A surface in $\mathcal{ F}$ is called a [*flute*]{}; one in $\mathcal{ F}_0$ is called an [*untwisted flute*]{}. An explicit construction of flutes is given in [@bas1]. A flute has one infinite end and has a finite end associated to each of the deleted points $(1,n)$ and to the ideal boundary ${\rm S}^1\times\{0\}.$ Note that each of these ends can be of the first or the second kind, depending on the hyperbolic metric we have chosen. The proposition below, whose proof is given after we develop some notation, shows that this definition of a flute surface is consistent with the definition given in the introduction.
\[planar\] $S$ is a flute surface if and only if $S$ is conformally equivalent to a connected domain in ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ with a single infinite end.
Let $S$ be a hyperbolic surface and $\sigma :[0,\infty)\rightarrow
S$ a geodesic ray. Here and henceforth, all geodesics are parameterized by arc length. Define the function $\Delta_{\sigma}(t)= t - d_{S}(\sigma(0),\sigma(t)) $, where $d_{S}$ denotes distance as defined by the hyperbolic metric on $S$. The ray $\sigma$ is then said to be [*horocyclic, critical, [*or*]{} subcritical*]{} if $\Delta_{\sigma}$ is respectively, unbounded, zero, or nonzero but bounded. A critical ray may be said to travel directly out an end of $S,$ and a subcritical ray may be said to travel almost directly out an end. It is known (see, [@haas; @Waterman]) that critical rays are simple and subcritical rays are simple beyond some point.
Let ${\sf E} = \{{\sf E}_i\}$ be an end of a flute $F$. It is known from [@haas] that for any $p\in F$ there is a critical ray with initial point $p$ that goes out the end [E]{}. When the end ${\sf E}$ is a finite end, critical and subcritical rays that go out the end ${\sf E}$ are called [*finite*]{} critical or subcritical rays; otherwise, if the end ${\sf E}$ is an infinite end, they are called [*infinite*]{}. Furthermore, a critical or a subcritical ray always goes out some end of $F$ . We shall primarily be interested in the infinite critical and subcritical rays on $F$.
Given a flute surface $F\in \mathcal{ F},$ and an integer $n\geq 0,$ let $\alpha_n$ denote the simple closed geodesic on $F$ in the free homotopy class of the curve $$t\rightarrow (e^{it} , n+\frac{1}{2}), 0\leq
t\leq 2\pi.$$ We shall refer to a geodesic $\alpha_n$ as a [*dividing loop*]{} on $F.$ Note that these are well defined with the possible exception of $\alpha_0$, which exists only if the end corresponding to the ideal boundary $S^1\times \{0\}$ is a hole. In what follows we shall always take this end to be a hole so that $\alpha_0$ does exist.
Let $\beta^* = \{(-1,t)\mid t\in (0,\infty)\}$ and for integers $n\geq 0$ let $\gamma_n =
\{(1,t)\mid n < t< n+1\}$. Suppose in addition that $F$ is an untwisted flute. Then $\beta^*$ and $\gamma_n$ are geodesics since they are fixed by the isometry $r.$ We shall refer to the geodesics $\gamma_n$ as the $\gamma$-curves of $F$. For each $n$ the geodesics $\beta^*$ and $\gamma_n$ are both orthogonal to the dividing loop $\alpha_n$. Also, for any point $p$ on $\beta^*$ the geodesic ray beginning at $p$ going out the infinite end of $F$ along $\beta^*$ is a critical ray. We shall refer to $\beta^*$ as the canonical Dirichlet geodesic on $F$ and assume it to be oriented out the infinite end, with $\beta^*(0)\in \alpha_0.$
.1in [*Proof of Proposition \[planar\]*]{} Suppose $S$ is a domain in the complex plane with a single infinite end. We refer to the connected components in the complement of $S$ as complementary components. Let $\Delta_{\infty}$ denote the complementary component corresponding to the infinite end of $S$. $S$ is endowed with the unique hyperbolic metric in its conformal equivalence class. We shall define a sequence of simple closed geodesics on $S$ so that each component in the complement of this set of geodesics on $S$ is a triply connected domain, referred to as a pair of pants, (see [@bas2]).
Let $\Delta$ be a complementary component not containing the point at infinity. Define the distance between $\Delta$ and $\Delta_{\infty}$ as the infimum of the (Euclidean) distances between points in $\Delta$ and $\Delta_{\infty}$ and denote this distance by $d(\Delta, \Delta_{\infty}).$ It is possible to index the complementary components not containing the point at infinity by ${\Bbb{N}}$, so that $d(\Delta_i , \Delta_{\infty})\geq d(\Delta_{i+1} , \Delta_{\infty}).$ Let $\overline{\alpha}_1$ be a simple closed curve on $S$ that divides ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ into two pieces, one of which contains only the two complementary components $\Delta_1$ and the component containing the point at infinity. Let $\alpha_1$ be the geodesic in the free homotopy class of $\overline{\alpha}_1$ on $S$. Suppose the geodesics $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$ have been defined. Let $\overline{\alpha}_{n+1}$ be a simple closed curve, disjoint from $\alpha_n$, so that the region of ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ bounded by $\alpha_n$ and $\overline{\alpha}_{n+1}$ contains the single complementary component $\Delta_{n+1}$. Let $\alpha_{n+1}$ be the geodesic freely homotopic to $\overline{\alpha}_{n+1}$ on $S$.
Let $Q$ be the set of geodesics $\alpha_i,\, i\in{\Bbb{N}}$ defined above. Let $P_i$ denote the connected component of $S\setminus Q$ whose boundary meets the boundary of $\Delta_i$. Each of the $P_i$ is a pair of pants. Now $S$ can be reconstructed from the sets $P_i$ by gluing’ $P_i$ to $P_{i+1}$ along their common geodesic boundary $\alpha_i$ to get a flute surface, as in [@bas1].
To prove the converse, we simply observe that every closed curve on a flute surface $F$ divides. It is known, (see [@ahlfors]), that $F$ is then conformally equivalent to a domain in the plane. Since $F$ has a single infinite end, the proof is complete. $ \hfill\Box $\
Gluing untwisted flutes {#quilts}
========================
Flute surfaces on which the asymptotic geometry displays more diverse behavior than that exhibited by untwisted flutes can be constructed by gluing together untwisted flutes of the first kind that have been sliced open along their canonical Dirichlet geodesics. We shall describe a way to perform the construction to allow for infinitely many gluings along a superstructure of scaffolding curves defined by choosing a closed subset of an oriented circle of a given circumfrence.
The finite steps {#finite}
----------------
Let $A$ denote the hyperbolic cylinder with the oriented simple closed geodesic $\alpha_0$ dividing $A$ into subsets $A^+$ and $A^-,$ where $A^+$ is to the right of $\alpha_0.$ $A$ is completely determined by the length of $\alpha_0,$ which we denote by $a=|\alpha_0|.$ Let $C$ be a closed subset of $\alpha_0$ and let $p$ be a distinguished point on $\alpha_0$. The complement of $C$ in $\alpha_0$ is a countable union of open geodesic segments which we refer to as intervals. Order the intervals lexicographically in terms of length (larger lengths precede smaller lengths) and oriented distance from $p,$ to get a sequence of oriented intervals $\{I_i\}_{i=1}^{l},$ where $l,$ which may be infinity, is the number of components in the complement of $C$ on $\alpha_0.$ Henceforth, we assume that $2\leq l\leq \infty.$ Label the endpoints of $I_i,\, e_i^1 $ and $e_i^2,$ where $I_i$ is oriented from $e_i^1 $ to $e_i^2.$ Through each point $e_i^j$ there is a unique biinfinite geodesic $\epsilon_i^j$ orthogonal to $\alpha_0$ and oriented in the direction of the end $A^+$, with $\epsilon_i^j(0)=e_i^j.$ Except in the case where two geodesics with different names coincide, these geodesics are pairwise disjoint and the two ends of each $\epsilon_i^j$ go out the two ends of the cylinder $A$. We shall refer to the the union of the geodesics $\epsilon_i^j$ and the intervals $I_i$ as the [*scaffolding*]{}. Note that the scaffolding is completely determined by the choice of the point $p,$ the orientation on $\alpha_0$ the length $|\alpha_0|$ and the set $C$.
Let $E_i$ denote the hyperbolic strip in $A$ bounded by the geodesics $\epsilon_i^1$ and $\epsilon_i^2$ and containing the interval $I_i.$ The scaffolding structure will serve as a foundation for the construction in which the hyperbolic strip $E_i$ shall be removed and then replaced by an untwisted flute surface which has been sliced open along its canonical Dirichlet geodesic. Consequently, in addition to the foundational information provided, the construction also requires a description of the flute surfaces that are to be glued in. For each $i\in \Bbb{N},$ let $F_i$ be an untwisted flute. We shall henceforth assume that the infinite end on each of the untwisted flutes $F_i$ is of the 1st kind. One can provide sufficient conditions which guarantee this; for example, if the dividing loops grow sufficiently slowly, then the end is of the 1st kind.
Denote the sequence of dividing geodesics on $F_i$ by $\alpha_{i,k}$ where $k=0,1,2,\ldots$ We suppose that the length $|\alpha_{i,0}|$ of $\alpha_{i,0}$ is equal to the length $|I_i|$ of the interval $I_i$. On the flute $F_i$ orient the canonical Dirichlet geodesic $\beta_i^*$ in the direction of the infinite end of $F_i $ and so that $\beta_i^*(0)\in \alpha_{i,0}.$ Orient the geodesic ${\alpha }_{i,0}$ on $F_i$ so that the infinite end is to its right. Cut open $F_i$ along $\beta_i^*$ to get the complete hyperbolic surface $F_i^*$ with boundary. $F_i^*$ has the two boundary geodesics $\beta_i^1$ and $\beta_i^2$, where the cut open ${\alpha }_{i,0}$ is oriented from the the point $ \beta_i^1\cap{\alpha }_{i,0}$ to $ \beta_i^2\cap{\alpha }_{i,0}$. Each $\beta_i^j$ inherits a parameterization from $\beta_i^*.$ By re-identifying the boundary geodesics $\beta_i^1$ and $\beta_i^2$ so that $\beta_i^1(t)$ is glued to $\beta_i^2(t),$ for $t\in {{\mathbb{R}}},$ the starting flute $F_i$ will be reproduced.
On $F^*_i$ we shall continue to refer to the cut open dividing loops $\alpha_{i,k}$ by the same names. Observe that the involution $r$ of $F_i$ induces an isometric involution $r^*$ of $F_i^*$, interchanging $\beta_i^1(t)$ and $\beta_i^2(t)$ for $t\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$, fixing the $\gamma$-curves and mapping each $\alpha_{i,k}$ onto itself.
With the data consisting of $A,\, p,\, C$ and the surfaces $F_i$, we define a sequence of flute surfaces $S_n,$ constructed by a succession of single replacements of the type described at the beginning of the section, as follows. Set $S_0=A.$ Suppose that the hyperbolic surface $S_i$ has been defined for some $i\geq0,$ and has the property that $S_{i}$ contains an isometric copy of the original scaffolding, so that the union of the scaffolding and the strips $E_k$ with $k>i$ embeds isometrically in $A$. (Here objects with the same name are identified by the embedding.)
In order to construct $S_{i+1}$ begin by removing the interior of the strip $E_{i+1}$ from $S_i$. Insert $F_{i+1}^*$ in place of $E_{i+1}$ by identifying the two pairs of geodesics $\epsilon_{i+1}^j$ and $\beta_{i+1}^j,\, j=1,2 ,$ so that $\epsilon_{i+1}^j(t)$ is identified with $\beta_{i+1}^j(t)$ for $t\in {{\mathbb{R}}}.$ On $S_{i+1}$ the identified pair $\epsilon_{i+1}^j$ and $\beta_{i+1}^j $ shall be denoted by $\beta_{i+1}^j $, which inherits their parameterization. The surface $S_{i+1}$ has a hyperbolic metric defined locally at every point and is easily seen to be complete. Therefore $S_{i+1}$ is a hyperbolic surface. Furthermore, it naturally contains a copy of $S_{i}\setminus E_{i+1}$, as well as a copy of $F_{i+1}^*$.
The set of all the geodesics $\beta_{m}^j $ on $S_n$ where $m=1,\ldots, n$ and $ j=1,2 $ shall be denoted by $B_n$.
\[prop\] The surfaces $S_n$ are all flute surfaces.
First observe that if two planar surfaces are glued together in the plane then the result is a planar surface. Each flute $F_i$, as well as its cut open relative $F_i^*$, is planar. By induction it follows that each of the surfaces $S_n$ is planar
Next we argue by induction that each $S_n$ has a single infinite end. Suppose this is true for $S_i$. Let $K^*_j$ be a compact exhaustion of $S_i$ with the property that $I_{i+1} \in K^*_j$ for each $j$ and similarly choose a compact exhaustion $K^{\#}_j$ of $F_{i+1}$ so that $\alpha_{i+1,0}\subset K^{\#}_j$ for each $j$. The $K_j^*$ correspond to the sets on $S_i\setminus E_{i+1},$ also called $K_j^*,$ which give a compact exhaustion of $S_i\setminus\ E_{i+1}.$ Similarly, the $ K^{\#}_j$ correspond to sets on $F_{i+1}^*,$ also called $ K^{\#}_j,$ which induce a compact exhaustion of $F_{i+1}^*$. Then $K_j=K^{\#}_j\cup K^*_j$ is a compact exhaustion of $S_{i+1}$. Let ${\sf E}_j$ be a nested sequence of complementary components of the sequence $\{K_j\}.$ Then one of the following three possibilities holds: for $j$ sufficiently large, either ${\sf E}_j\subset S_i \setminus E_{i+1}$ or ${\sf E}_j\subset F_{i+1}^*$, or ${\sf E}_j$ has non-empty intersection with both $S_i \setminus E_{i+1}$ and $F_{i+1}^*$ for all $j$. In the first two cases the corresponding end must be finite. In the last case it is possible that the sets ${\sf E}_j$ are all cylinders lying to the left of $\alpha_0$ and consequently, the corresponding end is finite. The remaining case occurs when each ${\sf E}_j$ is a union of open sets on $S_i \setminus E_{i+1}$ and $F_{i+1}^*$ belonging to the infinite end of each of those surfaces. In only this last case is it possible for the corresponding end to be infinite. Thus $S_{i+1}$ has a single infinite end and $S_n$ is a flute surface for all integers $n\geq 0$.
Geometric convergence of flute surfaces
---------------------------------------
Here we show that it is possible to define a flute surface as a limit of the finite constructions described in the previous section. We begin with the Fuchsian groups representing the surfaces and show that there is a way to normalize the groups so that one representing a surface $S_n$ contains the group for the surface $S_m$ when $n>m$. This leads to the definition of the surface $S_{\infty}$. Then, on the level of the intrinsic geometry, we prove that it is possible to view an arbitrarily large chunk of $S_{\infty}$ as the isometric images of a large chunk of $S_n,$ for $n$ sufficiently large. This last fact leads to a proof that $S_{\infty}$ is a flute surface. These results will allow us to assume, in the proofs of several of the theorems that follow, that we are working on one of the surfaces $S_n,$ rather than on the more complex surface $S_{\infty}.$
\[convergeL\] There exists a nested sequence of Fuchsian groups $\Gamma_0\subset\Gamma_1\subset\ldots, $ so that for each integer $n\geq 0$, ${\Bbb{H}}^2/ \Gamma_n=S_n.$ Furthermore, the image of the imaginary axis $I\subset {\Bbb{H}}^2$ covers the geodesic $\alpha_0$ on $S_n$ and the left half-plane $H^-$ covers the annular region $A^-$ on $S_n$.
Given $|\alpha_0|=a$, let $\Gamma_0$ be the group generated by the Möbius transformation $g_0(z)=e^az.$ Observe that the imaginary axis, denoted by $I$, projects to the geodesic $\alpha_0$ on $A={\Bbb{H}}^2/\Gamma_0$ and the left and right half-planes project, respectively, to the subannuli $A^-$ and $A^+$.
Define the sequence of Fuchsian groups recursively. Suppose the groups $\Gamma_0\subset\ldots\subset\Gamma_n$ have been defined. Set $E_{n+1}^+= E_{n+1}\cap A^+.$ Remove the subsurface $E_{n+1}^+$ from $S_n$ to get the surface $S'_n.$ A loop on $S'_n$ is homotopically trivial on $S'_n$ if and only if it is homotopically trivial on $S_n.$ Therefore, the preimage $\tilde{S}'_n$ of $S'_n$ under the covering projection $\pi_n:{\Bbb{H}}^2\rightarrow S_n$ is a connected and simply connected, $\Gamma_n$-invariant set and the restriction $\pi_n:\tilde{S}'_n\rightarrow S'_n$ is the universal covering.
Suppose $G_{n+1}$ is a Fuchsian group representing $S_{n+1}$. Let $F_{n+1}^+= F^*_{n+1}\cap A^+.$ Then remove $F_{n+1}^+$ from $S_{n+1}$ to get the surface $S^+_{n+1}.$ Let $\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}$ be a connected preimage of $S^+_{n+1} $ under the covering projection $\pi_{n+1}:{\Bbb{H}}^2\rightarrow S_{n+1}.$ Then $\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}$ is simply connected and the restriction $\pi_{n+1}:\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}\rightarrow S^+_{n+1}$ is the universal covering. Let $G^+_{n+1}$ be the stabilizer of $\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}$ in $G_{n+1}.$
By the construction, $S'_n$ and $S^+_{n+1} $ are identical. Thus there is an isometric bijection $\varphi:S'_n\rightarrow S^+_{n+1} $ which lifts to an isometry $\tilde{\varphi}:\tilde{S}'_n\rightarrow
\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}$. Since $\tilde{S}'_n$ and $\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}$ are subsets of hyperbolic space, $\tilde{\varphi}$ must be the restriction of a Möbius transformation and $\Gamma_n=\tilde{\varphi}^{-1}G^+_{n+1}\tilde{\varphi}.$ It follows also that $\Gamma_{n+1}=\tilde{\varphi}^{-1}G_{n+1}\tilde{\varphi} $ is a Fuchsian group representing $S_{n+1} $ and $\Gamma_{n+1}\supset\Gamma_n.$
Note that $\varphi$ maps the geodesic $\alpha_0$ on $S'_n$ to its counterpart on $S^+_{n+1} $ and identifies the corresponding copies of $A^-$. Thus $\tilde{\varphi}$ will map $I$ to a geodesic in $\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}$ that covers $\alpha_0$ and takes the left half-plane $H^-$ in ${\Bbb{H}}^2$ to a corresponding hyperbolic half-plane in $\tilde{S}^+_{n+1}$ that covers $A^-.$ It follows that for all integers $n\geq 0$, $H^-$ is precisely invariant in $\Gamma_n$ under $\Gamma_0$; that is, $h(H^-)\cap H^- \not =\emptyset$ if and only if $h\in \Gamma_0.$ Thus, $H^-$ projects to $A^-$ and $I$ projects to $\alpha_0$ on each $S_n.$
We are now in a position to define the limiting surface $S_{\infty}.$ First, define $\d{\Gamma_{\infty}=\cup_{n=0}^{l}\Gamma_n}$, where $2< l\leq\infty$ is the number of components in the complement of $C$ on $\alpha_0.$ None of the $\Gamma_n$ contain elliptic elements, and therefore the same must be true of $\Gamma_{\infty}$. Since, for $n> 0$ $\Gamma_n$ is non-elementary, it follows that $\Gamma_{\infty}$ is a Fuchsian group, [@beardon]. Define $ S_{\infty}={\Bbb{H}}^2/\Gamma_{\infty}.$ Let $\pi_{\infty}\rightarrow S_{\infty}$ denote the quotient map. Set the notation $S_{\infty}=S(\alpha_0, p, C,\{F_i\})$ to emphasize the fact that the orientation on $\alpha_0,$ the point $p,$ the length $a=|\alpha_0|$, the closed set $C,$ and the sequence of untwisted flutes $F_i$ together define the surface.
As usual $B(q,r)\subset {\Bbb{H}}^2$ shall denote the set of points of distance less than r from q and we let $B^c(q,r)$ denote its closure. Let $i$ be the imaginary value $\sqrt{-1}.$ Without loss of generality, we can suppose that $i$ projects to the point $p$ on $A$. Consider the translates of the closed ball $B^c(i,r)$ by the transformations in $\Gamma_n$. Given $r>0$ there is a value $M_r\in {\Bbb{N}}$ so that for $ M_r\leq n\leq \infty$ and $g\in \Gamma_n,$ if $ g(B^c(i,r))\cap B^c(i,r)\not =\emptyset$ then $g\in \Gamma_{M_r}.$ This must be so since, in a Fuchsian group, only finitely many $\Gamma_{\infty}$-translates of the compact set $B^c(i,r)$ may intersect $B^c(i,r)$.
Thus, for $n\geq M_r$, the projections $\pi_n(B^c(i,r))$ are isometrically equivalent in the most natural way. Note $\pi_n(B^c(i,r))$ is connected and since the set of transformations that create intersections is finite, the complement of $\pi_n(B^c(i,r))$ in $S_n$ has $k<\infty$ components. Let $U_{n,1},\ldots U_{n,k-1}$ denote the complementary components of $\pi_n(B^c(i,r))$ in $S_n$ that do not contain the infinite end. Call these the finite components. For $n\geq M_r,$ define $\d{S_n(r) =\cup_{j=1}^{k-1} U_{n,j} \cup \pi_{n}(B^c(i,r))}$ Let $p_n\in S_n$ be the projection $\pi_n(i)$ and similarly set $\alpha_0^n=\pi_n(I).$ We have just given distinct names to the point $p$ and the geodesic $\alpha_0.$ Intrinsically, for $n\in {\Bbb{N}}$, $S_n(r)$ is the closed ball of radius $r$ about $p_n$ in $S_n,$ with the finite complementary components added on. It is not yet clear that this will work for $S_{\infty}$, since we have not proved that $S_{\infty}$ is a flute.
The next proposition asserts a kind of strong geometric convergence of the surfaces $S_n$ to $S_{\infty}$.
\[embed\] Given $r>e^{\frac{a}{2}}$ there is a number $N_r\in {\Bbb{N}}$ so that for $m>n\geq N_r$ there exists an isometric bijection $\varphi_{n,m}:S_n(r)\rightarrow S_m(r) $ with $\varphi_{n,m}(\alpha_0^n)=\alpha_0^m$ and $\varphi_{n,m}(p_n)=p_m.$ Furthermore, for $ n\geq N_r$ there exists an isometric embedding $\varphi_n:S_n(r)\rightarrow S_{\infty}$ with $\varphi_{n}(\alpha_0^n)=\alpha_0^{\infty}=\pi_{\infty}(\alpha_0)$ and $\varphi_{n }(p_n)=p_{\infty}=\pi_{\infty}(p).$
A collar of width $2R$ about a simple closed geodesic $\beta$ on a hyperbolic surface $S,$ written $C_S(\beta,R),$ is the set of points on $S$ of distance less than $R$ from $\beta.$ The classical Collar Lemma implies that given $R>0$ there is an number $L>0$ so that if $|\beta|<L$ then $C_S(\beta,R)$ is isometric to the collar $C_A(\alpha,R),$ where $A$ is an annulus with core geodesic of length $|\alpha|=|\beta|.$ More precisely, $C_S(\beta,R)$ is isometric to the collar $C_A(\alpha,R) $ if $\sinh R= (2\sinh |\beta|/2)^{-1},$ where $|\alpha|=|\beta|,$ [@matelski].
One can analogously define the collars $C_{E_j }(I_j,R)$ and $C_{ F^*_j }(\alpha_{j,0}, R)$ about the geodesic segments on the surfaces $E_j$ and $F^*_j$, respectively. Observe that identifying the boundary geodesics $\epsilon_j^1$ and $\epsilon_j^2$ of $E$ will produce an annulus. The Collar Lemma, applied to this annulus and the flute $F_j$, implies that given $R>0$ there is a $J\in {\Bbb{N}}$ so that if $j> J$ then $C_{E_j}(I_j,R)$ is isometrically equivalent to $C_{F^*_j}(\alpha_{j,0}, R)$ by an isometry taking $\alpha_{j,0}$ to $I_j.$
The proposition is trivial if the number of complementary components, $l$, of $C$ in $\alpha_0$ is finite. We therefore suppose that $l=\infty.$
We normalize so that the surfaces are represented by Fuchsian groups, as in Lemma \[convergeL\]. Following up on the comments preceding the statement of the proposition, given $r>0$ there is an $M_r\in {\Bbb{N}}$ so that if $g\in \Gamma_{n}$ for $M_r\geq n\geq\infty$, and $g(B^c(i,r))\cap B^c(i,r)\not = \emptyset,$ then $g\in \Gamma_{M_r}.$ The closed ball $B^c(i,r)$ projects to a set $B^c_n(r)\subset S_n$. Since $r>e^{\frac{a}{2}}$, $ B^c(i,r)$ contains a segment of $I$ which projects to $\alpha_0.$ Than for $ M_r\leq n< m\leq \infty$ there is an isometric bijection $\varphi_{n,m}:B^c_n(r)\rightarrow B^c_m(r),$ which maps $\alpha^n_0$ to $\alpha^m_0$ and $p_n$ to $p_m$. We suppose that the finite complementary components $U_{n,j}$ and $U_{m,j}$ share the corresponding boundaries on $B^c_n(r)$ and $B^c_m(r),$ respectively. We shall prove that there is a $N_r\geq M_r$ so that for any $ n\geq N_r,$ the process of creating $S_{n+1}$ from $S_n$ by excising $E_{n+1}$ and gluing in $F_{n+1}^*$, does not change the subsurface $S_n(r)$.
Suppose $n>M_r$. Since $B^c_n(r)$ is compact, by the Collar Lemma there must exist a value $R>0$ and an integer $J_r\geq M_r$ so that for $j\geq J_r,\, B^c_j(r)\cap E_j\subset C_{E_j}(I_j,R).$ Consequently, the region $E_j\setminus C_{E_j}(I_j,R)$ must lie in the infinite component in the complement of $B^c_j(r)$.
Also, by the Collar Lemma we may choose $N_r\geq J_r$ so that for $j\geq N_r$ the collar $C_{F_j^*}(\alpha_{j,0},R)$ on $F_j^*$ is isometrically equivalent to $C_{E_j}(I_j,R).$ Thus, for $n\geq N_r$, $S_{n+1}$ can be constructed from $S_n$ by replacing $ E_{n+1}\setminus C_{E_{n+1}}(I_{n+1},R) $ by $F_{n+1}^*\setminus C_{F^*_{n+1}}(\alpha_{n+1,0},R).$ Consequently, $S_{n+1}$ differs from $S_n$ only in the infinite component in the complement of $B_{n+1}^c(r)\simeq B_n^c(r).$ The first part of the proposition follows.
Let $\tilde{S}(r)$ be the connected $\pi_{N_r}$-preimage of $S_{N_r}(r)$, which contains $i$ and let $\Gamma\subset \Gamma_{N_r}$ denote the stabilizer of $\tilde{S}(r)$ in $\Gamma_{N_r}$. By what we have shown, it follows that $\Gamma$ is the stabilizer of $\tilde{S}(r)$ in $\Gamma_n$ for all $n\geq N_r$ and therefore in $\Gamma_{\infty}$, as well. The final statement of the proposition follows.
Define $S_{\infty}(r)= \varphi_{n}(S_n(r))$ for some $n>N_r$. The sequence of closed balls $\pi_{\infty}({B^c(i,k)})$, for $k\in{\Bbb{N}}$, is a compact exhaustion of $S_{\infty}.$ Associated to this exhaustion there is an infinite end ${\sf E}$ with ${\sf E}_k=S_{\infty}\setminus S_{\infty}(k).$ It follows from the proposition that every other end is finite. Thus we have
$S_{\infty}$ is a flute.
To simplify notation, we shall henceforth dispense with superscripts and refer to the geodesic $\alpha_0$ and the point $p$ on the surfaces $S_n$ and $S_{\infty}.$
A special class of critical rays on $S_\infty$ {#number4}
===============================================
Given a point $c \in C,$ let $\sigma_c$ denote the geodesic ray on $S_{\infty}=S(\alpha_0, p, C,\{F_i\})$ beginning at $c,$ orthogonal to $\alpha_0$ and oriented out the infinite end of $S_{\infty}$. If $c$ lies on the boundary of one of the intervals $I_j$ in the complement of $C$, then the ray $\sigma_c$ will be contained in the scaffolding geodesic on $S_{\infty}$ passing through $c$.
\[sigma\]
For each $c\in C,\,\sigma_c $ is an infinite critical ray.
We begin by proving several lemmas, which, along with the lemmas of the next section, shall be of use throughout the paper. Theorem \[sigma\] will follow as an immediate corollary of Lemma \[nnew5\] in which we prove something slightly stronger about the ray $\sigma_c,$ namely, subarcs of $\sigma_c$ realize the distance between any point on $\sigma_c\backslash\{\sigma_c(0)\}$, and the curve $\alpha_0.$
Many of the lemmas in this and the next section will share the common setup stated below, which will be invoked repeatedly.
Let $S^*$ be either the closed set $F^*,$ an untwisted flute cut open along its canonical Dirichlet ray $\beta^*,$ or the hyperbolic strip $E^*\subset {\Bbb{H}}^2$ bounded by two parallel, non asymptotic geodesics. Let $\alpha_0$ denote the first, cut-open dividing loop on $F^*,$ or the common orthogonal between the boundary geodesics on $E^*$. The geodesics $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ on the boundary of $S^*$ are parameterized so that $\beta_1(0)$ and $\beta_2(0)$ are the end points of $\alpha_0$ and the geodesics $\beta_i(t),$ $i=1,2,$ go out the same end of the surface as $t \to \infty;$ in the case $S^*=F^*,$ this end is the infinite end of $F^*$.
Let $F$ be the untwisted flute with canonical Dirichlet ray $\beta^*$ which, when cut open along $\beta^*,$ produces $F^*.$ Note that $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ inherit their parametrization from $\beta^*$ and that $\alpha_0$ is orthogonal to both of these boundary geodesics. Let the union of the $\gamma$-curves of $F$ be denoted by $\Gamma.$ The curves in $\Gamma$ along with $\beta^*$ comprise the fixed-point set of the canonical isometric involution $r:F\rightarrow F.$ The involution $r$ of $F$ induces an isometric involution $r^*:F^*\rightarrow F^*$ that interchanges the boundary curves $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2.$ The fixed-point set of $r^*$ is now the set of curves (corresponding to) $\Gamma$. Moreover, as $r^*$ is an isometry, $r^*(\beta_1(t))=\beta_2(t^\prime)$ if and only if $t=t^\prime$.
\[nnnew1\]\[nnew3\] Let $P$ be a point in $E^*$ that does not lie on $\alpha_0.$ Then there is a unique point $Q$ on $\alpha_0$ such that the the geodesic segment $\delta$ joining $P$ to $Q$ realizes the distance $d(P,\alpha_0).$ Further, $\delta$ meets $\alpha_0$ at a right angle. In particular, if $P$ lies on $\beta_1$ (respectively, $\beta_2$) then $Q$ lies on $\beta_1$ (respectively, $\beta_2$).
Let $\alpha$ be the full, bi-infinite geodesic containing $\alpha_0,$ and let $Q$ be the point on $\alpha$ for which the length of the geodesic arc $\delta,$ joining $P$ to $Q,$ is a minimum. From elementary geometry, the angle at $Q$ where $\delta$ meets $\alpha$ must be a right angle. Suppose $Q$ lies outside $E^*,$ that is, $Q$ is a point on $\alpha \backslash \alpha_0.$ Then $\delta$ must cross a boundary curve of $E^*,$ without loss of generality, say $\beta_1,$ where $\beta_1$ meets $\alpha$ at a point $R.$ Then the triangle, $\Delta PQR,$ formed by segments $PQ,$ $QR,$ and $RP$ has a right angle at $Q$ and the angle at $R$ is greater than $\pi/2.$ This is impossible. Therefore, $Q$ lies on $\alpha_0.$
Let $\beta$ be one of the two boundary curves of $F^*.$
\[notquite\]\[nnew4\] Suppose $\alpha:[0,\tau^*]\rightarrow F^*$ is a geodesic which does not lie on $\beta$, with $\alpha(0)\in\alpha_0$ and $\alpha(\tau^*)=\beta(t^*)$ for some $t^*>0.$ Then $t^*<\tau^*$.
Consider the region $\Delta$ on $F^*$ bounded by $\alpha$, the arc $\beta([0,t^*])$ and the arc of $\alpha_0$ from $\alpha(0)$ to $\beta(0).$ If $\Delta$ is simply connected then it is a hyperbolic triangle. In that case, since $\beta$ is orthogonal to $\alpha_0$ it is a right triangle with hypotenuse $\alpha$. It follows that $t^*<\tau^*$.
Suppose now that $\Delta $ is not simply connected. The $\gamma$-curves of $F^*$ divide the surface into simply connected subsurfaces $S_1$ and $S_2$. Suppose $\beta\subset S_1.$ Use the involution $r^*$ to reflect each arc of $\alpha$ in $S_2$ to an arc on $S_1$. The arcs of $\alpha$ and $r^*(\alpha)$ on $S_1$ form a piecewise geodesic $\overline{\alpha}$, which inherits its parametrization from $\alpha$. The geodesic $\alpha'$ from $\overline{\alpha}(0)$ to $\alpha(\tau^*)=\beta(t^*)$ on $S_1$ has length less than $\alpha$. Applying the first case to $\alpha'$ shows that its length is greater than $t^*$. Therefore, $|\alpha|=\tau^*>|\alpha'|>t^*.$ The lemma is proved.
Theorem \[sigma\] is an immediate consequence of the following lemma. Let $S$ be one of $S_\infty$ or $S_n$ for some $n \in \Bbb{N}.$
\[nnew5\] Let $c \in C$ and $t>0.$ Then the geodesic arc $\sigma_c([0,t])$ is the unique arc that realizes the distance between $\sigma_c(t)$ and $\alpha_0.$ In particular, if $\delta : [0,\tau] \rightarrow S$ is a geodesic joining a point $Q \neq \sigma_c(0)$ on $\alpha_0$ to $\sigma_c(t),$ then $\tau>t.$
Since $S$ is a complete, convex hyperbolic manifold, there is a geodesic arc from $\sigma_c(t)$ to some point on $\alpha_0$ whose length is $d(\sigma_c(t),\alpha_0).$ Suppose that $Q$ is a point on $\alpha_0$ and that $\delta:[0,\tau]\rightarrow S$ is a geodesic arc joining $Q=\delta(0)$ to $\sigma_c(t).$
Suppose, for the moment, that $S=S_\infty.$ Since the geodesic arcs $\delta([0,\tau]),$ $\sigma_c([0,t])$ and $\alpha_0$ are compact, there is some $r>0$ for which all of these arcs lie in $B_{\infty}^c(r)\subset S_{\infty}^c(r).$ Thus, there is a positive integer $N_r$ such that, without loss of generality, we are working on the surface $S_n$ for some $n\geq N_r.$ If, on the other hand, $S=S_n$ for some $n \in \Bbb{N}$ then we are again working on a surface $S_n.$ In either case we may assume that we are working on a surface $S_n$ for some fixed $n\in \Bbb{N}.$
There are two cases to consider. First we shall show that if $Q \neq \sigma_c(0),$ then $\tau>t.$ In the second case we shall show that if $Q= \sigma_c(0),$ but $\delta$ is distinct from $\sigma_c([0,t]),$ then $\tau>t.$ The conclusion will be that $\sigma_c([0,t])$ is the unique geodesic arc from $\sigma_c(t)$ to $\alpha_0$ realizing the distance from $\sigma_c(t)$ to $\alpha_0.$
Case I. Recall that $B_n$ is the set consisting of the boundary geodesics of the cut-open untwisted flutes, $F_i^*,$ $i=1, \cdots, n,$ in $S_n.$ Let $\beta$ denote the full (bi-infinite) geodesic in $S_n$ that contains $\sigma_c$ so that for $t\geq 0,$ $\sigma_c(t)=\beta(t).$ Let $B^+_n = B_n \cup \{\beta\}.$ Then there is a largest point $\tau_0 \in [0,\tau]$ such that $\delta((0,\tau_0)) \cap B^+_n=\emptyset.$ Let $\beta_0$ be the bi-infinite geodesic in $B^+_n$ for which there is a $t_0>0$ such that $\delta(\tau_0)=\beta_0(t_0).$ (It is possible that $\tau_0=\tau$ and that $\beta_0=\beta.$) The arcs $\beta_0([0,t_0])$ and $\delta([0,\tau_0])$ lie in exactly one cut-open untwisted flute or simply connected hyperbolic strip. It then follows respectively from either Lemma \[nnew4\] or Lemma \[nnew3\] that $\tau_0>t_0.$ Suppose that $\tau_0 \neq \tau.$ Then the piecewise geodesic $\beta_0([0,t_0])$ followed by $\delta([\tau_0,\tau])$ is shorter than $\delta([0,\tau ]),$ i.e., $t_0+(\tau-\tau_0)=(t_0-\tau_0)+\tau<\tau.$ In this case there must be a smooth geodesic arc even shorter than this piecewise geodesic joining $\beta_0(0)$ to $\sigma_c(t).$ If $\tau_0=\tau$ then $\beta_0=\beta,$ $t=t_0$ and we have $t<\tau$ and $\beta([0,t])=\sigma_c([0,t])$ is shorter than $\delta([0,\tau]).$ In either case, there is a shorter path from $\sigma_c(t)$ to $\alpha_0$ than $\delta.$ We have shown that if $Q\neq\sigma_c(0)$ is a point on $\alpha_0,$ then a geodesic arc $\delta:[0,\tau]\rightarrow S$ joining $Q$ to $\sigma_c(t)$ does not realize the distance $d(\sigma_c(t),\alpha_0).$
Case II. Suppose that $\delta:[0,\tau]\rightarrow S$ joins $Q=\delta(0)=\sigma_c(0)$ to $A=\sigma_c(t),$ and suppose that $\delta$ is distinct from $\sigma_c([0,t]).$
Since $\delta$ is distinct from the arc $\sigma_c([0.t]),$ the angle at which $\delta$ meets $\alpha_0$ at $Q$ can not be a right angle. It follows that, by moving a small distance from $Q=\sigma_c(0)$ along $\delta$ to a point $B,$ there is a point $E$ on $\alpha_0$ so that arcs $QB,$ $BE,$ and $EQ$ form a right triangle, with right angle at $E,$ and hypotenuse $QB.$ It then follows that the piecewise geodesic from $A$ to $B$ along $\delta,$ followed by $BE,$ is shorter than $\delta.$ Therefore $\delta$ does not realize the distance from $A=\sigma_c(t)$ to $\alpha_0.$
It follows that the arc $\sigma_c([0,t])$ must be the unique geodesic arc realizing the distance from $\sigma_c(t)$ to $\alpha_0.$ In particular, as in Case I, it follows that if $Q \neq \sigma_c(0)$ is a point on $\alpha_0$ and $\delta:[0,\tau]\rightarrow S_\infty$ joins $Q$ to $\sigma_c(t), $ then $\tau>t.$
The lemma above shows that $\sigma_c$ is a critical ray on all of the surfaces $S_n,$ $n \in \Bbb{N},$ and on $S_\infty.$
The last two lemmas of this section will be of use throughout the rest of the paper. The first is a generalization of Lemma \[nnew5\]. Again, let $S=S_\infty$ or $S=S_n$ for some $n \in \Bbb{N}.$
\[forSigma\] Let $\delta:[\tau,\tau']\rightarrow S$ be a geodesic arc for which there are not necessarily distinct points $c$ and $c'$ in $C$ such that $\delta(\tau) \in \sigma_c$ and $\delta(\tau')\in \sigma_{c'}.$ Suppose that $\delta$ is not a subarc of $\sigma_c$ or $\sigma_{c'}$ and let $t$ and $t'$ be reals so that $\delta(\tau)=\sigma_c(t)$ and $\delta(\tau')=\sigma_{c'}(t')$ Then, $\tau'-\tau > |t'-t|\ge t'-t.$
The lemma holds if $t=t'$ so assume, without loss of generality, that $t<t'.$ Note that $|\delta |\geq d(\delta(\tau),\delta(\tau'))=d(\sigma_c(t),\sigma_{c'}(t')),$ and as $\delta$ is not a subarc of either $\sigma_c$ or $\sigma_{c'},$ the piecewise geodesic formed by the segments $\sigma_c([0,t])$ followed by $\delta([\tau,\tau']),$ is not smooth. It follows that there is a shorter, smooth geodesic $\delta'$ joining the points $\sigma_c(0)$ and $\sigma_{c'}(t').$ Noting as observed above, that $$\tau'-\tau=|\delta|\geq d(\delta(\tau),\delta(\tau'))=d(\sigma_c(t),\sigma_{c'}(t')),$$ and employing Lemma \[nnew5\], we now have, $$\begin{aligned}
t+ (\tau'-\tau)&=d(\sigma_c(0),\sigma_c(t))+|\delta| \nonumber\\
&\geq d(\sigma_c(0),\sigma_c(t))+d(\sigma_c(t),\sigma_{c'}(t'))\nonumber\\
&>|\delta'|\nonumber\\
&\geq d(\sigma_c(0),\sigma_{c'}(t'))\nonumber\\
&>d(\sigma_{c'}(t'),\alpha_0)\nonumber\\
&=d(\sigma_{c'}(0),\sigma_{c'}(t'))\nonumber\\
&=t'.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\tau'-\tau>t'-t=|t'-t|.$
Let $S^*$ be either $F^*$ or $E^*$ as defined above. Let $\beta$ be one of $\beta_1$ or $\beta_2.$
\[secondlemma\] Let $\delta : [\tau_1, \tau_2]\rightarrow S^*$ be a non-trivial geodesic arc where $\delta$ is not a subarc of either $\beta_1$ or $\beta_2$ and for some some $t_1, t_2 >0,$ $\delta(\tau_1)=\beta_1(t_1)$,and $\delta(\tau_2)=\beta(t_2).$ Then $\tau_2-\tau_1>|t_2-t_1|.$
Though there are direct proofs, for efficiency, we proceed by using the results we have already obtained. Note that if $S^*$ is a cut-open untwisted flute, we may reglue $S^*$ along $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ and obtain an untwisted flute on which we may apply Lemma \[forSigma\] to obtain the result. Suppose $S^*$ is a simply connected hyperbolic strip. We proceed in a fashion identical to the proof of Lemma \[forSigma\]. We employ Lemma \[nnew3\]. Assume, without loss of generality that $t_2>t_1,$ and observe that the piecewise geodesic formed by $\beta([0,t_1])$ followed by $\delta([\tau_1,\tau_2])$ is not smooth. Arguing exactly as before, we have $$\begin{aligned}
t_1+(\tau_2-\tau_1) &= d(\beta_1(0),\beta_1(t_1))+(\tau_2-\tau_1) \nonumber\\
&\geq d(\alpha_0,\beta_1(t_1))+d(\delta(\tau_1),\delta(\tau_2))\nonumber\\
&> d(\alpha_0,\beta_2(t_2))=d(\beta_2(0),\beta_2(t_2))\nonumber\\
&=t_2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It follows $\tau_2-\tau_1>t_2-t_1=|t_2-t_1|.$
Additional lemmas from hyperbolic geometry {#lemmas}
==========================================
The lemmas in this section will be crucial in what follows and again involve the application of basic geometry in the hyperbolic plane. In Lemmas \[newFive\] and \[newSix\] we derive properties of geodesic arcs on cut-open, untwisted flute surfaces.
\[triangle\] Let $A, B$ and $E$ be vertices of a hyperbolic triangle where there is a right angle at $E$. Let $a,b$ and $e$ be the lengths of the sides opposite $A, B$ and $E$ respectively. Then, $$0 <log({k^2+1 \over 2k})<e-b <\log k,$$ where $a=\log k$.
Note that for $a>0$ we have $\log \cosh(a) = \log({k^2+1 \over 2k}), $ where $a=\log k.$ Therefore, the inequality may also be written in the form, $0<\log \cosh (a)<e-b<a.$
The proof requires little more than a computation. By an appropriate isometry we may take $E = i$, $B = ki$, $k>1$ and $A = s+ti,$ where $s^2+t^2=1$ and $ s,t\in (0,1).$ By using the standard formula, $\rho(z,w)=\log\Big [\frac {|z-\bar{w}|+|z-w|}{|z-\bar{w}|-|z-w|}\Big ],$ for the hyperbolic distance between points $z$ and $w$ in $\Bbb{H}^2$, an elementary computation shows that $a=\log k$ and that $f(k,t):=e-b=\log \Big [\frac {1+k^2+\sqrt{1+k^4+2k^2(1-2t^2)}}{2k(1+\sqrt{1-t^2)}}\Big ].$ Elementary multivariate calculus and some elementary algebra show that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{t}\Big [\frac {1}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}-\frac{1+k^2}{\sqrt{1+k^4+2k^2(1-2t^2)}}\Big ]>0$ for $0 < t < 1$. Therefore, as a function of $t$, $f$ has no critical points and is increasing. It follows that the minimum occurs at $t=0$ and is $\log({k^2+1 \over 2 k}).$ The maximum value occurs at $t=1$ and is $\log k.$ The former value is approached in the limit as $b \to \infty$ and the latter value is approached as $b \to 0.$
\[fewercases\] Let $\gamma$ be a line in the hyperbolic plane, $B$ a point not lying on $\gamma$. Let $E$ be a point on $\gamma$ such that segment $BE$ is perpendicular to $\gamma.$ Suppose that $A$ and $C$ are points on $\gamma$ (not necessarily distinct from each other or from $E$). Let $k>1$ be such that $|BE|=\log k.$ Then $|AB|+|BC| > |AC|+2\log({k^2+1 \over 2k}).$
First note that $|AB|>|AE|+\log({k^2+1 \over 2k}).$ If $A$ and $E$ are distinct then this is a direct consequence of Lemma \[triangle\]. If $A$ and $E$ coincide, then $|AE|=0$, and $|AB|=|EB|=\log k$ so the inequality amounts to the observation that if $k>1$ then $\log k > \log({k^2+1 \over 2k}).$ Similarly we have the inequality $|BC|>|CE|+\log({k^2+1 \over 2k})$. Next, observe that no matter what configuration the points $A,
E$ and $C$ have on $\gamma$, $|AE|+|EC|\geq |AC|.$ Thus $|AB|+|BC| >|AE|+ |CE|+2\log({k^2+1 \over
2k}) \geq |AC|+2 \log({k^2+1 \over 2k}).$
Recall the standard setup from early in Section \[number4\] where $F$ is an untwisted flute which, when cut along $\beta^*,$ produces $F^*$. Let $R^*$ be the quotient, $F^*/ \langle r^*\rangle,$ and $\pi:F^* \longrightarrow R^*$ be the canonical projection. $R^*$ may be regarded as a region in the hyperbolic plane with geodesic and ideal boundary. The geodesic boundary consists of the images of $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ and the $\gamma$-curves of $\Gamma$ under $\pi.$ We set $\beta=\pi(\beta_1)=\pi(\beta_2)$ and, since there is little risk of confusion, we let $\Gamma$ denote the union of the $\gamma$-curves, or their projections, on $F,$ $F^*$ and $R^*.$
Let $\beta^\prime$ be one of $\beta_1$ or $\beta_2$ and let $\delta :[\tau_1,\tau_2]\rightarrow F^*$ be a non-trivial geodesic arc, not contained in $\beta_1,$ with $\delta (\tau_1)\in\beta_1$ and $\delta (\tau_2)\in\beta^\prime.$ Since $[\tau_1,\tau_2]$ is a closed set, there must be a point $\lambda_0 \in [\tau_1,\tau_2]$ such that $d(\delta(\lambda_0),(\beta_1 \cup \beta_2)) \ge d(\delta(\lambda),(\beta_1 \cup \beta_2))$ for all $\lambda \in [\tau_1,\tau_2].$
\[newFive\]\[lambdaInvolution\] Let $\delta : [\tau_1,\tau_2]\longrightarrow F$, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ be as above. Then there is a point $\lambda_0 \in [\tau_1,\tau_2]$ such that $d(\delta(\lambda_0),(\beta_1 \cup \beta_2)) \ge d(\delta(\lambda),(\beta_1 \cup \beta_2))$ for all $\lambda \in [\tau_1,\tau_2],$ and further $\delta(\lambda_0)$ lies on $\Gamma$, the fixed axis of $r^*.$
It only remains to show that $\delta(\lambda_0)$ lies on $\Gamma.$ Let $B^\prime=\delta(\lambda)$ for some $\lambda \in (\tau_1,\tau_2).$ Suppose that $B^\prime$ does not lie on a $\gamma$-curve. Let $B=\pi(B^\prime) $ and let $\delta^*=\pi(\delta),$ which is a piecewise geodesic arc on $R^*$.
There are two cases to consider. In the first case $B$ lies on a geodesic segment of $\delta^*$ joining a point $A$ on $\beta$ to a point $D$ in $ \Gamma.$ The point $D$ lies on a geodesic $\gamma\subset\Gamma$ which is disjoint from $\beta.$ It follows from elementary hyperbolic geometry that $B$ is closer to $\beta$ than $D$; to wit:
Let $C$ be the point on $\beta$ such that segment $DC$ is perpendicular to $\beta.$ If $C=A$ then, clearly, $|AB|<|AD|$ since $B$ lies between $A$ and $D$. If $C \ne A$ then consider the hyperbolic triangle $\triangle ADC.$ The point $B$ lies on side $AD$ and must be closer to the line through segment $AC$ than the opposite vertex $D$.
Now we turn to the second case, in which $B$ lies on a geodesic segment $\alpha$ of $\delta^*$ joining two points on $\Gamma$. The full geodesic containing the arc $\alpha$ meets two of the $\gamma$-curves on the boundary of $R^*$ and therefore $\alpha$ must be disjoint from $\beta$. Let $A$ and $C$ be points on $\alpha$ so that $B$ lies between $A$ and $C$. It is an elementary fact in hyperbolic geometry that one of $A$ or $C$ is farther from $\beta$ than $B$.
It follows that $\delta(\lambda_0)$ must lie on $\Gamma$, the fixed axis of $r^*$.
Consider again the situation set up in the paragraph proceeding Lemma \[newFive\].
\[newSix\] Let $\delta :[\tau_1,\tau_2] \rightarrow F^*$ be a geodesic arc joining $\beta_1$ and $\beta'$ as above. Let reals $t_1$ and $t_2$ be chosen so that $\delta(\tau_1)=\beta_1(t_1)$ and $\delta(\tau_2)=\beta'(t_2).$ The arc $\delta$ crosses $\Gamma $ at a point $\delta(\lambda_0)$, for some $\lambda_0 \in [\tau_1,\tau_2].$ Let $k>1$ be chosen so that $\log k = d(\delta(\lambda_0),(\beta_1 \cup \beta_2)).$ Then $\tau_2-\tau_1 > |t_2-t_1|+2 \log\big [\frac {k^2+1}{2k}\big ].$
Let $R^*$, as above, be the planar quotient surface $F^*/\langle r^*\rangle.$ We shall employ Lemma \[fewercases\], where $\gamma$ in the lemma, corresponds to the boundary geodesic $\beta=\pi(\beta_1)=\pi(\beta')$, $B=\pi(\delta(\lambda_0))$ is the projection into $R^*$ of the point at which $\delta$ crosses $\Gamma$, $A=\pi(\beta_1(t_1))=\beta(t_1)$, and $C=\pi(\beta'(t_2))=\beta(t_2)$.
The length of $\delta$ is equal to the length of the piecewise geodesic $\delta^*:=\pi(\delta).$ Suppose $\delta $ crosses $\Gamma$ exactly once. Then $$\tau_2-\tau_1=|\delta|=|\delta^*| = |AB|+|BC|.$$ On the other hand, if $\delta$ crosses $\Gamma$ more than once then $$\tau_2-\tau_1=|\delta|=|\delta^*| \geq |AB|+|BC|.$$ In either case, $\tau_2-\tau_1 \ge |AB|+|BC|.$
Let $E$ be the point on $\beta$ such that segment $BE$ is perpendicular to $\beta$ and note that $|BE|=d(\delta^*(\lambda_0),\beta)=\log k.$ The hypotheses for Lemma \[fewercases\] are satisfied and therefore, $\tau_2-\tau_1 \ge |AB|+|BC|>|AC|+ 2 \log\big [\frac {k^2+1}{2k}\big ]=|t_2-t_1|+2 \log\big [\frac {k^2+1}{2k}\big ].$
We will need yet another result from hyperbolic geometry.
\[quad\] Let $l_1$ and $l_2$ be asymptotic geodesics in $\Bbb{H}^2$ which both limit at a point $Q\in\partial{\Bbb{H}}^2.$ Suppose that $B\in\l_1$ and $A\in l_2$ are points so that the arc $AB$ is orthogonal to $l_1.$ Further suppose that $D$ is a point on $l_1$ between $B$ and $Q$ and $C$ is a point on $l_2$ between $A$ and $Q$ so that the arc $CD$ is also orthogonal to $l_1.$ Then $|AC|+|CD|<|AB|+|BD|.$
Observe that this lemma is about a special sort of quadrilateral, $BACD$, where the sides $BD$ and $AC$ lie on parallel, asymptotic geodesics.
Let $m$ denote the full geodesic in ${\Bbb{H}}^2$ containing the arc $AB$. Without loss of generality we may take $l_1$ to be the imaginary axis; $m$ the semicircle passing through $-1,$ $i$ and $+1$; $B=i$; $A$ is the point $x_0+iy_0$ for some $x_0$, $0<x_0<1$; and $l_2$ is the line $Re z = x_0.$ Let $C$ be the point $x_0+iy_1$, $y_1>y_0$. Then $D$ is the point $ri$ where $x_0^2+y_1^2=r^2$. Using the standard formula, $\rho (z,w)=\log \big ( \frac {|z-\bar{w}|+|z-w|}{|z-\bar{w}|-|z-w|}\big )$, for the distance between two points, $z$, $w$, in the hyperbolic plane, an entirely elementary calculation shows that: $|BD|=\log r;$ $|AB|=\log \big (\frac {1+x_0} {y_0} \big );$ $|AC|=\log \big (\frac {y_1} {y_0}\big );$ and $|CD|= \log \big (\frac {r+x_0} {y_1}\big).$ Therefore, $$|AB|+|BD|-(|AC|+|CD|)=\log (1+x_0)+\log\big (\frac {r} {r+x_0}\big ).$$ For fixed $x_0,$ the right hand side of the equation is a strictly increasing function of $r$. Moreover, when $r=1$ the right hand side above has value $0$. Therefore, $|AC|+|CD|<|AB|+|BD|$.
Specifying the boundary of a Dirichlet polygon {#example2}
==============================================
Definitions and a theorem {#def}
-------------------------
Let $G$ be a Fuchsian group acting on the hyperbolic plane ${\Bbb{H}}^2$ and representing the surface $S={\Bbb{H}}^2/G. $ Given $\tilde{p}\in{\Bbb{H}}^2$, one defines the Dirichlet polygon $D(\tilde{p},G)=D$ of $G$ centered at $\tilde{p}$ to be the set of all points $q\in {\Bbb{H}}^2$ so that $d(\tilde{p},q)\leq d(g(\tilde{p}),q)$ for all $g\in G\setminus\{id\}.$
Let $p$ be the projection of $\tilde{p}$ to $S$ and let $\sigma$ be a critical ray on $S$ with $\sigma(0)=p$. Then $\sigma$ lifts to a geodesic ray $\tilde{\sigma}$ beginning at $\tilde{p}$, which is entirely contained in $D$. Recall that the closure of a set $X$ is written $X^c$ and $\hat{{{\mathbb{C}}}}$ denotes the Riemann sphere. Let $\partial_{\infty}D$ be that part of the boundary of $D^c\subset \hat{{{\mathbb{C}}}}$ lying at infinity; that is, in the extended real line $\hat{{{\mathbb{R}}}}$. Then we have $\d{\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tilde{\sigma }(t)\in \partial_{\infty}D}.$ Conversely, if $q$ is a point in $\partial_{\infty}D$, then the ray $\tilde{\sigma}$ beginning at $\tilde{p}$ and limiting at $q$ projects to a critical ray on $S$. These observations follow easily from the definitions of a critical ray and a Dirichlet polygon. Clearly, there is an intimate relationship between critical rays and the boundary points of Dirichlet polygons.
We show how quilted surfaces can be used to prove the following
\[partial\] Given any compact set $C^*\subset {{\mathbb{R}}},$ which is not an interval, there exists a Fuchsian group $\Gamma_{\infty}$, representing a quilted surface $S_{\infty}$, and a point $\tilde{p}\in{\Bbb{H}}^2$ so that $\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p}, \Gamma_{\infty})$ consists of the union of $C^*$, a countable set of isolated parabolic fixed points of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ and an interval.
The interval in the theorem comes from the finite end of the surface $S_{\infty}$ associated with the annulus $A^-$. If we were to cut out $A^-$ and glue a twice punctured disc into its place, the boundary of the Dirichlet polygon would not contain the interval. We shall do exactly this at the end of the section, to prove Theorem \[C\].
The idea of the proof of Theorem \[partial\] is to begin with an annulus $A$ with a dividing geodesic $\alpha_0$ of length $a\leq 1$ and to choose a closed set $C$ on $\alpha_0$ that corresponds to the set $C^*$. We then choose appropriate untwisted flute surfaces $F_i$ to define the surface $S_{\infty}=S(\alpha_0, p , C, \{F_i\})$ so that for a fixed point $ p\in \alpha_0$ and for all, but possibly one value of, $ c \in C$ there exists a unique critical ray beginning at $ p $ which is asymptotic to $\sigma_c$ and, furthermore, these are all of the infinite critical rays on $S_{\infty}.$ This surface will be uniformized by a Fuchsian group for which the theorem holds
Working on quilted surfaces {#R}
---------------------------
We begin by constructing quilted surfaces like those described above. Suppose $|\alpha_0|=a$ and $C\subset \alpha_0$ is a closed set. Let $\log k=R$ and define $\kappa(R)=2
\log({k^2+1 \over 2k})=2\log \cosh (R)$. Let $k>1$ be a value for which $\kappa(R)=a+1.$ For each $i\in {\Bbb{N}},$ let $F_i$ be an untwisted flute on which all of the finite ends, except the end associated to the geodesic $\alpha_{i,0}$, are punctures. Further suppose that for $j>0$ the dividing curves $\alpha_{i,j}$ have length $R$. It follows easily from this choice, that each of the $F_i$ has an infinite end of the first kind. We shall maintain this stipulation on the structure of the $F_i$ for the remainder of the section. Also, $S_{\infty}=S(\alpha_0, p, C,\{F_i\})$ shall be a surface constructed with these assumptions. Observe that with our choice of flutes $F_i$, the surface $S_{\infty}$ is the same, independent of the choice of the point $p$.
Fix $ p \in \alpha_0.$ Given $c\in C$ define the piecewise geodesic rays $ \overline{\delta}_c^s$ and $ \overline{\delta}_c^l$. The ray $ \overline{\delta}_c^s$ is formed by the shorter arc of $\alpha_0$ from $ p $ to $c$, followed by $\sigma_c$. $ \overline{\delta}_c^l$ is formed in a similar fashion using the longer arc of $\alpha_0$ from $ p $ to $c$. In the special case where the point $c$ is half-way around $\alpha_0$ from $p$, the two arcs of $\alpha_0$ are of equal length and we make an arbitrary choice of which is $ \overline{\delta}_c^s$ and which is $ \overline{\delta}_c^l$. Let $\delta_c^s$ and $\delta_c^l$ be the geodesic rays beginning at $ p $ which are asymptotically homotopic to $ \overline{\delta}_c^s$ and $ \overline{\delta}_c^l$, respectively. By this we mean that, for example, there are lifts of $ \overline{\delta}_c^s$ and $\delta_c^s$ to ${\Bbb{H}}^2$ which have the same initial point and the same endpoint at infinity. Observe that both $\delta_c^s$ and $\delta_c^l$ are asymptotic to the critical ray $\sigma_c.$
\[onepointcritical\] For each $c\in C$ one of $\delta_c^s$ or $\delta_c^l$ is a critical ray. If $\delta$ is an infinite critical ray on $S_{\infty}$ beginning at $p$, then for some $c\in C$, $\delta=\delta_c^s$ or $\delta=\delta_c^l$. Moreover, there can be at most one value of $c$ for which both rays are critical rays.
As a consequence of the proof of Theorem \[partial\], we will be able to conclude that $\delta_c^s$ is always critical.
We begin with some notation and prove a lemma. Let $F^*$ be a cut-open, untwisted flute bounded by geodesics $\beta$ and $\beta'$. Suppose $\epsilon $ and $\delta$ are geodesics with their initial points on $\beta$ and their terminal points on $\beta'$. We shall say that $\epsilon$ is $\beta$-[*homotopic*]{} to $\delta$ if $\epsilon $ is homotopic to $\delta$ by a homotopy that does not move the initial and terminal points of $\epsilon$ off the geodesics $\beta$ and $\beta'$. Observe that if $\epsilon$ is $\beta$-homotopic to a dividing curve $\alpha_j$ on $F^*$ then it crosses a single $\gamma$-curve on $F^*$; that is, it crosses the unique $\gamma$-curve which is orthogonal to $\alpha_j$.
On the same surface $F^*$, recall that $\beta $ and $\beta'$ are parameterized so that $\beta(0), \beta'(0)\in\alpha_0$ and both $\beta $ and $\beta'$ go out the infinite end as $t\rightarrow\infty.$ Also, the canonical involution $r^*$ fixes the $\gamma$-curves, leaves invariant the dividing curves and interchanges $\beta$ and $\beta'$. Let $ \overline{\delta}_c$ denote one of the geodesics $ \overline{\delta}_c^s$ or $ \overline{\delta}_c^l.$
\[plus1\] Let $\alpha:[0,\tau^*]\rightarrow S_{\infty}$ be a geodesic with $\alpha(0)=p$ and $\alpha(\tau^*)= \overline{\delta}_c(t^*)$ for some $t^*\in [0,\infty).$ Suppose there is an arc of $\alpha$ that is $\beta$-homotopic to a dividing curve $\alpha_i\not = \alpha_0$ on the cut-open, untwisted flute $F^* \subset S_{\infty}.$ Then $\tau^*>t^*+1.$
By hypothesis there is a cut-open flute $F^*$ bounded by geodesics $\beta$ and $\beta'$ and a connected segment of $\alpha \cap F^*$ that is $\beta$-homotopic to $\alpha_i\neq \alpha_0.$ Let $0\leq \tau <\tau',$ and $t,\,t' \geq 0$ and $\beta,\,\beta'$ be such that $\alpha([\tau,\tau'])$ is $\beta$-homotopic to $\alpha_i$, $\alpha(\tau)=\beta(t),$ and $\alpha(\tau')=\beta'(t').$ Since $|\alpha_i|=R,$ by Lemma \[newSix\], $\tau'-\tau>|t'-t|+\kappa(R)\geq t'-t+a+1.$ It also follows from Lemma \[nnew5\] that $\tau>t.$
Let $t_c$ be the length of the subarc of $\overline{\delta}_c$ that runs along $\alpha_o$ and joins $p$ to $c.$ The length of the scaffolding curve lying along $ \overline{\delta}_c$ from the point $c$ on $\alpha_0$ to $\alpha(\tau^*)$ is then $t^*-t_c.$ Note also that $a-t_c>0.$ Suppose $\tau^*\neq\tau'.$ Then by Lemma \[forSigma\], $\tau^*-\tau'>|t^*-t_c-t'|> t^*-t_c-t'.$ Putting this all together we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau^*&=(\tau^*-\tau')+(\tau'-\tau)+\tau \nonumber\\
&>(t^*-t_c-t')+(t'-t+a+1)+t \nonumber\\
&=t^*+(a-t_c)+1>t^*+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
If $\tau^*=\tau'$ we also have $t^*-t_c=t'.$ Then, similar to the above, we have $\tau^*=(\tau^*-\tau)+\tau>(t^*-t_c-t+a+1)+t=t^*+(a-t_c)+1>t^*+1.$ Therefore, in either case, $\tau^*>t^*+1.$
Let $\delta_c$ denote one of the geodesics $\delta_c^s$ or $\delta_c^l$ and denote the other one by $\delta'_c$
.1in [*Proof of Proposition \[onepointcritical\]*]{} To begin we prove the first statement of the proposition. Let $\alpha:[0,u^*]\rightarrow S_{\infty}$ be a geodesic with $\alpha(0)=p$ and $\alpha(u^*)=\delta_c(s^*)$ for some $u^*, s^*\in [0,\infty).$ We will prove that one of $\delta_c$ or $\delta'_c$ is critical by showing that for any such geodesic $\alpha$, either $s^*\leq u^*$ or $\delta'_c$ is critical. We argue by contradiction. Suppose there exists a geodesic $\alpha$, as above, with $u^*<s^*.$ We may further assume that $\alpha$ realizes the distance between $p$ and $\alpha(u^*)$ and is therefore a minimal length geodesic between its endpoints. In particular, $\alpha$ is simple. As described earlier, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $S_{\infty}$ is one of the finitely glued surfaces $S_n.$
The first case to consider is where $\alpha$ contains a subarc which is $\beta$-homotopic to a dividing curve $\alpha_{i.j}$ with $j\not =0$ on a cut-open subflute $F_i^*$. Choose a minimal length geodesic $\mu$ from $\delta_c(s^*)$ to $\overline{\delta}_c,\,$ where $\mu(0)=\delta_c(s^*)$ and $\mu(\tau^*)=\overline{\delta}_c(t_*)$ for values $t^*, \tau^*\in [0,\infty)$. Define the piecewise geodesic arcs $\alpha^*$ and $\delta_c^*$ by adjoining the arc $\mu$ to $\alpha$ and to the arc of $\delta_c,$ between $p$ and $\delta_c(s^*)$, respectively. In particular, $$\label{alpha*}
\alpha^*(u)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha(u) & 0\leq u \leq u^*\\
\mu(u-u^*) & u^* \leq u \leq \tau^*+u^*
\end{array} \right.$$ and $$\delta^*_c(s)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\delta_c(s) & 0\leq s \leq s^*\\
\mu(s-s^*) & s^* \leq s \leq \tau^*+s^*.
\end{array}\right.$$ Together, $\delta^*$ and $\overline{\delta}_c $ bound a hyperbolic quadrilateral that satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[quad\]. It follows that $\tau^*+s^*<t^*$
Let $\rho$ be the geodesic homotopic to $\alpha^*$ relative to endpoints. $\rho$ crosses the same $\gamma$-curves as $\alpha$ on subflutes. Therefore, $\rho$ contains a subarc which is $\beta$-homotopic to $\alpha_{i,j}$ on $F_i^*.$ Then employing the above inequality and Lemma \[plus1\], we have $$\tau^*+u^*= |\alpha^*| > |\rho| > t^*+1> \tau^*+s^*+1.$$ Thus, $u^*>s^*$, which gives a contradiction.
Now consider the case where no subarc of $\alpha$ is $\beta$-homotopic to an arc $\alpha_{i,j}$ with $j\not =0$ on a cut-open subflute $F_i^*$. Then, in order, $\alpha$ crosses the curves $\beta_1, \beta_2,\ldots, \beta_m\in B^+_n$ Recall that $B_n^+$ is $B_n\cup\{\beta\}$ where $\beta$ is the full geodesic containing $\sigma_c.$
First we suppose that two consecutive curves $\beta_j$ and $\beta_{j+1}$ are equal. Then there is a cut-open, untwisted subflute $F^*, $ one of whose boundary geodesics is $\beta_j$, so that $\alpha\cap F^*$ contains an arc $\epsilon$ both of whose endpoints lie on $\gamma$-curves of $F^*$.
Apply the canonical involution $r^*$ to get the geodesic arc $r^*(\epsilon)$. Since the $\gamma$-curves of $F^*$ are fixed by $r^*$, $\epsilon$ and $r^*(\epsilon)$ share the same endpoints. Thus we may replace the geodesic segment $\epsilon $ of $\alpha$ by the arc $r^*(\epsilon)$. This results in a new piecewise geodesic joining $p$ to $\alpha(u^*).$ Taking the geodesic freely homotopic to this curve relative to endpoints gives a geodesic $\alpha'$ which is shorter than $\alpha.$ This contradicts the assumption that the length of $\alpha$ is the distance between its endpoints. We may then suppose that all of the curve $\beta_j$ are distinct. Possibly abusing notation, let $F_j^*$ denote the cut-open flute surface bounded by $\beta_j$ and $\beta_{j+1}.$
We would like to show that $\rho =\alpha\cap F_j^*$ is $\beta$-homotopic to $\alpha_{j,0} $ for each cut-open subflute $F_j^*, j=1,\ldots m-1.$ If not, then by earlier considerations, it cannot be $\beta$-homotopic to $\alpha_{j,k}$ for any $k\in{\Bbb{N}}.$ Consequently, $\rho$ must contain at least 3 intersections with $\gamma$-curves on some $F_m^*$ and there will be an arc $\epsilon$ of $\rho$ whose endpoints lie on distinct $\gamma$-curves of $F_m^*.$ As above, replace the arc $\epsilon$ of $\alpha$ by its reflection $r^*(\epsilon)$. Taking the geodesic homotopic to this piecewise geodesic path results in a shorter geodesic between the endpoints of $\alpha,$ which is a contradiction. We may now suppose that for each of the cut open flutes $F_j^*$, $\alpha\cap F_j^*$ is $\beta$-homotopic to $\alpha_{j,0}.$
If none of the $\beta_{j}$ contains the ray $\sigma_c$ then $\alpha$ will cross exactly the same curves in $B_n$ as the geodesic arc of $\delta_c$ from $p$ to $\delta_c(s^*)=\alpha(u^*). $ For this to happen $\alpha$ must be homotopic to the arc of $\delta_c$ and consequently it will actually coincide with that arc. Therefore $s^*=u^*.$
If one of the geodesics $\beta_{j}$ does contain the ray $\sigma_c$ then it must be the last one, $\beta_{m}$. Now consider the ray $\delta'_c.$ Either it is critical or there is a geodesic $\alpha':[0,u']\rightarrow S_{\infty}$ with $\alpha'(0)=p$, $\alpha(u')=\delta'_c(s')$ for some $u', s'\in [0,\infty)$ and $u'<s'.$
Adjust the choice of $n>N_r$ so that $ B^c_n(r)\supset \alpha'$ as well. The first part of the proof will be completed by showing that both $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ cannot realize the distance between their endpoints. As a consequence of the preceding arguments, if $\alpha'$ realizes the distance between its endpoints then, as with $\alpha$, $\alpha'$ will cross each geodesic in $B^+_n$ at most once and the last geodesic in $B^+_n$ that $\alpha'$ crosses must contain the ray $\sigma_c$. Since $\delta_c$ and $\delta'_c$ limit at $\sigma_c$ from opposite sides, the geodesics $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ must intersect; that is, $\alpha(d)=\alpha'(e)$ for some $d<u^*$ and $e<u'.$ Without loss of generality suppose that $d\leq e$. Then consider the piecewise geodesic arc which is $\alpha$ from $p$ to $\alpha(d)$ followed by $\alpha'$ from $\alpha(d)=\alpha'(e)$ to $\alpha'(u')$. The geodesic freely homotopic to this arc relative to endpoints, goes from $p$ to $\alpha'(u')$ but is shorter than $\alpha'$, showing that $\alpha'$ does not realize the distance between its endpoints. That completes the proof that at least one of $\delta_c^s$ or $\delta_c^l$ is critical.
The second point to the proposition is that the only possible infinite critical rays beginning at $p$ are the rays $\delta_c^s$ or $\delta_c^l$ for $c\in C$. Suppose, to the contrary, that there is an infinite critical ray $\alpha$ distinct from the above ones. All critical rays beginning at $p$ intersect only at $p$. Consequently, there would be values $c_1$ and $c_2$ in $C$ bounding an interval on $\alpha_0$ so the $\alpha $ would lie in the region on $S_{\infty}$ bounded by $\delta_{c_1}$ and $\delta_{c_2}$.
Then there is a cut-open flute subsurface $F^*$ bounded by $\beta_1\supset\sigma_{c_1}$ and $\beta_2\supset\sigma_{c_2}$. Let $\alpha_i,\, i\geq 0$ denote the dividing curves on $F^*$ and let $\gamma_i,\, i\geq 0$ be the $\gamma$-curves on $F^*$ where $\gamma_i\cap\alpha_j \not =\emptyset$ if and only if $i=j.$ Throughout the paper we have assumed that on all flutes $F_i$, the infinite end is of the first kind. It follows from [@haas], that a geodesic ray going out the infinite end of $F$ must either cross the $\gamma$-curves or be asymptotic to the canonical Dirichlet ray $\beta^*.$ Therefore, in order for $\alpha $ to be distinct from $\delta_{c_1}$ and $\delta_{c_2}$, it must intersect at least one of the $\gamma$-curves other than $\gamma_0$. If $\alpha$ were to intersect two of the $\gamma$-curves then, as before, we could use the involution to produce a shorter geodesic between $p$ and a point on $\alpha$. Since $\alpha$ is critical, this is not possible. Thus $\alpha$ would have to meet exactly one curve $\gamma_k$ for $k>0$ and then, beyond that, would be asymptotic to either $\sigma_{c_1}$ or $\sigma_{c_2}$. Without loss of generality we take it to be the former and write $c_1=c$. Then $\alpha$ would also be eventually asymptotic to $\delta_{c}$.
Since $\alpha$ is asymptotic to $\delta_{c},$ which is itself asymptotic to $\overline{\delta}_c$, we can find values $t^*, s^*, u^*\in [0,\infty)$ so that the following inequalities are satisfied by the distances to $\overline{\delta}_c$: $d(\alpha(u^*), \overline{\delta}_c(t^*))<1/3$ and $d(\delta_c(s^*), \overline{\delta}_c(t^*))<1/3.$ Let $\mu $ be the geodesic from $\alpha(u^*)=\mu(0)$ to $\overline{\delta}_c(t^*)=\mu(\tau^*)$ and let $\nu$ be the geodesic from $\delta_c(s^*) =\nu(0)$ to $\overline{\delta}_c(t^*)=\nu(\zeta^*).$
Define $\alpha^*$ as in Equation (\[alpha\*\]). Also, define the piecewise geodesic $$\delta_c^*(s)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
\delta_c(s) & 0\leq s \leq s^*\\
\nu(s-s^*) & s^* \leq s \leq s^*+\zeta^*\\
\mu^{-1}(s-s^*-\zeta^*) & s^*+\zeta^* \leq s \leq s^*+ \zeta^*+ \tau^*,
\end{array}
\right.$$ Where $\mu^{-1}$ is the geodesic $\mu$ traversed in the opposite direction.
Let $\rho$ and $\delta^*$ denote the geodesics homotopic to $\alpha^*$ and $\delta_c^*,$ respectively Note that $\delta^*$ is a geodesic from $\alpha(0)$ to $\alpha(u^*).$ As a consequence of Lemma \[plus1\], applied to $\rho$, $u^*+\tau^* > |\rho |> t^* +1.$ By the definition of $\delta_c^*$, and considering its restriction to the interval $[0, s^*+\zeta^*],$ we have $s^*< t^* + 1/3.$ Then $$u^*+\tau^*> |\rho |\ > t^* +1 >s^* +\zeta^*+
\tau^*>|\delta^*|$$ which shows that $\alpha$ cannot be critical. That completes the proof of the second statement of the proposition.
Now we need to see that there is at most one $c\in C$ for which $\delta_c^s$ and $\delta_c^l$ are both critical. If not, and there were a second $c'\in C$ so that $\delta_c'^s$ and $\delta_c'^l$ are critical, then two of the four critical rays would have to intersect at a point other than $p$. But since critical ray cannot intersect, this is impossible $ \hfill\Box $\
\
Observe that by considering the ideal triangle with sides $\alpha_0, \delta_c$ and $\delta_c'$, one can show that both $\delta_c$ and $\delta_c'$ are critical if the distance from $c$ to $p$ along $\alpha_0$ is $a/2.$
We shall also need the following lemma in our proof of Theorem \[partial\].
\[ends\] Let ${\sf E}$ be a finite end of the first kind on a surface $S$ and let $p$ be a point on $S$. Then there exist only finitely many critical rays beginning at $p$ going out the end ${\sf E}$.
Choose a number $M>0$ so that in the complement of the ball $B(p,M)$ there is a component $V$ which is a punctured disc containing the end ${\sf E}$. Let $m$ denote the length of the boundary of $B(p,M)$.
Suppose $\alpha$ is a geodesic ray going out the end ${\sf E}$ that intersects a component $U\not \subset V$ in the complement of $B(p,M+m)$. Then there is a subarc of $\alpha$ which intersects $U$ and has its endpoints in $\partial B(p,M)$. This arc of $\alpha$ has length greater than $m$. Therefore, replacing this arc by a curve in $\partial B(p,M)$ joining its endpoints, results in a shorter curve from $p$ to any point of $\alpha$ lying beyond the arc. This shows that $\alpha$ cannot be a critical ray.
Thus each critical ray from $p$ out ${\sf E}$ must lie in $V\cup B(p,M+m)$. The end ${\sf E}$ is of the first kind. Therefore, there cannot exist two geodesic rays beginning at $p$, that go out [E]{} and bound a simply connected region on $S$. Since $B(p,M+m)$ has finitely many complementary components, any set of simple disjoint geodesic rays beginning at $p$ and going out $E$ must be finite. In particular, there can only be finitely many critical rays.
The Dirichlet polygon
---------------------
Let $A$ be the hyperbolic cylinder with oriented dividing geodesic $\alpha_0$ of length $a\leq1.$ $A$ can be uniformized by a Fuchsian group $\Gamma_0,$ generated by the transformation $g(z)=e^az.$ The covering projection $\pi:{\Bbb{H}}\rightarrow A$ takes the imaginary axis $I$, oriented from 0 to $\infty,$ to the oriented geodesic $\alpha_0.$ With this setup, the left half-plane $H^-$ covers the subannulus $A^-$ and the right half-plane covers the subannulus $A^+.$ We fix the point $\tilde{p}=ie^{\frac{a}{2}}\in I$ and let $p=\pi(\tilde{p})\in \alpha_0.$
Given a compact set $C^*\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}$, we shall define a projection of $C^*$ to a closed set $C$ on $\alpha_0$, which shall be used to construct a quilted surface. There is a Möbius transformation $\varphi(z)=Az+B,\, A, B \in {{\mathbb{R}}}, A>0, $ taking $C^*$ into the interval $[1,e^a]$ so that $1,e^a \in\varphi( C^*)$.
Given $x\not = 0,$ let $\psi(x)$ denote the hyperbolic geodesic in ${\Bbb{H}}^2$ with endpoints $x$ and $-x$. Define the map $\Lambda:C^*\rightarrow I$, that takes $c^*\in C^*$ to the point $I\cap \psi(\varphi(c^*)).$ Define $\tilde{C}=\Lambda(C^*).$ Then $\pi\circ\Lambda:C^*\rightarrow \alpha_0$ defines a map which is one-to-one, except for identifying the endpoints of $C^*.$ Define $C=\pi\circ\Lambda(C^*)$.
As in Section \[finite\], $C$ defines a sequence of oriented intervals $\{I_i\}$ on $\alpha_0.$ Choose flute surfaces $F_i$ so that for $j>0,\, |\alpha_{i,j}|=R,$ the value defined at the beginning of Section \[R\] and so that all finite ends, except for $A^-,$ are punctures. Then the quilted surface $S_{\infty}=S(\alpha_0, p, C,\{F_i\})$ satisfies the hypotheses of the previous section and therefore, Proposition \[onepointcritical\] holds.
Let $\{S_n\}$ be the collection of surfaces converging to $S_{\infty} $ and let $\Gamma_0\subset\Gamma_1\subset\ldots\subset \Gamma_{\infty} $ be the associated sequence of Fuchsian groups where $\Bbb{H}^2/\Gamma_n=S_n$ as in Lemma \[convergeL\]. It follows from Lemma \[convergeL\] and Proposition \[embed\], that for $0\leq k\leq \infty,$ the covering maps $\pi_k:{\Bbb{H}}^2\rightarrow {\Bbb{H}}^2/\Gamma_k=S_k$ maps $I$ to $\alpha_0$, $\tilde{C}$ to $C$ and $\tilde{p}=ie^{\frac{a}{2}}$ to $p.$
Let $\Gamma_{\infty}^{\varphi}$ be the Fuchsian group $\varphi^{-1}\Gamma_{\infty}\varphi$ and let $\tilde{p}^{\varphi}=\varphi^{-1}(\tilde{p}).$ Recall that $D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} )$ is the Dirichlet polygon of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ centered at $\tilde{p}$ and $\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} )$ is its boundary at infinity.
Recall from Proposition 4 that one of $\delta_c^s$ or $\delta_c^l$ is critical. Let $\delta_c$ be one of these rays that is critical.
Theorem \[partial\] is an immediate consequence of the following theorem.
\[4\] $\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p}^{\varphi}, \Gamma_{\infty}^{\varphi})$ consists of the union of the set $C^*$, the interval $\varphi^{-1}([-e^a, -1])$ and a countable set of isolated parabolic fixed points of $\Gamma_{\infty}^{\varphi}$.
Since $\varphi^{-1}(\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} ))= \partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p}^{\varphi}, \Gamma_{\infty}^{\varphi}),$ it suffices to prove that $\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} )$ consists of the union of the set $\varphi(C^*)$, the interval $ [-e^a, -1] $ and a countable set of isolated parabolic fixed points of $\Gamma_{\infty}.$ So without loss of generality we suppose $\varphi(z)=z.$
Since $\tilde{p}$ is chosen to be the hyperbolic midpoint of the arc of $I$ with endpoints $i$ and $ie^a$, the Dirichlet polygon $D(\tilde{p},\Gamma_0)$ is bounded by the two geodesics $\psi(1)$ and $\psi(e^a).$ Thus $\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p},\Gamma_0)=[-e^a,-1]\cup [1,e^a].$ It follows from Lemma \[convergeL\] that for each of the subgroups $\Gamma_k,\, k\in {\Bbb{N}}\cup\{\infty\}$ the left half-plane is precisely invariant under the subgroup $\Gamma_0\subset\Gamma_k$; that is, $g(H^-)=H^-$, for $g\in \Gamma_0$ and $g(H^-)\cap H^-=\emptyset$ for $g\in \Gamma_k\setminus\Gamma_0.$ Thus the boundary at infinity of $D(\tilde{p},\Gamma_k)\cap H^-$ is $[-e^a,-1]$, for all $k\in {\Bbb{N}}\cup\{\infty\}.$
As observed earlier, there is an intimate relationship between points on the boundary at infinity of the Dirichlet polygon at $\tilde{p}$ for $\Gamma_{\infty}$ and the critical rays on $S_{\infty}$ beginning at $p$. In particular, $q\in \partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} )$ if and only if there is a critical ray $\alpha$ on $S_{\infty}$ beginning at $p$ and a lift $\tilde{\alpha}$ to $
{\Bbb{H}}^2$ beginning at $\tilde{p}$ so that $\d{\lim_{t \rightarrow\infty}\tilde{\alpha}(t)=q.}$ In order to simplify notation we shall refer to $q$ as the endpoint of the ray $\tilde{\alpha}.$
For example, the points of $[-e^a,-1]\subset \partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} )$ are the endpoints of lifts of critical rays beginning at $p$ that go out the finite end on the subsurface $A^-$.
For each $c\in C,\, \delta_c$ lifts to a geodesic ray $\tilde{\delta}_c$ beginning at $\tilde{p}.$ Since $\delta_c$ is a critical ray, the endpoint $q$ of $\tilde{\delta}_c$ lies in the boundary of $ D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} )$. Let $Q$ denote the set of all endpoints of the lifts of rays $\tilde{\delta}_c$ for $c\in C.$ We show that $Q=C^*.$
Observe that the region $\Omega\subset S_{\infty}$ bounded by the geodesic rays $\delta_c$ and $\overline{\delta}_c$ is simply connected. Chose the lift $\tilde{\Omega}$ of $\Omega$ to ${\Bbb{H}}^2$ so that $\delta_c$ lifts to $\tilde{\delta}_c.$ Then the boundary of $\tilde{\Omega}$, $\partial \tilde{\Omega},$ contains a lift of the arc of $\alpha_0\subset \overline{\delta}_c$ passing through $\tilde{p}$ whose length is less than or equal to $\frac{a}{2}$. This lift must then be an arc of $I$ lying between $i$ and $ie^a$. Similarly, $\sigma_c\subset \partial\Omega$, lifts to a geodesic ray $\tilde{\sigma}_c\subset \partial \tilde{\Omega},$ which is orthogonal to the lift $I$ of $\alpha_0.$ The geodesic rays $\tilde{\delta}_c$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_c$ are asymptotic and therefore share the same endpoint $q.$ It follows that $\tilde{\sigma}_c(0)=\tilde{c}\in \tilde{C}, $ and then $q=\Lambda^{-1}(\tilde{c})\in C^*.$
Conversely, it follows by the same considerations that, if $c^*\in C^*$ and $c=\pi\circ\Lambda(c^*)$, then the lift $\tilde{\delta}_c$ of $\delta_c$ beginning at $\tilde{p}$ has endpoint $c^*.$ Thus $C^*=Q.$
We next show that if $q\in \partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} )$ is not in $[-e^a,-1]$ or $C^*$ then $q$ is an isolated parabolic fixed point of $\Gamma_{\infty}.$ Suppose $\tilde{\alpha}:[0,\infty)\rightarrow {\Bbb{H}}^2$ is a geodesic ray with initial point $\tilde{p}$ and endpoint $q $. Then $\tilde{\alpha}$ projects to a critical ray $\alpha$ on $S_{\infty}.$ If $\alpha$ goes out the infinite end of $S_{\infty}$, then by Proposition \[onepointcritical\], $\alpha=\delta_c$ for some $c\in C$ and then, by the earlier arguments, $q\in C^*.$ Furthermore, if $\alpha$ goes out the end of $S_{\infty}$ corresponding to the annular region $A^-,$ then we have seen that $q\in [-e^a,-1].$ The only remaining possibility is that $\alpha$ goes out a finite end $E$ of $S_{\infty}$, corresponding to a puncture. In that case $q$ must be a parabolic fixed point of $\Gamma_{\infty}.$
It is well known that if $q$ is a parabolic fixed point of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}},$ then there is a horocycle (open disc) $N$ in ${\Bbb{H}}^2$, tangent to ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ at $q$ so that any geodesic ray in ${\Bbb{H}}^2$ that intersects $N$ projects to a self-intersecting geodesic on $S_{\infty}$. Since critical rays are simple, no lift of a critical ray on $S_{\infty}$ beginning at $p$ to one beginning at $\tilde{p}$ can intersect $N$. Consequently, there is a neighborhood of $q$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ that does not contain other boundary points of $D(\tilde{p} , \Gamma_{\infty} ).$
Finally, since $\Gamma_{\infty}$ is countable, there can be only countably many parabolic fixed points. That completes the proof.
The proof of Theorem \[C\]
--------------------------
Choose $a<1$ so that $|\alpha_0|=a$ and $\sinh^{-1} [(
\sinh \frac{|\alpha_0|}{2})^{-1} ] >a.$ Then the collar neighborhood $C_{S_{\infty}}(\alpha_0, a)$ of $\alpha_0$ of width $2a$ is an embedded annulus in $S_{\infty}=S(\alpha_0, p, C,\{F_i\}).$ There is a unique hyperbolic, twice punctured disc $D$, for which the boundary geodesic $\beta$ has length $a$. As above, the Collar Lemma also tells us that $\beta$ has an embedded collar neighborhood of width $2a$ in $D$.
On $S_{\infty}$ remove the annular region $A^-$ to the left of $\alpha_0$, to get the surface $\overline{S}_{\infty}$ with geodesic boundary $\alpha_0.$ Similarly, on $D$ remove the annular region in the complement of $\beta$ on $D$ to get a twice punctured disc $\overline{D}$ with geodesic boundary $\beta.$ Choose a point $q$ on $\beta$ so that the unique minimal length geodesic arc on $\overline{D}$, separating the punctures, with both endpoints on $\beta$ begins at $q$.
We can now glue the surfaces $\overline{S}_{\infty}$ and $\overline{D}$ together by identifying $\beta$ and $\alpha_0$ so that $p$ and $q$ are matched by the identification. The resulting surface $M_{\infty}$ is a hyperbolic surface with infinitely many ends: one is an infinite end and the rest are punctures. Let $G$ be the Fuchsian group representing $M_{\infty}$, which may be chosen so that $G\supset \Gamma_{\infty}.$
The theorem will be proved by showing that $\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p},G)$ consists of the set $\varphi(K),$ where $\varphi$ is as in the proof of Theorem \[4\], and a set of isolated parabolic fixed points of $G$. Reverting to familiar notation, let $C^*=K $ and, without loss of generality, we suppose that $\varphi(z)=z.$ We consider the problem intrinsically on $M_{\infty}$. Since $\overline{S}_{\infty} $ sits naturally inside $M_{\infty}$, the geodesic rays $\delta_c$ are all defined on $M_{\infty}$. We shall extend Proposition \[onepointcritical\] to apply to the surfaces $M_{\infty}$, by showing that the only infinite critical rays on $M_{\infty}$ are still the $\delta_c$ for $c\in C$.
Let us see how the above will suffice to prove the theorem. First, observe that on the new surface there is no finite end of the second kind. As a result, every point in $\partial_{\infty}D(\tilde{p},G)$ is the endpoint of a lift of an infinite critical ray or, as we have seen from earlier arguments, an isolated parabolic fixed point of $G$. As a consequence of the extended version of Proposition \[onepointcritical\], the only lifts of infinite critical rays beginning at $\tilde{p}$ are the $\tilde{\delta}_c$ for $c\in C$, and their endpoints comprise exactly the set $C^*.$
It remains for us to prove, what we call, the extended proposition. This is done by showing that if $\alpha$ is a critical ray on $M_{\infty},$ then $\alpha\subset \overline{S}_{\infty} \subset M_{\infty}.$ But if $\alpha\subset \overline{S}_{\infty}\subset S_{\infty}$ is an infinite critical ray, then by Proposition \[onepointcritical\], $\alpha$ is one of the rays $\delta_c,\,c\in C.$ Suppose $\alpha:[0,u^*]\rightarrow M_{\infty}$ is a geodesic ray with $\alpha(0)=p$, $\alpha\not\subset \overline{S}_{\infty}$ and $\alpha$ goes out the infinite end of $M_{\infty}$. Then $\alpha$ will have non-empty intersection with the interior of the surface $\overline{D}\subset M_{\infty}$ but must eventually lie on $\overline{S}_{\infty}.$ In order for this to occur, there would need to be values $u_1, u_2, 0\leq u_1 <u_2$ so that $\alpha([u_1,u_2])\subset \overline{D}$ and $\alpha(u_1), \alpha(u_2)\in \alpha_0.$
It is now possible to construct a piecewise geodesic $\overline{\alpha}$ lying entirely on $\overline{S}_{\infty},$ which is strictly shorter than $\alpha$ between the same endpoints. The geodesic $\overline{\alpha}$ is made by following an arc of $\alpha$ from $\alpha(0)$ to $\alpha(u_1)$, then following an arc of $\alpha_0$ from $\alpha(u_1)$ to $\alpha(u_2)$ and finally, following the arc of $\alpha$ from $\alpha(u_2)$ to $\alpha(u^*).$ Since the arc $\alpha([u_1,u_2])$ crosses half the collar $C_{M_{\infty}}(\alpha_0, a)$ twice in the interior of $\overline{D}$, its length must be greater than $2a$. But the arc of $\alpha_0$ replacing it has length less than $a$. Thus $\alpha$ cannot be critical. That completes the proof of Theorem \[C\].
Critical and subcritical rays get close to $\Sigma$ {#close}
===================================================
Consider the set $\Sigma=\{\sigma_c|\ c\in C\}$. Let $\epsilon>0
$ be given and let $N(\Sigma,\epsilon)$ be the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $\Sigma.$ We are interested in showing that the infinite critical and subcritical rays eventually lie in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $\Sigma.$
\[Sigma\] Let $\sigma:[0,\infty)\rightarrow S_{\infty}$ be an infinite critical or subcritical ray on $S_{\infty}$. Given $\epsilon>0$ there is a positive real $t_{\epsilon}$ so that if $t>t_{\epsilon},$ then $
\sigma(t)\in N(\Sigma,\epsilon).$
Let $\sigma : [0,\infty)
\longrightarrow S_\infty$ be a geodesic ray that goes out the infinite end of $S_{\infty}.$ We employ a construction that will enable us to examine a sequence, $\{\lambda_i\},$ of points on $\sigma$ that lie as far as possible from $\Sigma,$ in particular, farther than a given positive constant $\epsilon.$ The proof of Theorem \[Sigma\] will amount to showing that the hypothesis that $\{\lambda_i\}$ is an infinite sequence leads to the conclusion that $\sigma$ is neither critical nor subcritical,
Let $\epsilon >0$ be given. Define $f:[0,\infty) \longrightarrow [0,\infty)$ by $f(\lambda)= d(\sigma (\lambda),\Sigma).$ Clearly, $f$ is continuous, so the set $E=f^{-1}((0,\infty))$ is a countable union of disjoint, open, connected components. Let $\{V_i\ |\ i \in I^\prime\}$, where $I^\prime$ is some countable index set, be the collection of these open intervals, and let $I \subset I'$ be the set of indices for which $V_i \cap f^{-1}((\epsilon, \infty))$ is nonempty. Let $I_b\subset I$ denote the set of $i\in I$ for which $V_i$ is bounded. For each $i \in I_b,$ let $d_i=max_{\lambda \in \overline{V}_i} f(\lambda)$, and choose exactly one point $\lambda_i \in f^{-1}(d_i)\bigcap V_i.$ Clearly, for each $i \in I_b,$ $\sigma(\lambda_i)$ is a choice of a point on $\sigma$ that is farthest from $\Sigma$ for all points $\sigma(\lambda)$, $\lambda \in V_i.$
Given $\lambda, \mu \in L:=\{\lambda_i : i \in I_b\}$, note that if the set $
[\lambda, \mu ] \cap L$ has at least $m$ elements, then $\mu-\lambda > 2(m-1)\epsilon.$ As $\mu-\lambda$ is the length of the segment of $\sigma$ that goes from $\sigma(\lambda)$ to $\sigma(\mu)$, it follows that for all $\lambda, \mu \in L$, $\lambda < \mu$, $ [\lambda,
\mu ] \cap L$ is a finite set.
Assume for the remainder of this discussion that $L$ is infinite. Given the remark above, we may now (re-)order $L$ into a strictly increasing sequence $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ where $\lambda_i \rightarrow \infty$ as $i \rightarrow \infty.$ Evidently, the hypothesis that $L$ is an infinite set implies that each of the (reordered) intervals $V_i$ has finite length and therefore, that $I_b=I.$
For each $i \in \Bbb{N}$ let $\tau_{2i-1}$ and $\tau_{2i}$ be, respectively, the left and right endpoints of the interval $\overline{V}_i.$ Note that for all $i,$ $\sigma(\tau_{2i-1})$ and $\sigma(\tau_{2i})$ lie on scaffolding geodesics in $\Sigma.$ Thus, for each $i \in \Bbb{N},$ there are, not necessarily distinct, scaffolding curves $\beta_{2i-1}$ and $\beta_{2i},$ as well as positive reals $t_{2i-1}$ and $t_{2i},$ such that $\beta_{2i-1}(t_{2i-1})= \sigma(\tau_{2i-1})$ and $\beta_{2i}(t_{2i})= \sigma(\tau_{2i})$. Observe that $\beta_{2i-1}(t_{2i-1})= \sigma(\tau_{2i-1})$ and $\beta_{2i}(t_{2i})= \sigma(\tau_{2i})$ are the endpoints of the smallest connected segment of $\sigma$ that contains $\sigma(\lambda_i),$ and has endpoints lying in $\Sigma.$ In other words, the segment $\sigma((\tau_{2i-1},\tau_{2i}))$ of $\sigma,$ which includes the point $\sigma(\lambda_i),$ has empty intersection with $\Sigma.$ Since each point of $S_{\infty}$ lies either on $\Sigma$ or in the interior of a cut-open subflute, it follows that $\sigma((\tau_{2i-1},\tau_{2i}))$ lies on a cut-open subflute, denoted $F^*_i.$ Now, $\beta_{2i-1}$ is one of the boundary scaffolding geodesics of $F^*_i;$ let $\beta'_i$ be the other and observe that either $\beta'_i=\beta_{2i-1}$ or $\beta'_i=\beta_{2i}.$ Note that, from the construction, for each $i \in \Bbb{N},$ we have $\sigma:[\tau_{2i-1},\tau_{2i}]\rightarrow F^*_i,$ $\sigma(\tau_{2i-1}),\,\sigma(\tau_{2i})\in\, \beta_{2i-1}\cup\beta'_i=\partial F^*_i,$ and $\lambda_i \in [\tau_{2i-1},\tau_{2i}]$ such that $d(\sigma(\lambda_i),(\beta_{2i-1} \cup \beta'_i)) \ge d(\sigma(\lambda),(\beta_{2i-1} \cup \beta'_i))$ for all $\lambda \in [\tau_{2i-1},\tau_{2i}],$ that is, $\sigma(\lambda_i)$ realizes the maximal value for $d(\sigma(\lambda), \beta_{2i-1}\cup\beta'_i)$ among all points on $\sigma([\tau_{2i-1},\tau_{2i}])$. By Lemma \[newFive\], $\sigma(\lambda_i)$ must lie on a $\gamma$-curve of $F^*_i.$ Applying Lemma \[newSix\] to this arc of $\sigma$ on the flute $F^*_i$, we obtain $$\tau_{2i}-\tau_{2i-1}>|t_{2i}-t_{2i-1}|+2 \log\left (\frac {k^2+1}{2k}\right ),$$ where $\log k=d(\sigma(\lambda_i), \beta_{2i-1}\cup\beta'_i).$
As earlier, let $\kappa(R)=2 \log\big (\frac {k^2+1}{2k}\big ),$ where $\log k = R.$ For each $i\in{\Bbb{N}}$ set $\epsilon_i=d(\sigma(\lambda_i), \beta_{2i-1}\cup\beta'_i).$ Then from the construction we have $\epsilon_i\geq\epsilon$ for all $i\in{\Bbb{N}}.$ Since $\kappa$ is strictly increasing for $R\geq 0,$ we have proved the first part of the next lemma; the second part is a direct consequence of Lemma \[forSigma\].
\[cepsilon\] Let $\epsilon>0$ be given. With definitions as above, there is a positive constant $\kappa(\epsilon)$ such that $\tau_{2i}-\tau_{2i-1}>
|\ t_{2i}-t_{2i-1} \ |+\kappa(\epsilon).$ Generally, for all $i$, $\tau_{i+1}-\tau_i > |\ t_{i+1}-t_{i} \ |$; in particular, $\tau_{2i+1}-\tau_{2i} > |\ t_{2i+1}-t_{2i} \ |.$
[*Proof of Theorem \[Sigma\].* ]{}
Let $\epsilon >0$ be given. For the geodesic ray $\sigma,$ construct the collection $V=\{V_i\ |\ i \in I\}$ as defined above. Recall that each for each $V_i,$ $\sigma(V_i)$ lies in the cut-open, untwisted flute $F^*_i$ and $V_i$ contains a point $\lambda_i$ for which $d(\sigma(\lambda_i),\Sigma)>\epsilon.$ Further, any point $t>0$ for which $d(\sigma(t),\Sigma)>\epsilon$ must lie in some $V_i.$ Therefore, if the collection $V$ is a finite collection of sets, and each $V_i$ in the collection is bounded, then the conclusion of the theorem is true, namely, there is a $t_\epsilon>0$ such that, $\sigma(t)\in N(\Sigma,\epsilon)$ for $t> t_\epsilon.$
We note first that $V_i$ cannot be unbounded. In that case, since $\sigma(V_i)$ lies in exactly one cut-open, untwisted flute, $F^*_i,$ the curve $\sigma$ would, after a point, lie entirely in the flute $F^*_i.$ But then by the hypothesis that the each flute $F_i$ is of the first kind, the results in [@haas] can be used to deduce that $\sigma$ must eventually lie arbitrarily close to the scaffolding curves bounding this subflute, and therefore must eventually lie in $N(\Sigma,\epsilon). $
We now know the sets $V_i$ in the collection $V$ are each bounded. It remains to show that the collection is finite. Suppose that $V$ is an infinite collection. We will show that in this case, $\sigma$ is neither critical not subcritical. Employing the earlier construction, there are infinite sequences of scaffolding curves $\beta_i,$ $\beta'_i$ and infinite sequences $\lambda_i$, $\tau_i$, $t_i$ $\in [0,\infty],$ $i \in \Bbb{N}$ as above, where for each $i,$ $d(\Sigma,
\sigma(\lambda_i))>\epsilon$; in particular, $d(\sigma(\lambda_i), (\beta_{2i-1}\cup \beta'_{i}))>\epsilon$. By Lemma \[cepsilon\], there is a positive constant $\kappa(\epsilon)$ such that, for each $i \in \Bbb{N}$, $$\tau_{2i}-\tau_{2i-1} > |\
t_{2i}-t_{2i-1} \ |+\kappa(\epsilon);$$ and for all $i,$ $$\tau_{2i+1}-\tau_{2i} > t_{2i+1}-t_{2i}.$$
Choose $N \in \Bbb{N}$ such that $N\kappa(\epsilon) >
|\alpha_0|+d(\sigma(0),\alpha_0)+\ |t_1-\tau_1\ | +m,$ where $m$ is an arbitrarily chosen positive real. The length of the curve $\sigma([0,\tau_{2N}])$ is $\tau_{2N}$. From Lemma \[cepsilon\] we have,
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{2N}-\tau_1
&=\Sigma_{i=1}^{2N-1}(\tau_{i+1}-\tau_{i})\nonumber\\
&=\Sigma_{i=1}^{N}(\tau_{2i}-\tau_{2i-1})+
\Sigma_{i=1}^{N-1}(\tau_{2i+1}-\tau_{2i})\nonumber\\
&>\Sigma_{i=1}^{N}(|\ t_{2i}-t_{2i-1}\ | +\kappa(\epsilon)) + \Sigma_{i=1}^{N-1}|\
t_{2i+1}-t_{2i}\ |\nonumber\\
&\geq N\kappa(\epsilon) + \Sigma_{i=1}^{N}(
t_{2i}-t_{2i-1}) + \Sigma_{i=1}^{N-1}(t_{2i+1}-t_{2i})\nonumber\\
&=N\kappa(\epsilon)+ \Sigma_{i=1}^{2N-1}(t_{i+1}-t_i)\nonumber\\
&=N\kappa(\epsilon)+ t_{2N}-t_1\nonumber\\
&> |\alpha_0|+d(\sigma(0),\alpha_0)+\ |t_1-\tau_1|+m +t_{2N}-t_1.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{2N}&> |\alpha_0|+d(\sigma(0),\alpha_0)+|t_1-\tau_1|-(t_1-\tau_1)+t_{2N}+m \nonumber\\
&\geq |\alpha_0|+d(\sigma(0),\alpha_0)+t_{2N}+m.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Note that the piecewise curve beginning at $\sigma(0)$, proceeding along a minimal length geodesic to a point on $\alpha_0$, then along $\alpha_0$ to the scaffolding curve $\beta_{2N}(0)$, along $\beta_{2N}$ to $\beta_{2N}(t_{2N}),$ has length less than $|\alpha_0|+d(\sigma(0),\alpha_0)+t_{2N}$. It follows from the inequality above that the length of the curve $\sigma(0,\tau_{2N})$ is larger than this piecewise curve by at least $m,$ where $m$ was arbitrary. Therefore, it follows that $\sigma$ can be neither critical nor subcritical. $\hfill\Box$\
\
[1]{}
L.V. Ahlfors and L. Sario. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1960.
A. Basmajian. Constructing pairs of pants. 15 (1990) 65-74.
A. Basmajian. Hyperbolic structures for surfaces of infinite type. 336 (1993), no. 1, 421–444. A.F. Beardon. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.
A. Haas. Dirichlet Points, Garnett Points, and Infinite Ends of Hyperbolic Surfaces I. 21 (1996), no. 1, 3–29.
J.P. Matelski. A compactness theorem for Fuchsian groups of the second kind 43 (1976), no. 4, 829–840.
P.J. Nicholls and P.L. Waterman. The boundary of convex fundamental domains of [F]{}uchsian groups. 15 (1990), no. 1, 11–25.
D. Sullivan. On the ergodic theory at infinity of an arbitrary discrete group of hyperbolic motions. In [*Riemann Surfaces and Related Topics: Proceedings of the 1978 Stony Brook Conference*]{}, pages 465–496. ed. by I. Kra and B. Maskit, Ann. of Math. Studies 97, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1981.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Gemini Multi-conjugate Adaptive Optics System - GeMS, a facility instrument mounted on the Gemini South telescope, delivers a uniform, near diffraction limited images at near infrared wavelengths (0.95 $\mu$m - 2.5 $\mu$m) over a field of view of 120$\:$. GeMS is the first sodium layer based multi laser guide star adaptive optics system used in astronomy. It uses five laser guide stars distributed on a 60$\:$square constellation to measure for atmospheric distortions and two deformable mirrors to compensate for it. In this paper, the second devoted to describe the GeMS project, we present the commissioning, overall performance and operational scheme of GeMS. Performance of each sub-system is derived from the commissioning results. The typical image quality, expressed in full with half maximum, Strehl ratios and variations over the field delivered by the system are then described. A discussion of the main contributor to performance limitation is carried-out. Finally, overheads and future system upgrades are described.'
author:
- '\'
bibliography:
- 'ao.bib'
- 'gems.bib'
date: Released 2014 Xxxxx XX
title: 'Gemini multi-conjugate adaptive optics system review II: Commissioning, operation and overall performance'
---
\[firstpage2\]
instrumentation: adaptive optics, instrumentation: high angular resolution, telescopes, laser guide stars, tomography
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Adaptive Optics (AO) is a technique that aims to compensate the phase aberrations induced by atmospheric turbulence. Aberrations are measured by a Wave-Front Sensor (WFS), using observations of a Guide Star (GS). Corrections are applied by an optical active device, generally a Deformable Mirror (DM). For the current class of 8-10 meter astronomical telescopes, AO typically improves the angular resolution by an order of magnitude, and restores a resolution close to the telescope diffraction limit. Over the past 20 years, AO for astronomy has gone from a demonstration phase to a well-proven and operational technique, and it is now almost universally considered as an essential part of any new large telescope. In addition, to increase the number of targets on which AO can be used, all of the major 8 meter telescopes are now equipped with Laser Guide Stars (LGS - see e.g. [@wizinowich2012progress]). AO and LGS-AO observations have enabled major discoveries in astronomy with, among others, the discovery and study of the supermassive black hole at the center of our Galaxy (e.g. [@ghez2008gc; @genzel2010gc]), detailed images of the surface of solar systems bodies (e.g. [@hartung2004new; @depater2010persistent]), or precise morphology and dynamics of very distant galaxies (e.g. [@huertas2008robust; @cresci2009sins; @wright2009dynamics; @carrasco2010]).
The advent of a new generation of AO systems called Wide Field AO (WFAO) mark the beginning of a new era. By using multiple GSs, either LGS or Natural Guide Stars (NGSs), WFAO significantly increases the field of view of the AO-corrected images, and the fraction of the sky that can benefit from such correction. Where the first AO systems (also called Single-Conjugate AO or SCAO) were well suited for observations of bright and relatively compact objects, the new generation of WFAO is opening the path for a multitude of new science studies.
Different flavours of WFAO have been studied over the past years. They all require multiple GSs to perform a tomographic analysis of the atmospheric turbulence. What differentiates the various WFAO systems is how the turbulence correction is applied. Ground Layer AO (GLAO) uses a single DM optically conjugated to the telescope pupil [@rigaut2001glao]. If the correction is optimised over a field of view larger than the anisoplanatism angle, then only the atmospheric layers close to the ground will be compensated [@ragazzoni2002multiple], providing a partial, but uniform correction over the field. Another solution, called Multi-Conjugate AO [MCAO, @dicke1975phase; @beckers1988increasing; @ellerbroek1994first; @johnston1994analysis] uses several DMs optically conjugated to the main turbulence layers. In that case, all the layers close to the DM altitude conjugation will be compensated, restoring the telescope diffraction limit over field of views many times larger than the ones achievable with SCAO at Near Infra-Red (NIR) wavelengths.
MCAO for night time astronomy[^1] was first demonstrated by MAD, a prototype built at the European Southern Observatory [@marchetti2003mad; @marchetti2007mad]. MAD used three NGSs, two DMs conjugated at the ground and at an altitude of 8.5$\:$km, and provided a corrected field of view of almost 2$\:$arcmin across. Although MAD successfully demonstrated the gain brought by WFAO over SCAO, it was limited in the number of potential targets due to limiting magnitude of the required NGSs (m$_{\rm R}<12.5$) and, essentially running out of targets, the instrument was decommissioned in 2008. The first multi-LGS WFAO system open for the community was a GLAO system operating at the MMT, which uses three 532$\:$nm Rayleigh LGSs [@Baranec2009glao]. GeMS, the Gemini MCAO system, is the first sodium based multi-LGS MCAO system.
This paper is the second of a review describing the GeMS project. The first paper ([@rigaut2013review] - hereafter Paper I) covers the first part of the history of the project, from the original idea to the first light images. It also includes a detailed description of GeMS, hence only a brief description of the system is given here. GeMS is made by two main sub-systems: (i) the LGS Facility (LGSF) that includes a 50$\:$W laser and an optical system called Beam Transfer Optics (BTO) that relays the laser light, and controls the LGSs, and (ii) the MCAO bench, called [Canopus]{}. In short, the 50$\:$W laser is split in 5$\times$10$\:$W beams to produce the 5 LGSs projected on the sky at the corners and center of a 60square. These LGSs feed five 16$\times$16 subapertures Shack-Hartmann WFSs (so-called LGSWFSs). The 2040 slope measurements are used to compute the MCAO high-order correction, correction provided at up to 800$\:$Hz by two deformable mirrors conjugated to 0 and 9$\:$km. In addition, up to three visible NGSs provide the measurements for the compensation of the tip-tilt and anisoplanatic modes. The tip-tilt compensation is done by a tip-tilt mirror (TTM) while the Tilt-Anisoplanatic (TA) modes are compensated by a combination of quadratic modes on DM0 and DM9. A fraction of the light from one of the NGS is directed toward a Slow Focus WFS (SFS), which controls the LGSWFS zoom to keep the instrument in focus. At the GeMS output, the corrected beam can be steered toward different science instruments attached to the Cassegrain focus instrument cluster. The main instrument used to date is GSAOI [@mcgregor2004gemini], a 4k$\times$4k NIR imager covering $85''\!\times 85''$ designed to work at the diffraction limit of the 8-meter telescope. This paper focuses on the commissioning, overall performance and operation scheme of GeMS. The goal of this paper is to give a top-level view of the GeMS capability, that could be used for instance when preparing observations. Section \[sec:commissioning\] summarises the commissioning period, and details the performance of the sub-systems. Section \[sec:system\_verification\] gives an overview of the System Verification (SV) period, and illustrates the science capability provided by GeMS. Section \[sec:performance\] analyses the top-level performance delivered by GeMS in term of image quality over the field and astrometry precision. Note that this paper does not intend to perform a detailed analysis of the system performance, as this will be presented in a dedicated paper. Section \[sec:operations\] discusses the operational scheme of GeMS, including overheads, and finally section \[sec:the\_future\_of\_gems\] presents the system upgrades.
Commissioning Overview {#sec:commissioning}
======================
Summary and timeline {#sub:summary_timeline}
--------------------
In early October 2010, the decision was made to move [Canopus]{} to the telescope and start on-sky commissioning as soon as possible. This decision was motivated by the seasonal weather conditions at Cerro Pach[ó]{}n and the need for clear nights to propagate the laser for efficient commissioning. [Canopus]{}’ move from the Gemini La Serena headquarters to the telescope marked the ending of the Assembly Integration and Test (AIT) phase, and set the beginning of the on-sky commissioning period. [Canopus]{} was installed on the telescope on January 10, 2010, and night time commissioning started on January 20, 2011. The first phase of the commissioning lasted five months, with five runs of 4 to 7 nights each. The main focus of this first period was the commissioning of LGS facility and check the [Canopus]{} basic functionalities.
After this first commissioning period, in early June 2011, GeMS entered a planned five-month maintenance period. The Chilean winter yields conditions less favourable for AO observations, and this presented a timely opportunity to fix, repair and upgrade many GeMS systems based on the experience acquired on-sky, as well as to finish tasks that were put on hold prior to the accelerated commissioning plans starting in January 2011.
A second period of commissioning started in November 2011, with seven runs of 5 to 9 nights spread over seven months. The objectives of this period were to demonstrate the MCAO correction, conduct GSAOI commissioning and start integrating GeMS into the Gemini science operations. In June 2012, GeMS entered its second five month shutdown phase. This engineering period was dedicated to implement the required upgrades before GeMS entered into regular operations. The latest phase of commissioning started in October 2012 with three runs of 8 nights each.
In total, 95 nights have been used for the GeMS commissioning. Of these nights, 16 were lost to bad weather and 14 to major technical issues (defined as a problem that completely halts commissioning until it is solved). The number of major technical issues has been decreasing since December 2011, indicating that the system is getting more stable. Overall, technical issues occurred more frequently at the beginning of the runs, and were generally solved in a very short time frame by the engineering team. However this implies the need for a large engineering team either present on the summit or on-call, complicating the practical organisation of the runs. In the next sections we give more details on the commissioning of each sub-system.
Laser Guide Star Facility commissioning {#sub:lgsf_commissioning}
---------------------------------------
The Laser Guide Star Facility (LGSF) includes the 50$\:$W laser [@dorgeville2002gemini; @dorgeville2003laser; @hankla2006twenty] and the Beam Transfer Optics [BTO - @dorgeville2008gemini] that transports the 50$\:$W beam up the telescope, splits the beam five-ways and configures the five 10$\:$W beams for projection by the Laser Launch Telescope (LLT) located behind the Gemini South 8$\:$m telescope secondary mirror. The LGSF was the first subsystem to be commissioned. Most of the LGSF functionalities were tested and commissioned during the January to March 2011 period, however the final LGSF commissioning continued until 2012. An analysis of the commissioning and performance of the LGSF have been described in [@dorgeville2012gemini] and [@fesquet2013review].
### Laser spot size and photon return optimisation {#ssub:spotsize}
Fig. \[fig:lgs\_spots\] shows an image of the LGS constellation, acquired with the telescope Acquisition Camera (AC), when the telescope has been defocused to be conjugated to 90$\:$km. The spot Full-Width Half-Max (FWHM) is about 1.3and almost Gaussian in shape. The natural seeing (defined at 0.5$\mu$m) was 0.65during this acquisition.
LGS short-exposure FWHMs obtained during the 2012 and 2013 laser runs have ranged from 1.2(best) to 1.9(worst) depending on seeing and actual focus optimisation, with a distribution centered near 1.7. The original specification for the spot size was to achieve 1FWHM on the telescope AC. The LGSWFS subaperture FoV is 2.8, hence, spot truncation in the edge subapertures may impact the performance when seeing conditions are bad.
The specification was built assuming a laser beam quality of M$^2$ $<$1.4, no optical aberrations induced by the BTO, and a Wave-Front Error budget of 95 nm rms for the LLT. The laser beam quality has been measured to be M$_x^2$ $\sim$1.3,M$_y^2$ $\sim$2.3, with a strong elongation due to the laser amplifiers geometry [@fesquet2013review]. The LLT optical quality has been tested using lucky imaging on natural stars. FWHM of 0.6leads to a WFE of $\sim$130 nm. We also measured that an improvement of up to 0.2in the FWHM can be obtained when the beams are centered over the right part of the LLT, revealing issues with the LLT optical quality. Finally, on the other parameters affecting the spot size on-sky, we have measured better performance when the LLT tube covers were open, and when the air supply used in the BTO to ensure over pressure was turned off. These actions reduced the sources of turbulence and internal seeing on the BTO.
\[fig:lgs\_spots\]
The photon return has been monitored over the period of the commissioning, from 2011 to 2013. The main variations observed are due to sodium density fluctuations as described in [@neichel2013sodium]. A detailed analysis of the photon return is also presented in [@dorgeville2012gemini]. The most important result is that the return, as measured by the LGSWFS, is a factor 2 to 5 lower than specifications. The original requirement was giving a range of 250-390$\:$ph/subaperture/frame at the design frame rate of 800Hz (the subaperture size is 50$\times$50$\:$cm$^2$), equivalent to 80 to 120$\:$ph/cm$^2$/s. Sodium return values measured during the 2011-2013 period gives number ranging from 10 to 90$\:$ph/cm$^2$/s. The lower values being observed during the low sodium season (November to February) and the highest one during the high sodium season (May to July). The impact of the low photon return on performance is discussed in Sect. \[sec:performance\]. Several factors can explain the discrepancy between specifications and the actual results. First, the laser spectral format itself is not fulfilling the original requirements: the spectral bandwidth of the laser is twice what was designed originally. This directly and dramatically impacts the interaction with the sodium atoms, as described in e.g. [@moussaoui2009sodium], [@holzlohner2010sodium] and [@rochester2012sodium]. Second, the total throughput of the BTO and LLT is 30% below the original specification. The [Canopus]{} throughput at 589 nm is also 50% below the original specification. Finally, the control of the polarisation of the laser beams has not been implemented yet, which leads to relative differences of 1.5 to 2 in flux between the five beams, varying with telescope elevation. Some of these issues will be addressed in future system upgrades as described in Sect. \[sec:the\_future\_of\_gems\].
### LGSF integration with CANOPUS {#ssub:lgsf_vs_canopus}
During operation, once the LGSs have been acquired on the [Canopus]{} LGSWFS, the tip-tilt error measured by each of the WFS is sent to an array of five fast steering mirrors (called FSA for Fast Steering Array) located in the BTO. This forms a closed-loop and is running at up to 200$\:$Hz. On top of compensating for possible mechanical flexure, it is also compensating for the uplink tip-tilt due to the atmospheric turbulence. It is a critical element of GeMS and the system could not work without this compensation. Closed loop performance of the fast jitter compensation by the FSA platforms gives tip-tilt residuals on the order of 0.1Root-Mean-Square (RMS) and a closed-loop bandwidth of about 5$\:$Hz. Tip-tilt residuals are twice above the original specification, however, and because the LGS spots are bigger than originally designed, the linearity range of the LGSWFS quadcell is large enough to accommodate these residuals. For a typical spot size of 1(measured on a subaperture), the linearity range is $\pm$0.5. The FSA mirrors only have a small dynamical range ($\pm$5equivalent on sky), hence their average position is offloaded to a combination of a Pointing Mirror (PM) and a Centering Mirror (CM), used to adjust both the position of the LGS constellation on-sky and the beams on the LLT. In addition, the rotation computed from the five FSA average positions is offloaded to a ‘K Mirror’’ (KM) every 10$\:$s to compensate for constellation rotation drifts.
CANOPUS commissioning {#sub:canopus_commissioning}
---------------------
[Canopus]{} commissioning started in March 2011, and finished in December 2011, when the first wide-field compensated images were obtained (see Paper I - Sect. 6).
### LGSWFS stepper look-up table {#ssub:lgs_stepper}
The LGSWFS assembly contains eight stepper mechanisms (two zoom lenses and six magnificators) used to accommodate for the changes in LGS ranges (changes in telescope elevation or changes in the Na layer altitude), as well as to compensate for flexure and [Canopus]{} temperature variations. A LUT is built to ensure that the registration between the five LGSWFS and DM0 is maintained for all accessible LGS ranges, telescope elevation, and temperature changes. This LUT is built during day-time, using artificial laser sources located at the entrance focal plan of [Canopus]{}. Using a model fitting method described in [@neichel2012identification], we have checked that the DM9 registration was kept constant when DM0 was properly registered. A procedure has been developed to measure the misregistration on-sky and check the LUT performance. The method, described in [@rigaut2012gems], is based on a lock-in detection of a dynamic dithering pattern introduced on DM0. Results measured on-sky show that the LUT maintain the registration below a 10% subaperture error for the full range of elevations and temperatures seen by GeMS.
### Centroid gains {#ssub:centroid_gains}
As discussed in paper I (Section 4.6), centroid gains calibration have been of particular concern. This was especially critical due to the large amount of Non-Common Path Aberrations (NCPA, see Sect. \[sub:ncpa\]) as an error on the centroid gain will translate directly into a NCPA compensation error [@veran2000centroidgain].
When using the [Canopus]{} LGS calibration sources, because there is no turbulence, we were able to use a simple method that consists in swiping the LGS spots in front of the LGS WFS (thus through the quadcell in each subaperture) using the TT mirror. Assuming the latter is well calibrated, one obtains this way the quadcell transfer function, from which the centroid gains can be readily fitted.
On the sky however, the constraints are different. There is a large amount of natural disturbance (turbulence), and several methods have been proposed in the literature [@veran2000centroidgain; @gratadour2007centroidgain; @vandam2005centroidgain] to calibrate the centroid gains on-line. The method that has been selected for GeMS is based on dithering. A small disturbance is introduced at a given frequency. The amount of this disturbance, as detected by the WFS, is retrieved by lock-in detection. The ratio between what is introduced and what is detected is an estimator of the error on the centroid gains.
The original plan for GeMS was to use individual rotations of each of the LGS (uplink) as a disturbance using the BTO FSA (paper I, Section 4.4.4).This has the important advantage to have no direct impact on the image quality on the science path, thus one can possibly use fairly large dithering amplitudes, increasing the measurements SNR. Unfortunately, this was hampered by cross calibration errors between the FSA mirrors, and more importantly, by distortion of the dithering signal due to the FSA mirrors hitting their end-of-travel limits.
A second attempt was made by introducing a similar rotating motion, but introduced by the TTM. This solved the issues encountered with the FSA method but it impacted the science image significantly. It was found that 10$\:$milli-arcsec (radius of circular motion) was the minimum quantity to get a measurement relatively immune from noise. The method was also heavily affected by narrow vibration peaks, which eventually disqualified it.
The third disturbance type that was experimented with and eventually adopted is to induce a checkerboard-like mode using the DM [@rigaut2011gems]. This makes the LGS spots rotate in opposite direction in “even” and “odd” subapertures. In addition, and prior to the temporal filtering provided by the lock-in detection, a spatial projection onto this checkerboard mode is performed, providing additional filtering of noise and other natural contributors; in particular, it provides total immunity to vibration. A checkerboard mode amplitude of 30$\:$nm RMS is used which, at the current level of performance, does not induce any detectable effects on the images (the effect of the checkerboard mode will be to create satellites around the PSF cores). This method was cross-checked with the results obtained by dithering the tip-tilt mirror described above and the results are consistent within less than 2%.
### High-order loop and related offloads {#ssub:highorderloop}
The first LGS closed loop was achieved as soon as March 2011, however, it took several more runs to be able to optimize the high-order loop and provide high-order corrections over the field. One of the issue was related to centroid gain as discussed in the previous section. Another main issue that was encountered was related to the Rayleigh contamination (or fratricide effect), as described in [@neichel2011sodium]. It was found that due to fast laser power variations, and spatial jitter of the beams on the LLT due to the optical location of the FSA, it was not possible to calibrate accurately enough the Rayleigh background in order to subtract it (see Paper I - Sect. 5.3.2). This leads to large LGSWFS slope errors and means that the Rayleigh-affected subapertures (about 20% of all subapertures) have to be discarded.
The tomographic phase reconstruction is done by the reconstructor matrix $R$. $R$ is a regularised least-squares inversion of the interaction matrix, $M$ and is given by: $$\label{eq-rec}
R = (1 - F_a)(M^T W^{-1} M + \alpha C_\phi^{-1} + \beta F_a )^{-1} M^T W^{-1}(1 - F_s)$$ The terms in Eq. \[eq-rec\] are as follows:
- $F_a$ are the filtered modes in actuator space. For MCAO, they consist of piston, tip and tilt on the ground-layer DM, and the same modes plus focus and astigmatism for the high-altitude DM(s),
- $W$ is a weighting matrix that weighs the centroid measurements from partially illuminated subapertures less heavily than fully illuminated ones, and also weighs smaller spots more heavily than larger ones,
- $\alpha$ is a regularization parameter that can be configured depending on the signal-to-noise ratio,
- $C_{\phi}$ is the covariance matrix of the actuator commands based on open-loop turbulence statistics,
- $\beta$ is a constant adjusted to remove the filtered modes in the least-squares inversion, and
- $F_s$ are the filtered centroids to remove average tip-tilt in each WFS.
The interaction matrix relates the voltages on the DM actuators to the measured centroids on the WFSs. Conceptually, they are calculated by poking one actuator at a time and measuring the change in the centroids. A much faster way to measure the interaction matrix is to poke each actuator with a separate temporal frequency, take a Circular Buffer of the centroids and the actuator commands, and perform a least-squares fit of the centroids to the commands. This technique results in a fast measurement of the interaction matrix (about two minutes) and is similar to techniques used to measure the interaction matrix on-sky with system using an adaptive secondary mirror [@esposito2006imat]. The interaction matrix is a function of guide star altitude and is calculated every 10 km from 90 km to 140 km. For this, the interaction matrix is measured using the internal calibration sources.
The performance of the high-order loop depends on a number of parameters, but can be characterised by the residual RMS of the slopes seen by the five LGSWFSs. The residual slopes RMS include errors related to the bandwidth error (also called servo-lag), the tomography error and the noise of the five LGSWFSs. Part of the noise measured on the residual slopes is filtered by the loop, and hence should be extracted from the RMS. We estimate the noise by taking the high frequency part of the power spectra. Typical wavefront error corresponding to these LGSWFS noise corrected residual slope RMS are on the order of 350 nm, with a range spanning 200 nm to 600 nm. The original specification of the error budget was allowing less than 200 nm for the high-order terms [@ellerbroek2003mcao]. The main factor affecting the performance are discussed in Sect. \[sec:performance\_limitation\].
### NGS loop and related offloads {#ssub:ngsloop}
The tip-tilt signal coming from the three probes (six measurements) is used to compute the weighted average tip-tilt (two modes compensated by the tip-tilt mirror), the tilt-anisoplanatic modes (three modes compensated by driving quadratic modes on the high altitude DM) and a global rotation mode (used to adjust the tracking of the Cassegrain Rotator). Thus, there are three parts to the reconstructor.
A minimum-variance reconstructor was implemented for the tip-tilt and tilt-anisoplanatism modes based on [@vandam2013glao]. First, a series of points is defined where we would like to optimize the tip-tilt correction (the ’science targets’). Here, we use nine targets in a regular square grid between -30and $+$30. Then we estimate the tip-tilt, $\hat{s}_t$ at each point in the science field based on the tip-tilt measurements, $s_m$ using: $$\hat{s}_t = C_{tm}(C_{mm} + C_{nn})^{-1}s_m,$$ where $C_{tm}$ is the covariance matrix between the tip-tilt in the science target and the WFS directions, $C_{mm}$ is the covariance matrix for the tip-tilt in the WFS directions and $C_{nn}$ is the covariance matrix for the measurement noise. Finally, we perform a least-squares fit to find the tip-tilt, tilt-anisoplanatism and Cassegrain rotator commands that minimize the residual errors at the science target locations.
The performance of the tip-tilt and TA loop depends on the asterism geometry and NGSs magnitude. NGS limiting magnitude is discussed on Sect. \[sec:performance\_limitation\]. At first order, the best constellations are the ones with three bright NGSs that spans the largest area of the FoV. An estimation of the tip-tilt and TA loop performance is given by the RMS of the residual NGS slopes. A typical value for this RMS error is on the order of 15$\:$milli-arcsec, ranging from 10 to 40$\:$milli-arcsec. Original specification was giving less than 10$\:$milli-arcsec for this error term when working with bright NGS [@rigaut2000ttta]. This residual includes the bandwidth and the noise error, and, as in the LGS case, are compensated for the high-frequency part of the noise. Vibrations can also affect this residual error term. A very low level of vibrations has been measured using the [Canopus]{} calibration sources, with a jitter of 6$\:$milli-arcsec RMS for tip and tilt, mainly due to peak at 55$\:$Hz induced by the cry-coolers of GSAOI [@rodriguez2011vibration]. On sky, more vibrations are often seen on the power spectra of the residual slopes [@guesalaga2012vib]. Low frequency vibrations ($<$20$\:$Hz) are believed to be due to the secondary mirror of the telescope. A large vibration peak around 85 Hz is also intermittently detected, accouting for $\sim$20$\:$milli-arcsec, the origin of this peak is unknown. The use of advanced controllers to optimally filter these vibrations is under study for GeMS [@guesalaga2012vib; @guesalaga2013vib]. The performance of the TA loop is not affected by vibrations, however, the presence of large optical distortions in the NGSWFS focal plane prevents to close this loop during observations that would require telescope dithers larger than 10(see Paper I - 5.3.5).
### Slow Focus Sensor loop {#ssub:sfsloop}
Because the LGSs are used to compensate for atmospheric focus, any changes in the sodium layer altitude cannot be disentangled from real atmospheric focus changes and will induce a focus drift. To prevent this from happening, the Slow Focus Sensor (SFS) continuously measures defocus on one of the NGSWFS. The SFS is a 2$\times$2 Shack-Hartmann WFS. The focus error measured by the SFS is used to adjust the position of the LGSWFS zoom, forming a feedback loop that compensates the focus error on the SFS, and consequently in the science focal plane (the focus flexure between the [Canopus]{} SFS and the science instrument is essentially zero).
The SFS loop update rate is ranging from 1 seconds to 5 minutes, depending on the GS magnitude. We have estimated that 50$\:$nm of focus (this corresponds to a loss of 4% of Strehl ratio in H-band) corresponds to a centroiding accuracy in the SFS of 0.1 pixels. Such accuracy can be obtained with a 1$\:$s exposure time for an NGS with m$_{\rm R} < 13.0$. As a result, the current limiting magnitude for the SFS is m$_{\rm R} = 16.7$. Hence, whenever possible, the brightest of the NGS is used on the guide probe that contains the SFS, providing enough light to allow the TT/SFS split.
\[fig:tpd\_convergence\]
### Non-Common Path Aberrations {#sub:ncpa}
The principle of NCPA compensation in GeMS has been described in details in paper I, section 4.5.2. Fig. \[fig:tpd\_convergence\] shows the evolution of the field-averaged static H band Strehl ratio along the iterative NCPA optimization process. This typically uses 16 diffraction limited calibration sources spread over the GSAOI detectors. Initial Strehl ratio values vary between about 15 and 70%. The figure shows that the process converges in 3 to 4 iterations, and reaches an average Strehl ratio of 88$\pm$0.7%. Note that the last point shows a slightly lower average Strehl ratio that the previous iteration. However, it has a three times lower RMS, which probably explains the lower average Strehl as an important weight was given to uniformity in the minimisation criteria. The original specification was targeting for and averaged Strehl ratio of 90%. Tests were performed when optimizing the performance in only one direction. In that case, a maximal Strehl ratio of 96% can be reached. An important question is of course why the optimisation stops short of the single direction performance. There are several reasons for that:
1. [**Non-correctable aberrations**]{}: Aberrations that are induced by optics not conjugated to one of the DM can only be partially compensated (remember the compensation has to be done over the whole field of view, not only on-axis). Only aberrations up to astigmatism are fully correctable by the DMs if they occur on optics not within the 0-9$\:$km altitude conjugation. That includes optics in the science path, but, given the procedure followed, also the optics in the WFS path (to avoid being affected by the large aberrations between the LGS WFS arms, the slope offsets at rest are absorbed in the initial slope offsets).
2. [**Model calibration errors**]{}: Any difference between the numerical model and the actual system. Misregistration error is probably the major one, but there are others.
3. [**Modelling limitations**]{}: Any effects that are not included in the numerical model and can lead to bias estimations. E.g. single wavelength image formation, non-linearities in the WFS, etc.
4. [**Noise**]{}: Science imaging detector noise, noise induced by bench local turbulence, etc.
In the final adopted procedure, the focus is induced using DM0. This is effected using slope offsets, thus is not impacted by linearity properties of the DM. However, it will be impacted by linearity of the LGSWFS, which is another potential source of error. One image on each side of focus is generally taken, with no in-focus image (mostly for dynamical range considerations). One iteration, including two GSAOI images plus all the overhead of closing the loop, etc, takes typically 6$\:$mn.
\[fig:rmc136\]
GSAOI commissioning {#sub:gsaoi}
-------------------
All of the GeMS commissioning has been done using GSAOI. GSAOI is the NIR imager dedicated to GeMS [@mcgregor2004gemini]. It was built at the ANU. It uses four Hawaii-2RG 2k$\times$2k arrays, forming a 4k$\times$4k detector covering approximately $85''\!\times 85''$ at 0.02$\:$per pixel. It comes with a suite of broad and narrow band filters, and has excellent image quality (H band Strehl in excess of 97%). It is capable of Fowler sampling, and offers On-Detector Guide Window (ODGW) capabilities [up to four, i.e. one per detector, see @young2012odgw] to supplement or replace the [Canopus]{} NGS TT WFS when bright enough NIR guide stars are available (see Sect. \[sec:the\_future\_of\_gems\]). ODGW can also be used to guide on a faint star for flexure compensation (the signal is fed to the NGS TT WFS as an offset).
The commissioning of GSAOI per se was performed in parallel to the GeMS commissioning. A comprehensive summary of the GSAOI performance, including the characterisation of the linearity, gain and noise of the detectors, as well as the photometric zero-points, system throughput, limiting magnitude and sky brightness can be found in [@carrasco2012results]. For point source observations, [@carrasco2012results] show that a signal to noise ratio of 10 could be obtained in one hour integration for K$=$23 magnitude stars.
System Verification and shared risk period overview {#sec:system_verification}
===================================================
The System Verification (SV) period started in December 2012, one year after GeMS first light, and lasted three months. The SV programs provide an end-to-end test of a new instrument or capability, from the proposal process to data delivery, prior to offering it to the community for general use. With GeMS/GSAOI, one main objective was to demonstrate the gain brought by MCAO on a large variety of science topics, including extended sources, crowded fields, and faint targets. Twenty-three programs were submitted, requesting a total of 138 hours. Of these, 13 were selected for execution between December 2012 and March 2013, for a total of 60 hours. Twelve targets out of the 13 selected were observed during the course of 18 nights[^2]. The system efficiency shows that about 20% of extra time was required to complete the programs, and that approximately 20% of the observing time was lost due to fault.
SV was immediately followed by a first semester of operations, offered in shared-risk mode, from March to June 2013. Around 80 hours were offered, for 11 programs, out of which 8 were completed, and 2 started (completion rate of 85% in terms of observing hours). The system efficiency improved during this period, with only about 5% of extra time to complete the programs, and about 10% lost due to fault.
Fig. \[fig:rmc136\] shows R136, one of the target observed during the SV period. R136 is a compact star cluster located in 30 Doradus, in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). Star clusters is one of the main science case for GeMS. Crowded fields are where AO/MCAO brings its largest gains. By “compacting” the PSF it bring out the faintest stars in the cluster which are crucial to study star formation in these environments. In addition, by delivering a uniform performance over fields that encompass most globular star cluster sizes, MCAO greatly improves the photometric precision on these crowded fields, and opens the way for a better understanding of the cluster’s stellar population, particularly of its age, any evidence for multiple stellar populations, and the distribution of low mass stars. The NGC1851 globular cluster image, presented in Fig. \[fig:ngc1851\] and also observed during the GeMS/GSAOI SV period, is another good illustration of the gain brought by GeMS for the star cluster science case. These data were acquired with only one NGS, located close to the center of the field, to allow for large telescope dithers (see Sect. \[ssub:dither\]). The average FWHM in the whole image is 95$\:$. The effect of the tip-tilt anisokinetism can be seen on the edge of the field, however the RMS variations of the FWHM is only 12% in this $100''\!\times100''$ image.
Fig. \[fig:abell780\] shows another example of a target observed during the SV period; Abell 780 (better known as Hydra A) is a rich cluster of galaxies 840 million light-years distant. For this target, only two NGS have been used, one of them located on the bottom left of the image shown in Fig. \[fig:abell780\], the other one located out of the field, on the top-left. Even with only two NGSs, the performance is highly uniform over the field, with an average FWHM of 0.077$\:$. Such performance, at such distance from any usable NGS by a SCAO-LGS system, is unique to GeMS. Indeed, in a SCAO system, even when using a LGS, the target of interest must lie close enough to the NGS used for tip-tilt measurements. GeMS is using three NGSs, which can appear to be more restrictive than the SCAO-LGS mode, however, these NGSs can be anywhere in a 120$\:$diameter acquisition field of view. Hence, the science target can be as distant as 60$\:$from the NGS, and because of the MCAO correction, the performance will be essentially as good as if the target would have been closer to the NGS. This is particularly interesting in extra-galactic studies, which usually suffer from a low NGS and target density.
\[fig:abell780\]
Overall performance {#sec:performance}
===================
This section summarizes the overall performance delivered by the instrument. They are many parameters that are affecting the performance, including among others, natural seeing, NGS constellation, the number of NGSs and their brightnesses, LGS photon return (this parameter varies seasonally), turbulence speed ($\tau_0$) and profile ($C_N$$^2$), non-common path aberrations and other AO optimisation and calibration parameters. It is out of the scope of this paper to present an in-depth analysis of the performance delivered by GeMS. Instead, we focus on the averaged performance, and we identify the main contributors limiting the final results. A detailed performance analysis will be presented in a dedicated paper.
One important point regarding the performance analysis is that, for space restriction reasons in the AO bench, there are no turbulence simulators in GeMS. Hence, no formal performance characterisation has been carried out when the instruments was in the laboratory and all of the performance characterisation had to be done with on-sky data. This makes the analysis more complex as disentangling the different contributors may be difficult.The GeMS Strehl Ratios (SR) and FWHM performance presented in this section are based on data collected over 33 nights over the December 2012 to June 2013 period. An automatic tool was developed to save the data and all the environment parameters, including the AO telemetry, synchronously. This tool is described in [@vidal2013gems].
Delivered image quality {#sub:image_performance}
-----------------------
The delivered SRs and FWHMs measured under different natural seeing conditions are shown in Fig. \[fig:perf1\]. The results are based on images observed with a constellation of three NGSs and with exposure times between 10 and 180 seconds. They are respectively 950 points for the K-band images (red dots), 454 points for the H-band images (green dots) and 243 points for the J-band images (blue dots). The median natural seeing over these observations is 0.73(defined at 0.5$\mu$m). For reference, the diffraction limited FWHM are respectively 0.031, 0.043 and 0.055$\:$for J, H and K-band filters.
[c]{}\
\[fig:perf1\]
Another way to present the performance is to look at the delivered image quality for a given fraction of the observing time. This is what is presented in Table \[tab:gems\_performance2\]. Note that by observing time, we intend the time when GeMS is observing, and not the overall telescope observing time. For instance, we see that 50% of the time, GeMS delivers a FWHM of 0.075$\:$(or better) in H-band. In Sect. \[sec:performance\_limitation\] we discuss in more details the limitations of the current system performance.
------------------- ------- ------- ------- --- ---- ----
Seeing conditions J H K J H K
20 percentile 0.064 0.064 0.076 8 15 26
50 percentile 0.087 0.075 0.095 5 11 17
70 percentile 0.110 0.090 0.110 3 8 13
------------------- ------- ------- ------- --- ---- ----
: GeMS overall performance, fractional view
\[tab:gems\_performance2\]
In terms of performance uniformity over the field, MCAO brings very large gains over classical AO. Based on the data acquired during the SV, and only focusing on targets with 3 NGS, we derived an average variation of the FWHM across the images on the order of 4% relative RMS over a field of one square arcmin. The peak to peak variations are on the order of 12% of the average FWHM.
Fig. \[fig:fwhm\] shows one example of the Strehl and FWHM distribution for the Galactic globular cluster NGC288, observed during the commissioning period (See Fig. 5 in paper I). We chose this target as performance is fairly typical. The NGS constellation used is shown with the black triangle, observations were done in the H-band filter. The average FWHM is 0.08$\:$, the corresponding average SR is 17%. The FWHM RMS variation over the central square arcmin is 2$\:$milli-arcsec (11$\:$milli-arcsec peak to peak). Fig. \[fig:fwhm\] is just one example, and a detailed analysis of the performance uniformity, and in particular its variations with the NGS constellations, will be presented in a forthcoming paper. The theoretical impact of the NGS constellation on performance variations over the field can be estimated via an algorithm presented in Sect. \[sub:ot\_and\_gems\].
\[fig:fwhm\]
\[fig:ngc1851\]
The MCAO PSF {#sub:mcaopsf}
------------
The MCAO PSF has a different shape than for regular SCAO. The main difference comes from generalised fitting [@rigaut2000principles]. Generalised fitting – sometimes called generalised aliasing – results from the fact that the phase corrector is not continuous in altitude, but instead made of a finite number of DMs, conjugated to discrete altitudes. Because the correction is effected over a finite field of view, it is impossible for the system to correct the perturbations at the DM cut-off frequency over the whole column of turbulence [@ragazzoni2002multiple]. As the distance of a layer to the nearest DM increases, the fitting error increases, hence the term generalised fitting. The residual phase error is thus a superposition of residual phases that have a different fitting error depending on the altitude at which they originated. This results in PSFs with Lorentzian profiles, with a narrow central core but without well defined airy rings nor the well defined dual core-halo shape usual to classical AO correction. The best functional form fitting the GeMS PSFs is: $$f(r) = g^2 / \left( g^2 + |r|^{2.4} \right)$$ Fig. \[fig:mcaopsf\] shows an example of a typical PSF profile.
[c]{}\
\[fig:mcaopsf\]
Astrometry performance {#sec:astrometry_performance}
----------------------
MCAO, having the ability to compensate for plate scale and dynamic atmospheric-induced field distortions, could potentially allow to reach better astrometric performance than previous AO systems. This section gives a top-level view of the astrometric performance delivered by GeMS, when using 3 bright NGS, and under typical system performance. A full analysis of the astrometric performance, including the impact of the NGS brightness and geometry, is pending.
The first astrometric performance estimation delivered by GeMS has been carried out in [@rigaut2012gems]. This study shows that, on a single epoch, a relative astrometric precision of 0.4$\:$milli-arcsec could be achieved for a 3 minutes total exposure in H-band. In addition, [@rigaut2012gems] demonstrated that the errors were coming from random sources, uncorrelated from image to image, and that no systematic error could have been detected over the course of 45 minutes. These single epoch results were confirmed by deeper observations carried-out by [@ammons2013astrometry] and [@lu2013astrometry]. [@lu2013astrometry], using observations on NGC1851, demonstrated that an astrometric accuracy of 0.2$\:$milli-arcsec could be reached for stars with K $<$12 and for a total exposure time of 600 s, made by 20 exposures of 30 s. each. However, using a data set obtained over the course of 6 months, they found a systematic error of about 1$\:$milli-arcsec for multi-epoch observations. They also evidenced that due to large optical distortions in the images, best astrometric results are obtained only for non-dithered observations.
The source of the astrometric drift for multi-epoch observations has not been identified clearly yet. The AO bench of GeMS is using a simple two Off-Axis Parabolas (OAPs) optical relay. This relay provides a clean pupil re-imaging, with little pupil distortion, but introduces a significant amount of distortions in the output focal plane. A comparison of the GeMS+GSAOI images with HST images shows a distortion pattern of up to a couple of arcseconds [@rigaut2012gems]. Most of the distortion pattern is static, and can be calibrated out. However, it is possible that the distortion field is evolving from one epoch to the next, impacting the ultimate astrometric performance. It might be due to changes in the gravity vector (the AO bench is mounted on the Gemini Cassegrain focus) or in the environmental parameters (temperature, humidity). As the amount of static distortion is large, even a small drift will have an impact on the final astrometric performance. In crowded fields like the Galactic Center and star clusters, the large number of stars could be enough to fit high-order polynomials to remove changing distortion. For sparse-field applications, such as using high-precision astrometry of bright stars to measure masses of orbiting exoplanets, the number of stars in the field is generally not enough to use such a method.
Performance limitations {#sec:performance_limitation}
-----------------------
The current GeMS performance is below the level specified in the original functional Performance Requirement Document [PDR, e.g. @rigaut2000science]. Table \[tab:gems\_performance3\] summarizes the error budget described in Sect. \[sub:canopus\_commissioning\], and compares the actual performance of the system, with the original figures from the PDR. From the PDR document, the predicted SR for an observation at 30 degree elevation, and for a median $r_0$ of 0.166 m defined at 0.55 $\mu$m, is 31% in H-band. This translates into a global error budget of 285 nm rms. The median zenith angle measured from the actual data is 27 degree, hence close to the PDR one. Then, according to Fig. \[fig:perf1\], for similar seeing conditions as the PDR, the observed median H-band SR is 12% (maximum of 20%), which translates into a global error budget of 380 nm rms (respectively 330 nm rms). The original PDR document is distributing the error budget between three main contributors: telescope limitations, instrumental limitations and MCAO system. Each of this contributor being divided into sub-contributors. From the on-sky performance analysis, we do not have a way to disentangle the contributors of the measured error budget in order to get the same detailed analysis as in the PDR. Therefore, we have tried to combine some of the PDR contributors to match the observed error terms. We do not aim to produce a precise error budget, but rather to draw the main tendencies, and highlight the main discrepancies. The next two sections (Sect. \[ssub:noiseservo\] and \[ssub:errortomo\]) are giving more details on the distribution of the high-order error terms. Note that the PDR error estimation is concatenating the contribution of the low-order (NGS) and high-order (LGS) terms, but assumes a case of three bright NGS. For bright NGS, the error due to tip-tilt and tilt-anisoplanatism induces a SR reduction by a factor 0.877 [@rigaut2000ttta], which translates into 95nm RMS of residual aberrations. This includes residual telescope wind-shake. The residual tip-tilt jitter measured with GeMS is 15 milli-arcsec RMS, which translates into 140 nm RMS of residual aberrations. The NCPA term estimated at PDR includes the “instrument limitations” and was evaluated to be 65nm RMS. From the results of Sect. \[sub:ncpa\], we evaluate the measured NCPA term to be 90nm RMS. Finally, the remaining terms of the PDR error budget are allocated to the high-order loop. This corresponds to 260nm RMS, while results from Sect. \[ssub:highorderloop\], gives a typical 350 nm RMS measured on-sky. All these results are summarized in Table \[tab:gems\_performance3\].
Error term Actual PDR
------------------------ -------- --------
Total low-order (NGS) 140 nm 95 nm
Total high-order (LGS) 350 nm 260 nm
NCPA 90 nm 65 nm
SR at H-band 12% 31%
: GeMS overall error budget: actual versus PDR performance.
\[tab:gems\_performance3\]
According to Table. \[tab:gems\_performance3\], the main discrepancy between PDR and actual performance resides in the high-order terms (see Sect. \[ssub:highorderloop\]). The high-order performance limitations can be split between noise, servo lag and tomography. The first two terms (noise and servo lag) are intrinsically linked as with GeMS, the number of photons per subaperture and per frame is usually kept constant by adjusting the high order loop frame rate. Following the method described in [@rigaut2012gems], we analyse the high-order residual slopes in order to disentangle the contribution of the different error terms.
### Noise and servo lag error {#ssub:noiseservo}
The system is generally operated at about 140 to 160$\:$ph/subaperture/frame equivalent to between 35 and 40$\:$ph/pixel/frame, as the LGSWFSs have 2$\times$2$\:$pixels/subaperture. The LGSWFS sampling frequency is adjusted to maintain this flux level. The noise error estimated from the telemetry data is on the order of 80 nm RMS, ranging from 40 nm to 120 nm. During the low sodium season (Austral summer) a typical guide rate is about 200$\:$Hz, while during medium to high sodium season (Austral autumn to spring) the guide rate varies between 400 and 800$\:$Hz. GeMS has been design to work at a nominal frame rate of 800$\:$Hz, hence the servo lag error is often large, especially during the Austral summer. We estimated that the servo lag error was on the order of 200 nm RMS, ranging from 100 nm to 300 nm. Fig. \[fig:perf2\] illustrates the impact of the laser photon return on the performance. As mentioned in Sect. \[sec:performance\], there are many parameters affecting the performance (e.g. natural seeing), which explain the large dispersion. However, and despite this dispersion, a clear tendency can be drawn, demonstrating the impact of the low photon return.
[c]{}\
\[fig:perf2\]
Over the period from December 2012 to June 2013, the laser performance has been stable and the laser has delivered an average power of 42$\:$W [@fesquet2013review]. This however is short of the original 50$\:$W specification, and is worsened by the lower-than-specified throughput of the BTO, LLT and Canopus, and the lower-than-specified coupling efficiency of the GeMS laser with the sodium atoms due to its spectral format [@neichel2013sodium]. Plans for upgrades are discussed in Sect. \[ssec:upgrades\].
### Generalised fitting (tomographic error) {#ssub:errortomo}
Disentangling the impact of the tomographic error is more complex as it strongly depends on the $C_N$$^2$ profile. [@vidal2013gems] illustrates a case where, for a same target, same photon return and same natural seeing, the performance drops by a factor of two from one night to the next, only due to the $C_N$$^2$ distribution. Following the method described in [@rigaut2012gems], we identified the tomographic error term based on the fact that the tomographic/generalized fitting error is filtered by the reconstructor and thus is not affected by the close loop transfer functions. Hence, its high frequency part (essentially, the noise) will be flat. For the data analyzed in this paper, we measure an averaged tomographic error of 280 nm RMS, ranging from 150 nm to 450 nm. Part of the tomographic error can be explained by the fact that, following technical problems with one of the deformable mirror (see paper I, Section 5.3.3), [Canopus]{} currently uses only two DMs (at 0 and 9$\:$km with 0.5 and 1$\:$m pitch respectively) instead of the three initially planned (0, 4.5 and 9$\:$km with 0.5, 0.5 and 1$\:$m pitch respectively). This reduces the number of active actuators from 684 (design) down to 360 (current). Even though the performance will not simply scale with the number of actuators (the missing ones were aimed to deal with mid-turbulence layers where there is less turbulence than on the ground for instance), it can be easily conceived that this will reduce performance in most of the cases, and will certainly make the system performance less robust to changes in the $C_N$$^2$ profile. From simulations, we have estimated the impact on performance to be on the order of a H-band SR loss of 5% for typical $C_N$$^2$ profiles, but can be significantly more for unfavourable $C_N$$^2$ profiles. In effect, the current two-DM system can be viewed as a fairly potent GLAO system (17$\times$17 actuators across M1) with an additional low order DM at altitude (9$\times$9 actuator across M1).
### Other limiting factors
As stated above, the main performance limitations are related to the high-order loop. On top of this, there are a number of items that are affecting performance that we try to summarize in this section. Note that this list is not exhaustive, but includes the factors that degrade the performance the most. [**It is also interesting to note that these limiting factors were not foreseen during the PDR phase**]{}. Computing the quantitative impact of each of these terms is not trivial, and we mostly focus on qualitative estimation here.
- FSA limited dynamical range. When seeing is strong (e.g. $>$1) and/or if the static optical alignment of the LGS constellation is not perfectly optimized, the FSA are often hitting their rails. This is currently the main cause of loops instabilities. This also means that the LGS spots are not properly centered, and the quadcells may be working in the non-linear regime. This effect is particularly impacting the performance as the WFS pixels are relatively small (1.38) and the five LGS spots are not perfectly aligned with the WFS field spots. Hence vignetting with the field stop may be an issue. This latter alignment issue is intrinsic of the LGSWFS design, and could not be improved. The static constellation alignment has been improved of the years, however, due to mechanical limitations and difficult access (the optics are located behind the secondary mirror of the telescope) the best accuracy that was reached is $\sim$1.5(equivalent on-sky) when the total dynamical range is 5. It is difficult to quantify the impact on performance of such an effect and generally, only one out of the five LGS will go in the non-linear regime. This usually has a dramatic impact on the tomographic reconstruction, as differential aberrations between the LGSWFS will drive DM9 to the wrong shape. When this happens, strong differential elongations are seen across the science field, with amplitudes of 0.1or more.
- DM saturation. The original dynamical range of the DMs was $\pm$4$\mu$m. However, and due to the issues encountered with DM0, the driving voltages have been reduced by 10% in order to try to preserve the DM life-time. This reduced the DM stroke proportionally. Moreover, protections have been implemented in order to avoid strong and recurrent DM saturation on-sky: the high-order loop is automatically opened if more than 10% of the actuators are saturated on each DM, for more than 10 frames. In operations, and to avoid DM saturations, this implies to work with a lower loop gains and a higher loop leak than is optimal, thereby increasing the servo lag error. An approximate estimation of the impact of this error, based on the error transfer function of the system, gives around 40nm RMS.
- Quasi-static aberrations. A large fraction of the NCPA error budget is due to aberrations introduced at the LGSWFS level. Differential aberrations at the LGSWFS level would produce a non-tomographic signal, that would be aliased in the reconstructed phase by the tomographic reconstructor. These aberrations are absorbed by the NCPA compensation, however, any drift in these aberrations, or in the on-line centroid gain estimation will lead to static or quasi-static shapes on the output science images. Such static shapes are often seen on the science PSFs, and we estimate there contributions to be $\sim$50 nm RMS. To reduce this error, an improved optical design would have included a calibration source at the LGSWFS focal plane, in order to properly calibrate these aberrations. This is however not feasible with the current LGSWFS hardware.
- Tip-tilt loop frame rate. With the current RTC architecture, the tip-tilt loop frame rate can only be an integer of the LGS frame rate. However, and because the LGS photon return is under specification, the tip-tilt frame rate is often limited by the LGS one. In other words, there are constellations of bright NGS for which the tip-tilt loop could be run faster than the LGS one. This may explain some of the discrepancies seen between PDR and actual performance of the NGS loop reported in Table \[tab:gems\_performance3\].
- TA loop. As explained in Paper I - 5.3.5, the TA loop can not be closed for programs requiring telescope offsets larger than 10. Based on simulations, we have estimated that closing the TA loop brings a gain of $\sim$3% in H-band.
### NGSWFS limiting magnitude
Another major issue in the current state of GeMS is the NGSWFS limiting magnitude. Due to alignment issues and design flaws, the current limiting magnitude achievable with the system is m$_{\rm R} < 15.5$. We have estimated the sky coverage achievable by GeMS by running random pointings on the portion of the sky reachable from Gemini South. Assuming a limiting magnitude of m$_{\rm R} = 15.5$, we find that the probability of having three guide stars or more is 30%, while the probability to have no guide star at all is 35%. Pushing the limiting magnitude to m$_{\rm R} = 18.5$ (which should be the case after the NGSWFS upgrade, see Sect. \[ssub:ngs2\]), 72% of the random pointing have three NGS, and only 8% have no guide star at all. In that case, the map in Fig. \[fig:skycov\] shows how the fields are distributed in the sky.
\[fig:skycov\]
Operations {#sec:operations}
==========
Despite its complexity, GeMS can be operated by a crew of only two people: the telescope operator manages all of the AO systems (on top of the telescope), while the laser operator is in charge of the laser and the BTO. The instruments are separate and are operated by the observer.
GeMS SMART tools & MOP {#ssub:gems_smart_tools_&_mop}
----------------------
In GeMS, there are as many as twenty loops and offloads that must be closed, monitored, and controlled. A set of dedicated tools have been developed to assist the operators in this task. The first one is called MOP, for the MYST[^3] Operational Panel. MOP has been designed to simplify the interaction with the AO system and integrate automation in the operation flow, assisting the operator both in the acquisition procedure and during the observation. For this, MOP gathers a limited number of possible top-level actions and status of the system in a single screen. If needed, access to low-level screens and status can be done via MOP. The SMART tools have been designed to manage the interactions between the AO system and the telescope control system. As an example, when the operator wants to close the high-order loop, a set of conditions and commands are first executed by the SMART tools: the flux is checked, low level loops are closed, default matrices are loaded. Once the high-order loops are closed, the SMART tools continue to monitor the status and performance of all loops and can even make decisions (hopefully smart) and take actions according to the external conditions to maintain optimal performance. Optimisation of the loops is not done as a background process, but should be triggered by the operator thought MOP. This scheme was selected in order to provide more robustness to system operation.
Acquisition sequence and overheads {#sub:acquisition_sequence}
----------------------------------
The multiplicity of GeMS WFSs inevitably leads to a rather complex and lengthy acquisition procedure. From the telescope slew to the beginning of the science exposure, the acquisition consists in six main steps. These steps, executed by the laser and the telescope operators, have been detailed in [@neichel2012science]. The overall acquisition overheads are ranging from 10 to 30 minutes, with an average of 20 minutes. For reference, the overheads associated with ALTAIR, the Gemini North SCAO system are 15 minutes in average. Most of the acquisition overheads are linked to the NGS acquisition, mainly due to the fact that the NGSWFS probes have only a 1.5$\:$FoV. Hence for bright NGSs, in relatively sparse fields and with little catalogue errors, the full GeMS acquisition can be as fast as 10 minutes. For faint NGSs, or more complex objects (high background or a crowded field) the acquisition procedure can take over 30 minutes. The upgraded NGSWFS proposed in Section \[ssub:ngs2\] will greatly improve the NGSs acquisition time.
Dither and Sky sequence {#sub:dither_filter_sky}
-----------------------
A science observation sequence can include telescope offsets for image dithering or sky calibration, or filter changes. For all of these events, specific GeMS loops must either be paused or opened, and then resumed automatically after the event. This is handled by the SMART tools. The sequence of events for each case is described below.
### Dither sequence {#ssub:dither}
When a telescope offset is required, the observation sequence executor (SeqExec) sends the information to the TCS, that immediately sends it to the SMART tools. All the NGS loops and dependencies are then paused (tip-tilt, TA, rotator and focus), while all the laser loops are kept closed. The telescope then offsets, and once all the subsystems report that they are in position, the NGS loops are resumed, and the next science exposure starts. Depending on the size of the offsets, a telescope dither can take between 3 to 30 seconds. The dither pattern is set by the NGS acquisition fields and cannot be larger than 30$\:$.
### Sky sequence
A sky sequence is somewhat similar to a dither, except that the telescope offset is usually much larger (up to 5$\:$). In this case, all NGS loops and dependencies are paused, and the probes are frozen and do not follow telescope offsets (as a large offset would put the probes into a hard limit if they remained in follow). We found that large telescope motions could create instabilities in the high-order loop, as the LGS may be lost for a few seconds. Because of this, the high-order loop is also paused, but the LGS stabilisation loop is kept closed (FSA loop). An overhead of 60$\:$s must be accounted for.
### Large telescope offsets
If the observation requires offsets larger than 5$\:$from the base position, the laser propagation must be stopped due to Laser Clearing House (LCH) restrictions (see Sect. \[ssub:lch\]). When the telescope returns to the original base position, the laser operator must re-acquire the LGS. Moreover, since this offset will also be unguided, the telescope operator must re-check the NGS acquisition and correct for any telescope pointing errors. In this case a separate observation block is required and extra overheads are introduced.
Observation interruptions {#sub:observation_interruption}
-------------------------
### LCH Predictive Avoidance {#ssub:lch}
To prevent any laser illumination of sensitive satellite optics, all laser targets must first be pre-approved by the United-State space command Laser Clearing House. A week before a laser run, Gemini provides the coordinates of each target and receives in return a file from the LCH showing the allowed observation windows for this target. To maximise time on-sky and minimise any potential for inadvertent illumination, an automatic software that handles the laser shutters based on the LCH data has been developed. Only the LGS-related loops are affected. NGS loop and its dependencies do not need to be paused. The current overheads associated for a LCH window are on the order of 30$\:$s to 1 mn and also depends on the phasing of the window with the observation sequence.
### Aircraft Avoidance
In the case of an aircraft passing within 25 degrees of the laser propagation area, the same procedure of pause/resume as the LCH windows is used, except that in this instance the laser operator must manually pause the laser propagation. While an isolated aircraft event will have a larger overhead due to the time required for an aircraft to pass through the safety zone, overall aircraft avoidance overheads are only a factor of 1.3 times larger than satellite overheads as there are fewer aircrafts passing near the propagation zone than satellites.
Elevation and weather limitations {#sub:operational_limitations}
---------------------------------
They are several limitations imposed by GeMS in terms of operations. The main ones are listed below.
### Limitation in elevation
The elevation range accessible by GeMS goes from 40 to 85$\:$degrees. This limitation is imposed by the LGSWFS zoom mechanism, which cannot mechanically keep the LGS in focus for elevations higher than 85$\:$degrees or lower than 40$\:$degrees. In addition, the LGS return flux decreases significantly at high airmass which also affects the performance. Objects that transit near to zenith also impose a limitation. The speed at which the laser constellation can rotate is limited by the rotation speed limit of the BTO K-mirror. For instance, for an object transiting at a peak elevation of 80 degrees, the “dead zone” spans $\pm$2 minutes about transit.
### Clouds and high-wind
Because of safety concerns, the laser cannot be propagated in clouds that could hide planes from the laser spotters. The laser can be propagated in thin cirrus, however these cirrus will reduce the laser photon return and affect the AO performance. High winds buffeting the telescope will create wind shake and can jeopardise the tip-tilt loop stability. We found that the tip-tilt loop could survive with wind on the secondary of up to 2.5 - 3.0$\:$m/s.
Integration with the observatory tools {#sub:ot_and_gems}
--------------------------------------
The Gemini Observing Tool (OT) is the software used to define the instrument configuration and pre-plan the observations from approved proposals. To provide the users with a quantitative selection criteria for the required NGSs, an automatic algorithm called [Mascot]{} has been implemented in the OT [@trancho2008gemini]. This algorithm finds the best asterism[^4] of three stars in the group of N stars located inside the NGS patrol field of a specific science field [@flicker2002tilt; @ellerbroek2001methods]. We define here best asterism as the asterism that will provide the highest and most homogeneous correction level over the science field of view. The algorithm can also handle sub-optimal cases, for example, it can return the best two-star asterism if a three-star asterism is not available. Finally, the user can also overwrite the [Mascot]{} output, and select manually the guide stars to use for a given observation.
The selected asterism can be visualised in the OT position editor. Fig. \[fig:ot3\] shows an example for the NGC1851 field. The three selected NGS stars are marked as a small green square, and labelled as [Canopus]{} WFS (CWFS) 1 to 3. The flexure star, which in that case is a GSAOI ODGW star (see Sect. \[ssub:flexloop\]), is also marked with a green square, and labelled ODGW2, as the star falls in quadrant 2 of GSAOI. The average SR and FWHM, as well as the variation over the field, calculated using the [Mascot]{} algorithm, are shown at the bottom of the position editor. Predicted iso-Strehl contours are shown as narrow curved green/yellow lines.
\[fig:ot3\]
The future of GeMS {#sec:the_future_of_gems}
==================
It is expected that GeMS will be in regular operation, as a facility instrument, in November 2013. The first mode of operation offered is to combine GeMS with GSAOI. More instruments should be commissioned with GeMS in the following semesters. In addition, there are a number of items that have not been commissioned yet, and will possibly be in the near future. Finally, it is planned to improve GeMS performance and address the issues discussed in Sect. \[sec:performance\_limitation\]. These upgrades will be implemented as they become available.
New science capabilities
------------------------
### GeMS + FlamingosII
[GMOS, @elston2003performance] is a NIR imager, long-slit and Multi-Object Spectrograph (MOS). The main scientific interest of GeMS+F2 being the MOS mode, as GSAOI already provides the imaging capability. F2 has been designed to work both in seeing limited, and diffraction limited mode. When used in conjunction with GeMS, it has a 0.09$\:$pixel scale, and covers a 2$\:$FoV. The commissioning of GeMS+F2 should start in the course of 2014.
### GeMS + GMOS
During the commissioning of GeMS, we had the opportunity to obtain data with the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph [F2, @hook2004gmos] in March and May 2012. GMOS is a spectro-imager working in the visible. In its spectrograph mode, long-slit, multi-slit and one IFU are available. The imaging FoV of GMOS through GeMS covers an un-vignetted field of 2.5 arcmin$^2$, with a pixel scale of 35.9 milli-arcsec. The three CCD chips form a 6144 x 4608 pixel array, with two gaps of about 37 pixels separating the detectors. With GeMS, only the reddest GMOS filters can be used. These are the i-band (706-850 nm), CaT-band (780-933 nm) and z-band ($\geq$ 848 nm). A first analysis of the performance delivered by GeMS/GMOS is presented in [@hibon2013gmos]. Although it was not originally intended to offer the GeMS/GMOS combination, it is now planned to open this mode in the future semesters.
Missing commissioning items
---------------------------
### Atmospheric Dispersion Compensators (ADCs)
[Canopus]{} has two ADCs. One is located on the science path, and can be inserted or removed from the path, the other one is in the NGSWFS path, and is always in. None of these ADCs have been commissioned yet. The current strategy for the NGS ADC will be to set it at the beginning of an observation based on the average telescope elevation, and then keep it fixed to avoid pupil wandering in the SFS path. In the worst case of an observation spanning from Zenith to 40$\:$degree of elevation, the maximum relative elongation due to atmospheric dispersion is $\pm 0.3$$\:$for optical wavelength (550 to 850$\:$nm). The impact on the SNR is then small compared to the complexity of having this ADC in follow mode. The science ADC will be commissioned along with the coupling of GeMS with Flamingos-2.
### Flexure loop {#ssub:flexloop}
The flexure loop uses the signal coming from an On-Instrument (OI) WFS to compensate for potential differential flexure between the AO bench and the instrument. The flexure signal is used as soon as the tip-tilt loop is closed by moving the three tip-tilt WFS probes all together. As the tip-tilt loop is closed on the signal coming from these probes, moving the probes moves the TTM accordingly, and results in image motion at the science detector level. First results obtained on sky have shown that the differential flexures between the AO bench and (for instance) GSAOI are small. We measured image motion on the order of $0.2''$ on sky for 30 degree elevation steps. Taking into account that the longest exposure time used with GSAOI are on the order of five minutes (to avoid saturation by sky background), we computed that the maximal SR loss due to flexure during a single exposure could never be greater than 1% at H-band. Hence, the flexure correction, although tested during commissioning, has never been implemented in the operational scheme. The gain provided was too small compared to the complexity it entailed. When using with Flamingos-2, and because the exposure times will increase, this assessment might change.
### ODGW fast guiding
When using GeMS with GSAOI, the ODGWs can be used in a fast read out mode, providing the tip-tilt information based on the centroid position of the stars. This mode is particularly interesting for targets embedded in dust, where NIR stars are more easily achievable than the visible ones. In this mode, one visible star (the [Canopus]{} probe C3) is still needed for slow focus compensation. This mode has been successfully tested during the commissioning, however has not yet been integrated into operation. It will be offered if enough scientific programs require it.
System upgrades {#ssec:upgrades}
---------------
### NGSWFS {#ssub:ngs2}
As explained in paper I - Sect. 5.3.4, the current NGS WFS has a very low sensitivity. A dedicated attempt to fix the design has been unsuccessful. A project is currently under way at the Australian National University (ANU) to build a replacement for the TT NGS WFS, based on a single focal plane array covering the whole 2 arcmin field of view, reading out at 400Hz with less than 2 electrons read out noise. This will boost significantly the TTWFS performance; nominally back to the expected level (limiting magnitude of 18.5). It will also drastically ease the acquisition procedure, and the need for lengthy probe mapping calibrations. Finally, it should provide a solution to the distortion issue discussed in paper I (Sect. 5.3.5). The new NGSWFS is currently build at ANU, and should be commissioned at Gemini towers the end of 2014.
### DM4.5
The replacement for DM0 should arrive in the first half of 2014, and should be re-integrated in [Canopus]{} during the same year.
### Laser
The 589$\:$nm LMCT laser is relatively stable at about 42 to 45$\:$W, which is adequate for the high sodium season but significantly limits performance at other times. It is also quite demanding in term of maintenance. Although there is no definite plan, there has been discussions of a possible upgrade. This might be especially timely considering new technologies like Raman lasers [@feng200925] or optically pumped semiconductor lasers [@berger2012towards].
### RTC
The RTC has been generally quite reliable. However, it is an ageing piece of equipment (about 10 years old) and as noted in Paper I, can not accommodate a Pseudo Open-Loop control model which would certainly improve both performance and stability. An upgrade of the RTC is thus desirable. However, such an upgrade would entail both new hardware and new software, and will inevitably be a major and expensive endeavour. There is no current official plan to replace the RTC.
### Laser beam quality
The 50$\:$W laser beam shape, depending on the alignment, can vary from run to run. It is often out of specification in term of beam quality (M$^2$), which result in larger or aberrated laser spots on the sky, and reduces the SNR on the LGS WFS measurements. Andrés Guesalaga from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and his team are currently building a two-deformable mirror system to remedy that situation. This system should allow to improve significant the laser beam quality and is to be inserted in the BTO [@bechet2013two]. It should be tested in 2015.
### Astrometry calibration
As discussed in Sect. \[sec:astrometry\_performance\], the current astrometric performance is limited by the large amount of quasi-static distortions present in the science path. A possibility to improve the astrometric calibration could be to add a diffractive grid in the optical path, which will generate a grid of diffracted “stars” from the primary target star (see [@guyon2012astrometry; @bendek2012astrometry; @ammons2013astrometry]). These stars will be numerous enough to fit and remove changing optical distortion. A proposal has been submitted to develop such an hardware solution for GeMS. Funding is currently under investigation.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion2}
==========
GeMS has proven to be an exciting and challenging project. Because many complex subsystems must work in unison, GeMS imposes a level of complexity rarely found in an observatory facility instrument. The amount of time on sky (about 100 nights) for commissioning activity and work towards the transition into regular operations is testament alone to the complexity of the system. Operating such a complex instrument is also a challenge for the Gemini observatory and a dedicated effort had been put in place in order to simplify and stream-line operations. GeMS is also a pathfinder instrument, paving the way for the future developments of such systems. It is important to emphasize that no show stoppers have been found on the way, although the delivered performance differs from what was predicted during the design phases. The compensation performance is currently limited by servo lag, noise and generalised fitting, but other, and unexpected terms are also affecting the performance. Furthermore, several calibrations designed during the early phase of the project proved to be either not working or sub-optimal during the commissioning, and new solutions had to be developed. As discussed in this paper, work is continuing on the system to improve on all these aspects, as well as many others.
But if GeMS is complex, is it also a rewarding instrument. The programs executed to date and associated images have already demonstrated its huge and unique scientific potential. Images with FWHM of 0.08$\:$or better over the 85$\:$$\!\times$ 85$\:$field of view are typically obtained under median seeing or better.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
GeMS was a large instrumentation project. In the course of the last 13 years, it involved people from many different disciplines. The authors would like to recognise the contribution and thank Claudio Arraya, Corinne Boyer, Fabian Collao, Paul Collins, Felipe Daruich, Herman Diaz, Matt Doolan, Brent L. Ellerbroek, Aurea Garcia-Rissmann, Fred Gillett, Alejandro Gutierrez, Mark Hunten, Stacy Kang, Matteo Lombini, Bryan Miller, Matt Mountain, Rolando Rogers, Roberto Rojas, Jean-Ren[é]{} Roy, Michael Sheehan, Doug Simons, Jan van Harmelen, and Shane Walker.
The [Mascot]{} algorithm has been developed in collaboration with Damien Gratadour from Observatoire de Paris.
Part of this work has been funded by the French ANR program WASABI - ANR-13-PDOC-0006-01.
Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (Brazil) and Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva (Argentina).
In memory of Vincent Fesquet, GeMS’ optical and laser engineer and our friend.
\[lastpage2\]
[^1]: MCAO systems for solar astronomy have been in use since the mid 2000s at the VTT in Tenerife and at the Dunn solar telescope at Sacramento Peak.
[^2]: data are available at: <http://www.cadc-ccda.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/en/gsa/sv/dataSVGSAOI_v1.html>
[^3]: MYST stands for MCAO Yorick Smart Tools
[^4]: *a prominent pattern or group of stars that is smaller than a constellation*, Oxford dictionary
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Zheng Zhao and Jun Liu
bibliography:
- 'ScrSVM.bib'
title: Safe and Efficient Screening For Sparse Support Vector Machine
---
Sparse SVM in Primal Form
=========================
Assume that $\mathbf{X}\in{{\hbox{I\kern-.15em R}}}^{m\times n}$ is a data set containing $n$ samples, $\mathbf{X}=\left(\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_n\right)$, and $m$ features, $\mathbf{X}=\left(\mathbf{f}_1^\top,\ldots,\mathbf{f}^\top_m\right)^\top$, and $\mathbf{y}=\left(y_1,\ldots,y_n\right)$ contains the class label of $n$ samples, and $y_i\in\left\{-1,+1\right\},~i=1,\ldots,n$. The primal form of the L1-regularized L2-Loss support vector machine (SVM) is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\min\limits_{\boldsymbol{\xi},\mathbf{w}}{\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits^n_{i=1}{\xi_i^2}+\lambda||\mathbf{w}||_1}\label{eq:svml2r1_primal}\\
s.t.~~y_i\left(\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b\right)\ge 1-\xi_i,\nonumber\\
\xi_i\ge 0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Eq. (\[eq:svml2r1\_primal\]) specifies a convex problem with a non-smooth $L_1$ regularizer, which enforce the solution to be sparse. Let $\boldsymbol{w}^\star(\lambda)$ be the optimal solution of Eq. (\[eq:svml2r1\_primal\]) for a given $\lambda$. All the features with nonzero values in $\boldsymbol{w}^\star(\lambda)$ are called active features, and the other features are called inactive.
Sparse SVM in Dual
==================
The Lagrangian multiplier [@boyd-vand-2004-book] of the problem defined in Eq. (\[eq:svml2r1\_primal\]) is: $$\begin{aligned}
L\left(\mathbf{w},b,\boldsymbol{\xi,\alpha,\mu}\right)&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits^n_{i=1}{\xi_i^2}+\lambda||\mathbf{w}||_1\label{eq:lp_org}\\
&-&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_i\left(~y_i\left(\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b\right)-1+\xi_i\right)\nonumber\\
&-&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\mu_i\xi_i}~.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions [@boyd-vand-2004-book] are: $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_i&\ge& 0\\
\alpha_i&\ge& 0\\
\mu_i &\ge& 0\\
y_i\left(\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b\right)-1+\xi_i&\ge& 0\\
\alpha_i\left(~y_i\left(\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b\right)-1+\xi_i\right)&=& 0\\
\xi_i\mu_i &=& 0\end{aligned}$$ By defining $L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)$, $L\left(\xi_i\right)$, and $L\left(b\right)$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)&=&\lambda||\mathbf{w}||_1-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\alpha_i y_i\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i},\\
L\left(\xi_i\right)&=&\frac{1}{2}\xi_i^2-\alpha_i\xi_i-\mu_i\xi_i,\\
L\left(b\right)&=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\alpha_i y_i b},\end{aligned}$$ The Eq. (\[eq:lp\_org\]) can be reformulated as: $$L\left(\mathbf{w},b,\boldsymbol{\xi,\alpha,\mu}\right)= L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}L\left(\xi_i\right)+ L\left(b\right)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_i.$$ The minimum of $L\left(\mathbf{w},b,\boldsymbol{\xi,\alpha,\mu}\right)$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf\limits_{\mathbf{w},b,\boldsymbol{\xi}}L\left(\mathbf{w},b,\boldsymbol{\xi,\alpha,\mu}\right)&=& \inf\limits_{\mathbf{w}}L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\inf\limits_{\xi_i}L\left(\xi_i\right)+ \inf\limits_{b}L\left(b\right)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_i.\label{eq:Lp_1}\end{aligned}$$
Since the problem defined in Eq. (\[eq:svml2r1\_primal\]) is convex and the optimal value of the objective function is achievable, the strong duality condition holds. Therefore, $\inf\limits_{\mathbf{w}}L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)<-\infty$, $\inf\limits_{\xi_i}L\left(\xi_i\right)<-\infty$, $\inf\limits_{b}L\left(b\right)<-\infty$. By applying standard optimization technique, we can obtain their minimum.
The minimum of $L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)$ {#the-minimum-of-lleftmathbfwright .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
[The minimum of $L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)$]{} is given by the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf\limits_{\mathbf{w}}L\left(\mathbf{w}\right)=0,~~\mbox{when}~\|\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j^\top\boldsymbol{\alpha}\|\le \lambda,~~j=1,\ldots,m\label{eq:L_w_v}.\end{aligned}$$ In the preceding equation $\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j=\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{f}_j$, and $\mathbf{Y}$ is a diagonal matrix and $Y_{i,i}=y_i,~i=1,\ldots,n$. Also, the following equation holds when minimum is achieved: $$\displaystyle
\boldsymbol{\alpha}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j=
{\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}l}
{\mbox{sign}\left(w_j\right)\lambda},~~\mbox{if}~w_j\neq 0 \\
{\left[ -\lambda, +\lambda\right]},~~~~\mbox{if}~w_j= 0 \\
\end{array}} \right.~~~j=1,\ldots,m}$$
The minimum of $L\left(\xi_i\right)$ {#the-minimum-of-lleftxi_iright .unnumbered}
------------------------------------
[The minimum of $L\left(\xi_i\right)$]{} is given by the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf\limits_{\xi_i}L\left(\xi_i\right)=-\frac{1}{2}\alpha_i^2,~~\mbox{when}~~\xi_i=\alpha_i,~\mu_i=0~~i=1,\ldots,n\label{eq:L_x}\end{aligned}$$
The minimum of $L\left(b\right)$ {#the-minimum-of-lleftbright .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
[The minimum of $L\left(b\right)$]{} is given by the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf\limits_{b}L\left(b\right)=0,~~\mbox{when}~~\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\alpha_i y_i}=0\label{eq:L_b}\end{aligned}$$
The Dual {#the-dual .unnumbered}
--------
By substituting Equations (\[eq:L\_w\_v\]), (\[eq:L\_x\]), and (\[eq:L\_b\]) into Eq. (\[eq:Lp\_1\]), the dual of the L1-regularized L2-Loss SVM can be expressed as the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\min\limits_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\|\boldsymbol{\alpha}-\mathbf{1}\|_2^2\\
s.t.~~\|\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j^\top\boldsymbol{\alpha}\|\le \lambda,~~j=1,\ldots,m\nonumber\\
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\alpha_i y_i}=0\nonumber\\
\boldsymbol{\alpha}\succcurlyeq\mathbf{0}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By defining $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=\lambda\boldsymbol{\theta}$, the preceding equation can be reformulated as: $$\begin{aligned}
\min\limits_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}||\boldsymbol{\theta}-\frac{\mathbf 1}{\lambda}||_2^2\label{eq:dual-2}\\
s.t.~~\|\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j^\top\boldsymbol{\theta}\|\le 1,~~j=1,\ldots,m\nonumber\\
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\theta_i y_i}=0\nonumber\\
\boldsymbol{\theta}\succcurlyeq\mathbf{0}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The Relationship between Primal and Dual Variables
==================================================
In the primal formulation for the L1-regularized L2-loss SVM, the primal variables are $b$, $\mathbf{w}$, and $\boldsymbol{\xi}$. And in the dual formulation, the dual variables are $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}$. When $b$ and $\mathbf{w}$ is known $\boldsymbol{\xi}$, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$, and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ can be obtained as: $$\mu_i=0,~\xi_i=\alpha_i=\lambda\theta_i=\max\left(0,1-y_i\left(\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b\right)\right),~~~i=1,\ldots,n.\label{eq:primal-dual-relation}$$
The relationship between $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ can be expressed as: $$\displaystyle
\boldsymbol{\alpha}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j =
{\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}l}
{\mbox{sign}\left(w_j\right)\lambda},~~\mbox{if}~w_j\neq 0 \\
{\left[ -\lambda, +\lambda\right]},~~~~\mbox{if}~w_j= 0 \\
\end{array}} \right.,~~~j=1,\ldots,m}$$
The relationship between $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ can be expressed as: $$\displaystyle
\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j=
{\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}l}
{\mbox{sign}\left(w_j\right)},~~~~\mbox{if}~w_j\neq 0 \\
{\left[ - 1, + 1\right]},~~~~\mbox{if}~w_j= 0 \\
\end{array}} \right.,~~~j=1,\ldots,m}\label{eq:is_active01}$$
Computing $\lambda_{\max}$
==========================
$\lambda_{\max}$ is defined as the smallest value of $\lambda$ that results $\mathbf{w}=\mathbf{0}$ when it used in Eq. (\[eq:svml2r1\_primal\]). When the input is given, it can be obtained in a closed form.
The L1-regularized L2-Loss SVM in Eq. (\[eq:svml2r1\_primal\]) can be rewritten in an unconstrainted form as: $$\label{eq:svml2r1_primal:squared:hinge}
\min h(\mathbf w, b) + \lambda \|\mathbf w \|_1,$$ where $h(\mathbf w, b) =\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n \max( 1- y_i (\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b ), 0)^2 $. The derivative of $h(\mathbf w, b)$ with regard to $\mathbf w$ and $b$ can be computed as: $$\label{eq:derivative:w}
h'_{\mathbf w}(\mathbf w, b) = -\sum_{i=1}^n \max( 1- y_i (\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b ), 0) y_i \mathbf x_i$$
$$\label{eq:derivative:b}
h'_{b}(\mathbf w, b) = -\sum_{i=1}^n \max( 1- y_i (\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x}_i+b ), 0) y_i$$
By the definition of $\lambda_{\max}$, when $\lambda$ is larger than $\lambda_{\max}$, $\mathbf w^*=0$, therefore, $$h'_{b}(\mathbf 0, b^*) = -\sum_{i=1}^n \max( 1- y_i b^*, 0) y_i =0,$$ and $$\|h'_{\mathbf{w}}( \mathbf 0, b^*) \|_{\infty} = \|\sum_{i=1}^n \max( 1- y_i b^*, 0) y_i \mathbf x_i \|_{\infty} \le \lambda,$$
This leads to the result: $$b^* = \frac{(n_{+} - n_{-})}{n},$$ where $n_{+}$ and $n_{-}$ denote the number of positive and negative samples, respectively. Since $\lambda_{\max} = \|\sum_{i=1}^n \max( 1- y_i b^*, 0) y_i \mathbf x_i \|_{\infty}.$ It is easy to verify that $b^* \in [-1, 1]$, thus $\max( 1- y_i b^*, 0)= 1- y_i b^* $. Therefore,
$$\lambda_{\max} = \left\|\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i-\frac{n_+-n_-}{n}\right) \mathbf{x}_i\right\|_{\infty}.$$
The First Feature(s) to Enter Into the Model
============================================
Denote $\mathbf m =\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i-\frac{n_+-n_-}{n}\right) \mathbf{x}_i$. The first feature to enter the model is the one corresponding to the element with the largest magnitude in $\mathbf m$.
Screening Rule Based on Dual Variable $\boldsymbol{\theta}$
===========================================================
Eq. (\[eq:is\_active01\]) shows that the necessary condition for a feature $\mathbf{f}$ to be active in the optimal solution is $|\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|=1$, where $\hat{\mathbf{f}}=\mathbf{Yf}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ is a diagonal matrix and $Y_{i,i}=y_i,~i=1,\ldots,n$. This condition can be used to develop a screening rule for the L1-regularized L2-Loss SVM to speedup its training. More specifically, given $\lambda$, we can compute the upper bound of the value of $|\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$, and remove all the features with its upper bound values being less than 1, which are garanteed to be inactive for the given $\lambda$. If the cost of computing this upper bound is low, we can use it to speedup the training process by removing many features. To bound value of $|\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$, we need to first construct a closed convex set $\mathbf{K}$ that contains $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Then we can obtain the upper bound value by maximizing $|\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$ over $\mathbf{K}$. We first study how to construct the convex set $\mathbf{K}$.
Constructing The Convex Set $\mathbf{K}$
----------------------------------------
In the following, we construct a closed convex set $\mathbf{K}$ based on Eq. (\[eq:dual-2\]) and the variational inequality [@lion-stam-cpam-67]. We first introduce the variational inequality for convex optimization.
\[prop:vi\] Let $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ be a solution to the optimization problem: $$\min g(\boldsymbol{\theta}),~~s.t.~~\boldsymbol{\theta}\in\mathbf K$$ where $g$ is continuously differentiable and $\mathbf K$ is closed and convex. Then $\boldsymbol{\theta}^\star$ is a solution of the variational inequality problem: $$\nabla g\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}^\star\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^\star\right)\ge 0,~~~\forall \boldsymbol{\theta}\in\mathbf{K}.\label{eq:vi}$$
The proof of this proposition can be found in [@lion-stam-cpam-67].
Given $\lambda_2<\lambda_{max}$, we assume that there is a $\lambda_1$, such that $\lambda_{max} \ge \lambda_1 > \lambda_2$ and its corresponding solution $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ is known[^1]. The reason to introduce $\lambda_1$ is that when $\lambda_1$ is close to $\lambda_2$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ is known, this can help us to construct a tighter convex set that contains $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2$ to bound the value of $|\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$ in a better way.
Let $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2$ be the optimal solutions of the problem defined in Eq. (\[eq:dual-2\]) for $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, respectively. Assume that $\lambda_1 > \lambda_2$, and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ is known. The following results can be obtained by applying Proposition \[prop:vi\] to the objective function defined in Eq. (\[eq:dual-2\]) for $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2$, respectively.
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\ge 0\label{eq:iv-l}\\
\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_2\right)\ge 0\label{eq:iv-b}\end{aligned}$$
By substituting $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\boldsymbol{\theta}_2$ into Eq. (\[eq:iv-l\]), and $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ into Eq. (\[eq:iv-b\]), the following equations can be obtained.
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\ge 0\label{eq:iv-line}\\
\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\le 0\label{eq:iv-ball}\end{aligned}$$
In the preceding equations, $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$, $\lambda_1$, and $\lambda_2$ are known. Therefore, Eq. (\[eq:iv-line\]) defines a $n$ dimensional halfspace and Eq. (\[eq:iv-ball\]) defines a $n$ dimensional hyperball. Since $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2$ needs to satisfy both equations, it must reside in the region formed by the intersection of the halfspace and the hyperball. Obviously, this region is a closed convex set, and can be used as the $\mathbf{K}$ to bound $|\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$.
Fig. \[fig:BND-1\] shows an example of the $\mathbf{K}$ in a two dimensional space. In the figure, $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)=0$ defines the blue line. And $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)=0$ defines the red circle. And $\mathbf{K}$ is indicated by the shaded area.
![The $\mathbf{K}$ in a 2D space. It is indicated by the shaded area.[]{data-label="fig:BND-1"}](BND-1){width="90.00000%"}
Besides the $n$ dimensional hyperball defined in Eq. (\[eq:iv-ball\]), it is possible to derive a series of hyperball by combining Eq. (\[eq:iv-line\]) and Eq. (\[eq:iv-ball\]). Assume that $\boldsymbol{\theta}^\star$ is the optimal solutions of Eq. (\[eq:dual-2\]) and $t\ge 0$, it is easy to verify that $\boldsymbol{\theta}^\star$ is also the optimal soultion of the following problem. $$\begin{aligned}
\min\limits_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\left\|\boldsymbol{\theta}-\left(t\frac{\mathbf 1}{\lambda}+\left(1-t\right)\boldsymbol{\theta}^\star\right)\right\|_2^2\label{eq:dual-2-ext}\\
s.t.~~\|\hat{\mathbf{f}}_j^\top\boldsymbol{\theta}\|\le 1,~~j=1,\ldots,m\nonumber\\
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\theta_i y_i}=0\nonumber\\
\boldsymbol{\theta}\succcurlyeq\mathbf{0}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By applying Proposition \[prop:vi\] to the objective function defined in Eq. (\[eq:dual-2-ext\]) for $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$, and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2$, the following results can be obtained. $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\left(t_1\frac{\mathbf 1}{\lambda_1}+\left(1-t_1\right)\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\ge 0\label{eq:iv-l-ext}\\
\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\left(t_2\frac{\mathbf 1}{\lambda_2}+\left(1-t_2\right)\boldsymbol{\theta}_2\right)\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_2\right)\ge 0\label{eq:iv-b-ext}\end{aligned}$$
Let $t=\frac{t_1}{t_2}\ge 0$. By substituting $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\boldsymbol{\theta}_2$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ into Eq. (\[eq:iv-l-ext\]) and Eq. (\[eq:iv-b-ext\]), respectively, and then combining the two obtained equations, the following equation can be obtained.
$$\mathbf{B}_t=\left\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2:\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\mathbf{c}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\mathbf{c}\right)\le l^2\right\}\label{eq:ball}$$
$$\mathbf{c}=\frac{1}{2}\left(t\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-t\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}+\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}+\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right),~l=\frac{1}{2}\left\|t\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-t\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}+\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right\|_2\nonumber$$
As the value of $t$ change from 0 to $\infty$, Eq. (\[eq:ball\]) generates a series of hyperball. When $t=0$, $\mathbf{c}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}+\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)$ and $l=\frac{1}{2}\|\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\|_2$. This corresponds to the hyperball defined by Eq. (\[eq:iv-ball\]). The following theorems provide some insights about the properties of the hyperballs generated by Eq. (\[eq:ball\]).
Let $\mathbf{a}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}}{\left\|\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right\|_2}$, the radius of the hyperball generated by Eq. (\[eq:ball\]) reaches it minimum when, $$\begin{aligned}
t=1-\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{1}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathbf{\hat{c}}$ be the center of the ball and $l$ be the radius, in this case, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\hat{c}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)+\boldsymbol{\theta}_1,~~l=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\left\|P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\right\|.\end{aligned}$$\[th:small-ball\] Here, $P_{\mathbf{u}}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)$ is a operator projects $\mathbf{v}$ to the null-space of $\mathbf{u}$: $$P_{\mathbf{u}}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)=\mathbf{v}-\frac{\mathbf{v}^\top\mathbf{u}}{\|\mathbf{u}\|^2_2}\mathbf{u}.$$ Since $\|\mathbf{a}\|_2=1$, $P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)=\mathbf{1}-\left(\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{1}\right)\mathbf{a}$.
The theorem can be proved by minimizing the $r$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:ball\]).
\[th:ball-same\] Let the intersection of the hyperplane $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0$ and the hyperball defined by Eq. (\[eq:ball\]) be $\mathbf{P}_t$. The following equation holds. $$\mathbf{P}_{t_1}=\mathbf{P}_{t_2}, ~\mbox{for}~~\forall t_1, t_2 \ge 0, t_1\ne t_2.$$
The hyperballs defined in Eq. (\[eq:ball\]) can be rewritten in the form: $$\mathbf{B}_t=\left\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2:\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)-t\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\le 0\right\}$$ The intersect between $\mathbf{B}_t$ and $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0$ is: $$\mathbf{P}_t=\left\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2:\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)~\mbox{and}~\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0\right\}$$ Since $\mathbf{P}_t$ is independent to $t$, we have $\mathbf{P}_{t_1}=\mathbf{P}_{t_2}, ~\mbox{for}~~\forall t_1, t_2 \ge 0, t_1\ne t_2.$
This theorem shows that the intersection between the hyperball $\mathbf{B}_t$ and the hyperplane $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0$ is the same for different $t$ values.
Let the intersection of the half space $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\ge 0$ and the hyperball defined by Eq. (\[eq:ball\]) be $\mathbf{Q}_t$. The following inequality holds. $$\mathbf{Q}_{t_1}\subseteq\mathbf{Q}_{t_2}, ~\mbox{for}~~\forall t_1, t_2 \ge 0, t_1\le t_2.$$\[th:ball-contain\]
The intersect between $\mathbf{B}_t$ and $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right) \ge 0$ is: $$\mathbf{Q}_t=\left\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2:\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\le t\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\right\}$$ Since both $t$ and $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)$ are nonnegative, it is obvious that for $\forall t_1, t_2 \ge 0$ and $t_1\le t_2$, if $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2\in\mathbf{Q}_{t_1}$, we must have $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2\in\mathbf{Q}_{t_2}$.
This theorem shows that the volume of $\mathbf{Q}_t$ becomes bigger when $t$ becomes bigger. And $\mathbf{Q}_{t_1}\subseteq\mathbf{Q}_{t_2}$ if $t_1\le t_2$.
Fig. \[fig:BND-2\] shows two circles in a 2D space. The circle with red color corresponds to the one obtained by setting $t_1=0$ in Eq. (\[eq:ball\]). And the circle with blue color corresponds to the one obtained by setting $t_2=1-\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{1}$ in Eq. (\[eq:ball\]). It can be observed in the figure that the intersections of the two circles and the line $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0$ are the same, and this is consistent with Theorem \[th:ball-same\]. Also since $t_1\le t_2$, $\mathbf{Q}_{t_1}\subseteq\mathbf{Q}_{t_2}$, which is consistent with Theorem \[th:ball-contain\].
![The $\mathbf{K}$ in a 2D space when different $t$ values are used. The circle with red color corresponds to $t=0$, and the circle with blue color corresponds to $t=1-\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{1}$.[]{data-label="fig:BND-2"}](BND-2){width="90.00000%"}
Thereom \[th:ball-contain\] suggests to use the $\mathbf{Q}_{t=0}$ to construct $\mathbf{K}$, since when $t=0$, the volumn of $\mathbf{Q}_{t}$ is minimized. The equality $\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\mathbf{y}=0$ in Eq. (\[eq:dual-2\]) of the dual formulation can also be to further reduce the volumn of $\mathbf{K}$.
$$\mathbf{K}=\left\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2:\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\mathbf{c}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\mathbf{c}\right)\le l^2,~\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right) \ge 0,~\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\mathbf{y}=0\right\}\nonumber$$
$$where,~~\mathbf{c}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}+\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right),~l=\frac{1}{2}\left\|\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right\|_2\nonumber$$
Let $\boldsymbol{\theta}_2=\mathbf{c}+\mathbf{r}$, $\mathbf{a}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}}{\left\|\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right\|_2}$, and $\mathbf{b}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)$, $\mathbf{K}$ can be rewritten as:
$$\mathbf{K}=\left\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2:\boldsymbol{\theta}_2=\mathbf{c}+\mathbf{r},~\left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|^2\le \|\mathbf{b}\|^2,~\mathbf{a}^\top\left(\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{r}\right)\le 0,~\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0\right\}\label{eq:K}$$
$$where,~\mathbf{a}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}}{\left\|\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right\|_2},~\mathbf{b}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right),~\mathbf{c}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_2}+\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\nonumber$$
Theorem \[th:ball-same\] shows that when the value of $t$ varies, the intersection of the hyperball $\mathbf{B}_t$ and the hyperplane $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0$ keeps unchange. This means that if the maximium value of $|\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$ is achieved with a $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ in this area, no matter which $\mathbf{B}_t$ is used, the maximium value will be the same. This property can be used to simplify the computation. In Section \[sec:bn0an0\], we will show that when the maximium value of $|\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$ is achieved with a $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ on the intersection of the hyperball $\mathbf{B}_{t=0}$ and the hyperplane $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0$, we can simplify the computation by switching to $\mathbf{B}_t$ with $t=1-\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{1}$, which will enable us to derive a close form solution for the problem.
Computing the Upper Bound
-------------------------
Given the convex set $\mathbf{K}$ defined in Equation (\[eq:K\]), the maximum value of $\left|\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\right|=\left|\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\right|$ can be computed by solving the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
&\max{\left|\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\right|}\label{eq:bound0}\\
s.t.&\mathbf{a}^\top\left(\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{r}\right)\le 0~,\left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|^2 - \|\mathbf{b}\|^2 \le 0,~\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ In the preceding equation, $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\mathbf{c+r}$, where $\mathbf{r}$ is the unknown, and $\hat{\mathbf{f}}$, $\mathbf{a}$, $\mathbf{b}$, $\mathbf{c}$, and $\mathbf{y}$ are known. Since the following equation holds: $$\max|x|=\max\left\{-\min(x),\max(x)\right\}=\max\left\{-\min(x),-\min(-x)\right\},$$ $\max{\left|\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\right|}$ can be decomposed to the following two sub-problems: $$\begin{aligned}
&m_1=-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}=-\min{\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}}-\mathbf{c}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\label{eq:bound1}\\
s.t.&\mathbf{a}^\top\left(\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{r}\right)\le 0~,\left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|^2 - \|\mathbf{b}\|^2 \le 0,~\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&m_2=\max\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}=-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\left(-\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)=- \min{\mathbf{r}^\top\left(-\hat{\mathbf{f}}\right)}-\mathbf{c}^\top\left(-\hat{\mathbf{f}}\right)\label{eq:bound2}\\
s.t.&\mathbf{a}^\top\left(\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{r}\right)\le 0~,\left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|^2 - \|\mathbf{b}\|^2 \le 0,~\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\max\left|\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right|=\max{\left|\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\right|}=\max\left(m_1,m_2\right).$$
Therefore, our key is to solve the following problem: $$\begin{aligned}
&\min{\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}}\label{eq:bound_r}\\
s.t.&\mathbf{a}^\top\left(\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{r}\right)\le 0~,\left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|^2 - \|\mathbf{b}\|^2 \le 0,~\left(\mathbf{c+r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Its Lagrangian multiplier can be written as: $$L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right) = \mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}+\alpha\mathbf{a^\top\left(b+r\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\beta\left(\|\mathbf{r}\|^2_2-\|\mathbf{b}\|^2_2\right)+\rho\left(\mathbf{c}+\mathbf{r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}.\label{eq:lag-org}$$ The corresponding Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions are: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &\ge& 0,~~~\mbox{(dual feasibility)}\label{eq:kkt-fist}\\
\beta &\ge& 0,\\
\|\mathbf{r}\|^2_2-\|\mathbf{b}\|^2_2&\le&0,~~~\mbox{(primal feasibility)}\label{eq:a_brm1}\\
\mathbf{a^\top\left(b+r\right)}&\le&0,\label{eq:a_br}\\
\left(\mathbf{c}+\mathbf{r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}&=&0,\label{eq:a_brp1}\\
\alpha\mathbf{a^\top\left(b+r\right)}&=&0,~~~\mbox{(complementary slackness)}\\
\beta\left(\|\mathbf{r}\|^2_2-\|\mathbf{b}\|^2_2\right)&=&0,\\
\nabla_{\mathbf{r}}L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)&=& 0.~~~\mbox{(stationarity)}\label{eq:kkt-last}\end{aligned}$$ Since the problem specified in Eq. (\[eq:bound\_r\]) is lower bounded by $-\|\mathbf{b}\|_2\|\mathbf{f}\|_2$, it is clear that $\min\nolimits_{\mathbf{r}}L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)$ must also be bounded from below. In the following we study the four cases listed below:
- $\beta=0,~\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a+\rho y}\neq 0$,
- $\beta=0,~\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a+\rho y}=0$,
- $\beta>0,~\alpha = 0$,
- $\beta>0,~\alpha > 0$.
The Case: $\beta=0,~\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a+\rho y}\neq \mathbf{0}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, by setting $\mathbf{r}=t\left(\mathbf{f+\alpha a + \rho y}\right)$, and let $t\rightarrow -\infty$. We will have $L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,0,\rho\right)\rightarrow -\infty$. This is contradict to the observation that $\min\nolimits_{\mathbf{r}}L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)$ must be bounded from below. So when $\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a+\rho y}\neq \mathbf{0}$, $\beta$ must be positive.
The Case: $\beta=0,~\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a+\rho y}= \mathbf{0}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let $P_{\mathbf{u}}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)=\mathbf{v}-\frac{\mathbf{v}^\top\mathbf{u}}{\|\mathbf{u}\|^2_2}\mathbf{u}$ be the projection that project $\mathbf{v}$ to the null-space of $\mathbf{u}$. Given $\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a+\rho y}= \mathbf{0}$, it is easy to verified that $\alpha P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=-P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)$. This suggests that $\alpha P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)$ and $P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)$ are colinear. Also since $\alpha\ge 0$, it must hold: $$\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|}=-1.\label{eq:b0cond}$$ Given $\alpha P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=-P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)$, $\alpha$ can be computed by: $$\alpha=-\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2^2}=\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2}.$$ Similarly, the value of $\rho$ can be computed by: $$\rho=-\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}}{\|\mathbf{y}\|^2_2}-\alpha\frac{\mathbf{a^\top y}}{\|\mathbf{y}\|^2_2}=-\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}}{\|\mathbf{y}\|^2_2}-\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2}\frac{\mathbf{a^\top \mathbf{y}}}{\|\mathbf{y}\|^2_2}$$ By plugging $\beta=0$ and the obtained value of $\alpha$ and $\rho$ into Eq. (\[eq:lag-org\]), it follows: $$\begin{aligned}
L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,0,\rho\right) &=& \alpha\mathbf{a^\top b}+\mathbf{c^\top \left(\rho y\right)}\nonumber\\
&=& \alpha\mathbf{a^\top b}+\mathbf{c^\top \left(-\hat{f}-\alpha a\right)}\nonumber\\
&=& \alpha\mathbf{a^\top \left(b-c\right)}-\mathbf{c^\top \hat{f}}\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2}\mathbf{a^\top \boldsymbol{\theta_1}}-\mathbf{c^\top \hat{f}}\label{eq:b0min1}\end{aligned}$$
It can be verified that in this case, all the KKT conditions specified in Eq. (\[eq:kkt-fist\])-Eq. (\[eq:kkt-last\]) are all satisfied. Since the problem defined in Eq. (\[eq:bound1\]) is convex with a convex domain, Eq. (\[eq:b0min1\]) defines its minimum.
The following theorem summarize the result for the case $\beta=0$.
\[th:b0\] When $\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|}=-1$, $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ achieves its minimum value at $\beta=0$, and this minimum value can be computed as: $$\min\limits_{\mathbf{r}}\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}=-\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2}\mathbf{a^\top \boldsymbol{\theta_1}}-\mathbf{c^\top \hat{f}}.\label{eq:b0min}$$ And in this case, we have: $$\alpha=\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2},~\beta=0,~\rho=-\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}}{\|\mathbf{y}\|^2_2}-\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2}\frac{\mathbf{a^\top \mathbf{y}}}{\|\mathbf{y}\|^2_2}.$$
In this case, since $\alpha=\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2}>0$, the minimum value is achieved on the hyperplane defined by $\mathbf{a^\top\left(b+r\right)}=0$. To compute Eq. (\[eq:b0cond\]) and Eq. (\[eq:b0min\]), $\|\mathbf{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\hat{f}\right)}\|_2$, $\mathbf{\hat{f}}^\top \mathbf{y}$, $\mathbf{\hat{f}}^\top \mathbf{1}$, $\mathbf{y}^\top \mathbf{y}$, and $\mathbf{y}^\top \mathbf{1}$ are independent to $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta_1}$, therefore, can be precomputed. $\|\mathbf{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(a\right)}\|_2$ and $\mathbf{a^\top \boldsymbol{\theta_1}}$ can be shared by all features. These properties can be used to accelerate the computation of the screening rule. For each feature, the only expensive computation is $\mathbf{\hat{f}}^\top \boldsymbol{\theta}_1$, and it can be accelerated by utilizing the sparse structure of $ \boldsymbol{\theta}_1$.
\[cor:b0\] When $\frac{\left|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right|}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|}=1$, $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ achieve its maximum value at $\beta=0$, and in this case $-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}$ can be computed as: $$-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}=-\min{\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}}-\mathbf{c}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}=\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)\|_2}\mathbf{a^\top \boldsymbol{\theta_1}}.\label{eq:b0min_all}$$
The Case: $\beta>0,~\alpha = 0$
-------------------------------
In this case, since $\beta>0$ and $\alpha = 0$, the minimum value of $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ is achieved on the boundary of the hyperball. In Figure \[fig:BND-1\], it corresponds to the arc of the red circle under the blue line. By plugging $\alpha=0$ in Eq. (\[eq:lag-org\]), it can be obtained: $$L\left(\mathbf{r},0,\beta,\rho\right) = \mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}+\frac{1}{2}\beta\left(\|\mathbf{r}\|^2_2-\|\mathbf{b}\|^2_2\right)+\rho\left(\mathbf{c}+\mathbf{r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}$$ The dual function $g\left(0,\beta,\rho\right)=\min\nolimits_{\mathbf{r}}L\left(\mathbf{r},0,\beta,\rho\right)$ can be obtained by setting $$\nabla_\mathbf{r}L\left(\mathbf{r},0,\beta,\rho\right)=\mathbf{\hat{f}+\beta r+ \rho y}=0\Rightarrow \mathbf{r}=-\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}+\rho y}\right).$$ Since $\beta>0$, it must hold that $\|\mathbf{b}\|_2=\|\mathbf{r}\|_2$. Therefore $\beta$ can be written as: $$\beta=\frac{\|\mathbf{\hat{f} + \rho y}\|_2}{\|\mathbf{b}\|_2}$$ Plugging the obtained $\mathbf{r}$ and $\beta$ into $L\left(\mathbf{r},0,\beta,\rho\right)$ leads to the following result: $$g\left(\rho\right)=\min\limits_{\mathbf{r}}L\left(\mathbf{r},0,\beta,\rho\right)=-\|\mathbf{b}\|_2\|\mathbf{\hat{f}+\rho y}\|_2+\rho\mathbf{c^\top y}.\label{eq:a0dual}$$ To maximize the dual function, we simply set $\frac{\partial g\left(\rho\right)}{\partial \rho}=0$. Also by noticing that $\mathbf{b^\top y}=\mathbf{c^\top y}$, as $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1^\top \mathbf{y}=0$, the following equation can be obtained: $$-\|\mathbf{b}\|_2\frac{\mathbf{\rho y^\top y + \hat{f}^\top y}}{\|\mathbf{\hat{f}+\rho y}\|_2} + \mathbf{b}^\top\mathbf{y} = 0.\label{eq:a0L1}$$
Taking square on both sides of the equation and simplifying it, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\rho^2\mathbf{y^\top y}\left(\mathbf{b^\top b~y^\top y-\left(b^\top y\right)^2}\right)\\
&-& 2\rho\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}\left(-\mathbf{b^\top b~y^\top y+\left(b^\top y\right)^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&+& \mathbf{b^\top b\left(\hat{f}^\top y\right)^2-\hat{f}^\top \hat{f}\left(\mathbf{b}^\top y\right)^2} \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Solving the preceding equation leads to the result: $$\rho=-\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}}{\mathbf{y ^\top y}}\pm \frac{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\|_2}\frac{\mathbf{b^\top y}}{\mathbf{y ^\top y}}.\label{eq:a0r}$$ To obtain this equation, we used the fact: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{b^\top b}-\frac{\left(\mathbf{b^\top y}\right)^2}{\mathbf{y^\top y}}=\left\|\mathbf{b-\frac{b^\top y}{y^\top y}y}\right\|^2_2=\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2^2,\\
\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top \hat{f}}-\frac{\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}\right)^2}{\mathbf{y^\top y}}=\left\|\mathbf{\hat{f}-\frac{\hat{f}^\top y}{y^\top y}y}\right\|^2_2=\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2^2~.\end{aligned}$$
Since $\left(\mathbf{c}+\mathbf{r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0$ and $\mathbf{r}=-\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}+\rho y}\right)$, we have $\beta=\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y +\rho y^\top y}}{\mathbf{c^\top y}}$. To ensure that $\beta$ is positive, we must have: $$\rho=-\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}}{\mathbf{y ^\top y}}+ \frac{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\|_2}\frac{\mathbf{b^\top y}}{\mathbf{y ^\top y}}.\label{eq:a0r1}$$ And in this case, $\beta$ can be written in the form: $$\beta=\frac{\|\mathbf{\hat{f} + \rho y}\|_2}{\|\mathbf{b}\|_2}=\frac{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\|_2}$$
To compute $\max\limits_{\rho}g\left(\rho\right)$, first, we notice that Eq. (\[eq:a0L1\]) can be rewritten as: $$-\|\mathbf{b}\|_2\frac{\mathbf{\rho y^\top y + \hat{f}^\top y}}{\|\mathbf{\hat{f}+\rho y}\|_2} + \mathbf{b}^\top\mathbf{y} = 0 \Rightarrow \|\mathbf{b}\|_2 \|\mathbf{\hat{f}+\rho y}\|_2=\|\mathbf{b}\|_2^2\frac{\mathbf{\rho y^\top y + \hat{f}^\top y}}{\mathbf{b}^\top\mathbf{y}}.\label{eq:a0L2}$$ By plugging Eq. (\[eq:a0r1\]) and Eq. (\[eq:a0L2\]) into Eq. (\[eq:a0dual\]) we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{\rho}g\left(\rho\right)&=&-\|\mathbf{b}\|_2^2\frac{\mathbf{\rho y^\top y + \hat{f}^\top y}}{\mathbf{b}^\top\mathbf{y}}+\rho\mathbf{b^\top y}\nonumber\\
&=&- \left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2-\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y b^\top y}}{\mathbf{y^\top y}}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y b^\top y}}{\mathbf{y^\top y}}=\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top b}-P_{\mathbf{y}}^\top\left(\mathbf{b}\right)P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)$, $\max\limits_{\rho}g\left(\rho\right)$ can also be written as: $$\max\limits_{\rho}g\left(\rho\right)=-\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2+P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)-\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top b}.\nonumber$$
It can be verified that in this case, all the KKT conditions specified in Eq. (\[eq:kkt-fist\])-Eq. (\[eq:a\_brm1\]) and Eq. (\[eq:a\_brp1\])-Eq.(\[eq:kkt-last\]) are satisfied. We still need to study that under which condition Eq. (\[eq:a\_br\]) can be satisfied. By setting the derivative of Eq. (\[eq:lag-org\]) to be zero, the following equation can be obtained: $$\mathbf{r}=-\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a + \rho y}\right)$$ Plugging this equation to $\mathbf{a^\top\left(b+r\right)}\le0$, we have: $$\alpha \ge \mathbf{\beta a^\top b -a^\top f- \rho a^\top y}.$$ If $\mathbf{\beta a^\top b -a^\top f- \rho a^\top y} >0$, we must have $\alpha>0$, according to complementary slackness condition, we have $\mathbf{a^\top\left(b+r\right)} = 0$. Therefore $\alpha = \mathbf{\beta a^\top b -a^\top f- \rho a^\top y}$. On the other hand, if $\mathbf{\beta a^\top b -a^\top f- \rho a^\top y} \le 0$, we must have $\alpha =0$. Since, if $\alpha >0$, we will have $\alpha = \mathbf{\beta a^\top b -a^\top f- \rho a^\top y}\le 0$, which forms a contradiction. Therefore, to ensure that Eq. (\[eq:a\_br\]) is satisfied, we need to have $\mathbf{\beta a^\top b -a^\top f- \rho a^\top y} \le 0$. By plugging the obtained $\beta$ and $\rho$, we have: $$\mathbf{\beta a^\top b -a^\top f- \rho a^\top y}=\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top\left(\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2}-\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2}\right)$$ Therefore, if $P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top\left(\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2}-\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2}\right)\le 0$, we must have $\alpha=0$. And in this case, the KKT condition $\mathbf{a^\top\left(b+r\right)} \ge 0$ is also satisfied.
The following theorem summarize the result for the case $\beta>0,~\alpha = 0$.
When $P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top\left(\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2}-\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2}\right)\le 0$, $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ achieves its minimum value at $\beta>0$ and $\alpha = 0$: $$\min\limits_{\mathbf{r}}\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}= -\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2+P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)-\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top b}\label{eq:a0min}$$ In this case, we have: $$\alpha=0,~\beta=\frac{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\|_2},~\rho=-\frac{\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}}{\mathbf{y ^\top y}}- \frac{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\|_2}{\|P_\mathbf{y}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\|_2}\frac{\mathbf{b^\top y}}{\mathbf{y ^\top y}}.\label{eq:a0minp}$$
Note that in Eq. (\[eq:a0min\]) and Eq. (\[eq:a0minp\]), $\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top \hat{f}}$, $\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top y}$, $\mathbf{y^\top y}$, and $\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2$ does not rely on $\lambda_2$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$, therefore, can be precomputed. $\mathbf{b^\top b}$, $\mathbf{b^\top y}$ and $\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2$, although relying on $\lambda_2$ or $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$, are shared by all features. These properties can be used to accelerate computation when implementing the screening rule.
When $P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{a}\right)^\top\left(\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2}-\frac{P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)}{\left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2}\right)\le 0$, $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ achieves its minimum value at $\beta>0$ and $\alpha = 0$. And $-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}$ can be computed as: $$\begin{aligned}
-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}&=&-\min{\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}}-\mathbf{c}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\nonumber\\
&=& \left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right\|_2-P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{b}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)-\mathbf{\hat{f}^\top \boldsymbol{\theta}_1}\label{eq:a0min_all}\end{aligned}$$
The Case: $\beta>0,~\alpha > 0$\[sec:bn0an0\]
---------------------------------------------
In this case, the minimum value of $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ is achieved on the intersection of the boundary of the hyperball and the hyperplane. In Figure \[fig:BND-1\], this corresponds to the two red points on the intersection of the red circle and the blue line. It turns out that, in the case $\beta>0,~\alpha > 0$, deriving a closed form solution for the problem specified in Eq. (\[eq:bound1\]) is not easy. Theorem \[th:ball-same\] suggests that when the minimum value is achieved on the intersection of the hyperball and the hyperplane, we could switch the hyperball used in Eq. (\[eq:bound1\]) to simplify the computation. Below, we show that a closed form solution can be obtained by using the hyperball $\mathbf{B}_t$ with $t=1-\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{1}$. This corresponds to the hyperball defined in Theorem \[th:small-ball\]. As proved in Theorem \[th:ball-same\], the intersections of different $\mathbf{B}_t$ and $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\lambda_1}\right)^\top\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2-\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)= 0$ are identical. Therefore, switching the hyperball $\mathbf{B}_t$ in this case does not change the maximum value of $|\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}|$.
When $\mathbf{B}_t$ with $t=1-\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{1}$ is used and assume that the minimum is achieved on the boundary of the hyperball and the hyperplane, the problem specified in Eq. (\[eq:bound1\]) can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\arg\limits_{\mathbf{r}}\min{\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}}\label{eq:bn0an0bnd}\\
s.t.&\mathbf{a}^\top\mathbf{r}=0,~\left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|_2^2 -l^2 \le 0,~\left(\mathbf{\hat{c}+r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
And its Lagrangian multiplier can be written as: $$L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right) = \mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}+\alpha\mathbf{a^\top r}+\frac{1}{2}\beta\left(\|\mathbf{r}\|^2_2-l^2\right)+\rho\left(\mathbf{\hat{c}}+\mathbf{r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y},\label{eq:lag-be0}$$ In the preceding equation, $\mathbf{c}$ is center of the hyperfall, and $l$ is the radius of the hyperfall, which are defined as: $$\mathbf{\hat{c}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)+\boldsymbol{\theta}_1,~~l=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\left\|P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\right\|.$$
The dual function $g\left(\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)=\min\nolimits_{\mathbf{r}}L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)$ can be obtained by setting $$\nabla_\mathbf{r}L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)=\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a + \beta r+ \rho y}=0\Rightarrow \mathbf{r}=-\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}+\alpha a+\rho y}\right).$$ Since $\beta\neq 0$, it must hold that $\|\mathbf{r}\|_2=l$. Therefore $\beta$ can be written as: $$\beta=\frac{\|\mathbf{\hat{f} + \alpha a+ \rho y}\|_2}{l}$$ Since $\alpha\neq 0$, it must hold that $\mathbf{a}^\top \mathbf{r}=0$. Therefore $\alpha$ can be written as: $$\alpha=\mathbf{-a^\top\left(\hat{f}+\rho y\right)}$$ Plugging the obtained $\mathbf{r}$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ into $L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)$ leads to the following result: $$\begin{aligned}
g\left(\rho\right)=\min\limits_{\mathbf{r}}L\left(\mathbf{r},\alpha,\beta,\rho\right)&=&-l\|\mathbf{\hat{f}+ \alpha a + \rho y}\|_2+\rho\mathbf{\hat{c}^\top y}\nonumber\\
&=&-l\|\mathbf{\hat{f} - a^\top\hat{f} a+ \rho y-a^\top y a}\|_2+\rho\mathbf{\hat{c}^\top y}\nonumber\\
&=&-l\|P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right) + \rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\|_2+\rho\mathbf{\hat{c}^\top y}.\label{eq:an0dual}\end{aligned}$$ To maximize $g\left(\rho\right)$, we simply set $\frac{\partial g\left(\rho\right)}{\partial \rho}=0$, which leads to the equation: $$l\frac{\rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right) + P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{\|P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right) + \rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\|_2} = \mathbf{\hat{c}}^\top\mathbf{y}.\label{eq:an0L1}$$ Take square on both sides of the equation and do some simplification. The following equation can be obtained: $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\rho^2P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\left(\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\right)^2-P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&-& 2\rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)-\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\right)^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+& \left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\right)^2 P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)-\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\right)^2 P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
To obtain the preceding equation, we used that fact that $$\mathbf{\hat{c}^\top y}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)~\mbox{and}~l^2=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)^2 P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right).$$ Solving the problem results a closed form solution for $\rho$ in the following form: $$\rho=-\frac{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\pm \frac{\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)\|_2}{\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\right)\|_2}\frac{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\label{eq:an0r}$$ Since $\left(\mathbf{\hat{c}}+\mathbf{r}\right)^\top\mathbf{y}=0$, we have $\bigg(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{c}}\right)+P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{r}\right)\bigg)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)=0$. It can be verified that $P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{r}\right)=-\frac{1}{\beta}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)+\rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\right)$, we have $\beta=\frac{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right) +\rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{c}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}$. To ensure that $\beta$ is positive, we must have: $$\rho=-\frac{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}- \frac{\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)\|_2}{\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\right)\|_2}\frac{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\label{eq:an0r1}$$ And in this case, $\beta$ can be written in the form: $$\beta=\frac{\|P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)+\rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\|_2}{l}=2\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)^{-1}\frac{\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)\|_2}{\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\right)\|_2}$$
To compute $\max\limits_{\rho}g\left(\rho\right)$, first, we notice that Eq. (\[eq:an0L1\]) can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathbf{\hat{c}}^\top\mathbf{y}=l\frac{\rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right) + P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{\|P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right) + \rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\|_2} \nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow&l\|P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right) + \rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\|_2=l^2\frac{\rho P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right) + P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{\mathbf{\hat{c}}^\top\mathbf{y}}.\label{eq:an0L2}\end{aligned}$$ By plugging Eq. (\[eq:an0r1\]) and Eq. (\[eq:an0L2\]) into Eq. (\[eq:an0dual\]) we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{\rho}g\left(\rho\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\Bigg(-\left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\right)\right\|_2\nonumber\\
-\frac{P^\top_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)} \Bigg).\label{eq:an0min1}\end{aligned}$$ Since $P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{f}\right)-\frac{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)} =P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\right)^\top P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)$, Eq. (\[eq:an0min1\]) can also be written in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{\rho}g\left(\rho\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\Bigg(-\left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\Big(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\Big)\right\|_2\nonumber\\
+P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\Big(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\Big)^\top P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)-P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)^\top P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{f}\right)\Bigg).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The following theorem summarize the result for the case $\beta>0,~\alpha >0$.
When $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ achieves its minimum value at $\beta>0$ and $\alpha > 0$, this value can be computed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\min\limits_{\mathbf{r}}\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}= \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\Bigg(-\left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\Big(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\Big)\right\|_2\nonumber\\
+P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\Big(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\Big)^\top P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)-P^\top_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right) P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{f}\right)\Bigg).\label{eq:an0min}\end{aligned}$$
When $\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}$ achieves its minimum value at $\beta>0$ and $\alpha > 0$, the corresponding $-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}$ can be computed as: $$\begin{aligned}
-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}&=&-\min{\mathbf{r}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}}-\mathbf{\hat{c}}^\top\hat{\mathbf{f}}\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_2}-\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\right)\Bigg(\left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)\right\|_2 \left\|P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\Big(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\Big)\right\|_2\nonumber\\
& &-~ P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\Big(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{1}\right)\Big)^\top P_{P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{y}\right)}\left(P_{\mathbf{a}}\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)\right)-\mathbf{\hat{f}}^\top\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\Bigg).\label{eq:an0min_all}\end{aligned}$$
The Feature Screening Algorithm
-------------------------------
Algorithm \[alg:main\] shows the procedure of screening features for L1-Regularized L2-Loss Support Vector Machine. Given $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$, the algorithm returns a list $\mathds{L}$, which contains the indices of the features that are potential to have nonzero weights when $\lambda_2$ is used as the regularization parameter.
For each feature, in Line 3, the algorithm weight the feature using $\mathbf{Y}$. Then, in Line 4 and Line 5, it computes $\max\left|\mathbf{\hat{f}}^\top\boldsymbol{\theta}\right|$. If the value is larger than 1, it adds the index of the feature to $\mathds{L}$ in Line 7. The function $\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)$ computes $-\min\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^\top\mathbf{\hat{f}}$ using the results obtained in the preceding subsections.
Since $P_\mathbf{u}\left(-\mathbf{v}\right)=-P_\mathbf{u}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)$, it is easy to see that the intermediate results generated when computing $\left(\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)$ can be used to accelerate the computation of $\left(-\mathbf{\hat{f}}\right)$. Also it is easy to verify that in the worst case, the computational cost for evaluating one feature is $O\left(n\right)$. Therefore, to evaluate all $m$ features the total computational cost is $O\left(m\times n\right)$.
$\mathds{L}=\emptyset$, $i=1$, $\mathbf{Y}=diag\left(\mathbf{y}\right)$
0.2in
[^1]: When $\lambda_1=\lambda_{max}$, $\boldsymbol{\theta}_1$ can be easily obtained by using Eq. (\[eq:primal-dual-relation\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the three versions of proximity potentials, namely proximity 1977, proximity 1988, and proximity 2000, we present a pocket formula for fusion barrier heights and positions. This was achieved by analyzing as many as 400 reactions with mass between 15 and 296. Our parametrized formula can reproduced the exact barrier heights and positions within an accuracy of $\pm1\%$. A comparison with the experimental data is also in good agreement.'
author:
- Ishwar Dutt
- 'Rajeev K. Puri'
title: Analytical parametrization of fusion barriers using proximity potentials
---
\[intro\]Introduction
=====================
In the low energy heavy-ion collisions, fusion of colliding nuclei and related phenomena has always been of central interest[@rkp1]. Depending upon the incident energy of the projectile as well as angular momentum and impact parameter, the collision of nuclei can lead to several interesting phenomena such as incomplete fusion [@rkp1], multifragmentation [@rkp2; @rkp3], subthreshold particle production [@rkp4], nuclear flow [@rkp5] as well as formation of the superheavy elements [@rkp6]. Since fusion is a low density phenomenon, several mean field models [@rkp1; @rkp6; @blocki77; @wr94; @ms2000; @wang06; @deni02] have been developed in the recent past at microscopic/macroscopic level and have been robust against the vast experimental data [@ms2000; @wang06; @expt] that range from symmetric to highly asymmetric colliding nuclei. The study of mass dependence has always guided the validity of various models irrespective of the energy range. The essential idea of developing a model is to understand the physical mechanism behind a process or phenomenon. Extension of the physics is also reported toward isospin degree of freedom. At the same time, accumulation of huge experimental data [@ms2000; @wang06; @expt] (that include all kinds of masses and asymmetry of colliding nuclei) puts stringent test for any theoretical model.
As fusion process occurs at the surface of colliding nuclei, any difference occurring in the interior part of the potential does not make any difference toward the fusion. One always tries to parametrize the potential in terms of some known quantities such as the masses and charges of colliding nuclei [@rkp1; @deni02; @bass73; @ngo75]. At intermediate energies, several forms of density dependent potentials are also available [@rkp2; @rkp3; @rkp4; @rkp5]. Generally, the benchmark is to parameterized the outcome in proximity fashion [@blocki77]. By adding the Coulomb potential to the parameterized form of the nuclear ion-ion potential, one obtains total ion-ion potential and ultimately, the fusion barriers and cross sections.
Alternatively, one calculates the barrier heights as well as positions of large number of reactions and then tries to parametrize these in terms of some known quantities like the charges and masses of the colliding nuclei [@rkp1; @skg82]. Recently, even neutron excess dependence has also been incorporated in some attempts [@ng04]. Similarly, an analytical expression to determine the barrier heights and positions are also presented in Ref. [@rm01]. The cost of such attempts was in the form of more complicated parametrized form. The utility of such direct parametrization is that one can use these pocket formula to find out the fusion barriers instantaneously.
As is evident from the literature, several modifications over the original proximity potential have also been suggested in the recent years [@wr94; @ms2000]. We shall here attempt to present a direct parametrization of the fusion barrier positions as well as heights using different proximity potentials. This attempt will introduce great simplification in obtaining the fusion barrier positions and heights. Section \[model\] describes the models in brief, Sec. \[result\] depicts the results, and a summary is presented in Sec. \[summary\].
\[model\] The Model
===================
All proximity potentials are based on the proximity force theorem. According to which, *“the force between two gently curved surfaces in close proximity is proportional to the interaction potential per unit area between the two flat surfaces”*. The nuclear part of the interaction potential in different proximity potentials is described as a product of geometrical factor representing the mean curvature of the interacting surfaces and an universal function depending on the separation distance.
$\rm Proximity~1977~(Prox~77)$
------------------------------
According to the original version of proximity [@blocki77], the interaction potential $ V_{N}(r)$ between two surfaces can be written as $$V_{N}^{Prox~77}(r)= 4\pi \gamma b \overline{R} \Phi \left( \frac{{
r}-C_{1} -C_{2}}{b}\right) {~\rm MeV},\label{eq:1}$$ where the surface energy coefficient $\gamma$ taken from the Lysekil mass formula $( ~\rm in
~MeV/fm^{2})$ is written as $$\gamma = \gamma_{0}\left[1-k_{s} I^{2} \right],
\label{eq:2}$$ with $ I=\left(\frac{N-Z}{A}\right)$; $N$, $Z$, and $A$ refer to the neutron, proton and total mass of two interacting nuclei. Though the proximity potential Prox 77, in principle, is for zero-neutron excess, the factor $ \gamma$ takes care of some neutron excess content. In the above formula, $ \gamma_{0}$ is the surface energy constant and $k_{s}$ is the surface-asymmetry constant. Both constants were first parametrized by Myers and Światecki [@ms66] by fitting the experimental binding energies. The first set of these constants yielded values $\gamma_{0}$ and $k_{s}=1.01734 ~\rm
~MeV/fm^{2}$ and 1.79, respectively. Later on, these values were revised to ${~\rm \gamma_{0}}$ = 0.9517 $~\rm
MeV/fm^{2}$ and $ k_{s}=1.7826$ [@ms67]. Interestingly, most of the modified proximity type potentials use different values of the parameter $\gamma$ [@wr94; @ms2000]. The mean curvature radius, $
\overline{R}$ in Eq. (\[eq:1\]) has the form $$\overline{R} = \frac{C_{1}C_{2}}{C_{1}+ C_{2}}, \label{eq:3}$$ quite similar to the one used for reduced mass. Here $$C_{i}= R_{i}\left[1-\left(\frac{b}{R_{i}} \right)^{2}+\cdots
\cdots \right], \label{eq:4}$$ ${\rm R_{i}}$, the effective sharp radius, reads as $$R_{i}= 1.28A^{1/3}_{i}- 0.76+0.8A^{-1/3}_{i} {~\rm fm}~~(i=1,2).
\label{eq:5}$$ The universal function $\Phi \left(\xi
\right)$ was parametrized with the following form: $$\Phi \left(\xi \right)= \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
-\frac{1}{2} \left(\xi- 2.54 \right)^{2}-0.0852\left(\xi- 2.54
\right)^{3},\\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{ for $\xi \leq 1.2511 $ }, \\
-3.437\exp \left(-\frac{\xi}{0.75} \right),\\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{ for $\xi \geq 1.2511 $ },
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq:6}$$ with $\xi$ = $(r - C_{1} - C_{2}$)/$b$. The width $b$ has been evaluated close to unity. Using the above form, one can calculate the nuclear part of the interaction potential ${ V_{N}(r)}$. This model is referred as Prox 77 and corresponding potential as $
V_{N}^{Prox~77}(r)$.
$\rm Proximity~1988~(Prox~88)$
------------------------------
Later on, using the more refined mass formula of Möller and Nix [@mn81], the value of coefficients $\gamma_{0}$ and $
k_{s}$ were modified yielding their values =1.2496 $\rm
MeV/fm^{2}$ and 2.3, respectively. Reisdorf [@wr94] labeled this modified version as ‘Proximity 1988’. Note that this set of coefficients give stronger attraction compared to the above sets. Even a more recent compilation by Möller and Nix [@mn95] yields similar values. We marked this potential as Prox 88.
$\rm Proximity~2000~(Prox~00)$
------------------------------
Recently, Myers and Światecki [@ms2000] modified Eq. (\[eq:1\]) by using up-to-date knowledge of nuclear radii and surface tension coefficients using their droplet model concept. The prime aim behind this attempt was to remove discrepancy of the order of $4\%$ reported between the results of Prox 77 and experimental data [@ms2000]. Using the droplet model [@ms80], matter radius $C_{i}$ was calculated as $$C_{i}= c_{i}+ \frac{N_{i}}{A_{i}}t_{i} ~~~~(i=1,2),
\label{eq:7}$$ where $c_{i}$ denotes the half-density radii of the charge distribution and $t_{i}$ is the neutron skin of the nucleus. To calculate $c_{i}$, these authors [@ms2000] used two-parameter Fermi function values given in Ref. [@dv87] and remaining cases were handled with the help of parametrization of charge distribution described below. The nuclear charge radius (denoted as $R_{00}$ in Ref. [@bn94]), is given by the relation: $$R_{00i}=\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\left<r^{2}\right>^{1/2} \nonumber$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \\
=1.240A_{i}^{1/3} \left\{1+\frac{1.646}{A_{i}}-0.191
\left(\frac{A_{i}-2Z_{i}}{A_{i}}\right)\right\} {~\rm fm}~~ \nonumber \\
(i=1,2), \label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$ where $<r^{2}>$ represents the mean square nuclear charge radius. According to Ref. [@bn94], Eq. (\[eq:8\]) was valid for the even-even nuclei with $8\leq Z < 38$ only. For nuclei with $Z\geq
38$, the above equation was modified by Pomorski *et al*. [@bn94] as $$R_{00i}= 1.256A_{i}^{1/3}
\left\{1-0.202\left(\frac{A_{i}-2Z_{i}}{A_{i}}\right)\right\}
{~\rm fm}. \label{eq:9}$$ These expressions give good estimate of the measured mean square nuclear charge radius $<r^{2}>$. In the present model, authors used only Eq. (\[eq:8\]). The half-density radius, $c_{i}$ was obtained from the relation: $$c_{i}= R_{00i}\left(1-
\frac{7}{2}\frac{b^{2}}{R_{00i}^{2}}-\frac{49}{8}\frac{b^{4}}{R_{00i}^{4}}+\cdots
\right) ~~~~~~~(i=1,2). \label{eq:10}$$ Using the droplet model [@ms80], neutron skin $t_{i}$ reads as $$t_{i}= \frac{3}{2}r_{0}\left[\frac{JI_{i}-
\frac{1}{12}c_{1}Z_{i}A^{-1/3}_{i}}{Q+ \frac{9}{4}JA^{-1/3}_{i}}
\right] (i=1,2). \label{eq:11}$$ Here $r_{0}$ is $1.14$ fm, the value of nuclear symmetric energy coefficient $J=32.65$ MeV and $c_{1}= 3 e^{2}/5 r_{0}=0.757895$ MeV. The neutron skin stiffness coefficient $Q$ was taken to be 35.4 MeV. The nuclear surface energy coefficient $\gamma$ in terms of neutron skin was given as; $$\gamma = \frac{1}{4\pi r^{2}_{0}}\left[18.63 {\rm (MeV)}
-Q\frac{\left(t^{2}_{1} + t^{2}_{2}\right)}{2r^{2}_{0}} \right],
\label{eq:12}$$ where $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ were calculated using Eq. (\[eq:11\]). The universal function $\Phi
(\xi)$ is reported as $$\Phi \left(\xi \right)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
-0.1353+ \sum\limits_{n=0}^{5}\left[c_{n}/\left(n+1\right)\right]
\left(2.5 - \xi \right)^{n+1},\\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{ for \quad $0 < \xi \leq 2.5 $},\\
-0.09551\exp \left[\left( 2.75 - \xi\right)/0.7176 \right], \\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\mbox{ for $\quad\xi \geq 2.5$}.
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq:13}$$ The values of different constants $c_{n}$ were: $c_{0}=-0.1886$, $c_{1}=-0.2628$, $c_{2}=-0.15216$, $c_{3}=-0.04562$, $c_{4}=0.069136$, and $c_{5}=-0.011454$. For $\xi
> 2.74$, the above exponential expression is the exact representation of the Thomas-Fermi extension of the proximity potential. This potential is marked as Prox 00.
\[result\]Results and Discussion
================================
As a first step, we calculated the nuclear part of the ion-ion potential using Prox 77, Prox 88, and Prox 00 potentials and then by adding the Coulomb potential (= $\frac{Z_{1}Z_{2}e^{2}}{r}$), total ion-ion potential $V_{T}(r)$ for spherical colliding pair is obtained. The fusion barrier is then extracted using conditions $$\frac{dV_T(r)}{dr}|_{r=R_{B}} = 0,~~ {\rm{and}} ~~
\frac{d^{2}V_T(r)}{dr^{2}}|_{r=R_{B}} \leq 0. \label{eq:14}$$ The height of the barrier and position is marked, respectively, as $V_{B}$ and $R_{B}$. For the present analysis, all kind of the reactions involving symmetric $(N=Z,~ A_{1}=A_{2})$ as well as asymmetric $(N\neq Z,~ A_{1}\neq A_{2})$ nuclei are considered. In all, 400 reactions covering almost whole of the periodic table are taken into account. All nuclei considered here are assumed to be spherical in nature, however, deformation as well as orientation of the nuclei also affect the fusion barriers [@deni07]. The lightest reaction considered here is $^{6}Li+^{9}Be$ whereas the heaviest one is $^{48}Ca+^{248}Cm$. As reported in Ref. [@ms2000], proximity Prox 77 overestimate experimental data by $4\%$. It was reported to be better for newer versions.
Once fusion barrier heights and positions were calculated, a search was made for their parametrization. Since it is evident that barrier positions depend on the size of the colliding systems, the best way is to parametrize them in terms of the radius dependence i.e. in terms of $A^{1/3}$. In the literature, several attempts exist that parametrize $R_{B}$ directly either as $A^{'} + B^{'} (A_{1}^{1/3}+A_{2}^{1/3})$ [@anjos02; @broglia81; @kovar79; @cw76] or as $r_{B}~(=\frac{R_{B}}{A_{1}^{1/3}+A_{2}^{1/3}}$) [@cngo75; @ngo80]. We have also tried similar fits. Unfortunately, the scattering around the mean curve was quite significant in both the cases, therefore, we discard this kind of parametrizations. Alternatively, we plotted the reduced fusion barrier positions $s_{B}=R_{B}-C_{1}-C_{2}$, as a function of $\frac{Z_1 Z_2}{A_1^{1/3}+A_2^{1/3}}$ for all three versions of proximity potentials (see Fig. 1). Very encouragingly, the reduced barrier positions $s_{B}$ of all the reactions fall on the mean curve that can be parametrized in terms of exponential function. We noted that the scattering around the mean positions is very small. Due to the weak Coulomb force in lighter colliding nuclei, lesser attractive potential is needed to counterbalance it. As a result, separation distance increases in lighter colliding nuclei. As we go to heavier nuclei, stronger Coulomb contribution demands more and more penetration, therefore, decreasing the value of $s_{B}$. In other words, the fusion in lighter nuclei occurs at the outer region compared to the heavier nuclei where $s_{B}$ is much smaller.
If we compare (a) and (b) parts of the Fig. 1, we notice that $s_{B}$, the separation distance between nuclei is slightly more in Prox 88 compared to Prox 77. This is due to the fact that Prox 88 has stronger surface energy coefficient $\gamma$ \[see Eq. (\[eq:2\]) with $\gamma_{0}$ = $1.2496 ~\rm
MeV/fm^{2}$ and $ k_{s}=2.3$ respectively\]. This results in more attractive nuclear potential compared to Prox 77 and therefore, counterbalancing happens at larger distances. From the figure, it is also evident that latest proximity potential has shallow nuclear potential compared to the other two versions. All three proximity potentials follow similar mass/ charge dependence and can be parametrized in terms of following function: $${s_B^{par}} = \alpha\exp\left[-\beta
\left(x-2\right)^{1/4}\right]. \label{eq:15}$$ Here, $x$ = $\frac{Z_1 Z_2}{A_1^{1/3}+A_2^{1/3}}$ and $\alpha$, $\beta$ are the constants whose values depend on the model one is using. The values of $\alpha$, are 5.184 19, 5.374 57, and 5.087 58, whereas the values of $\beta$ are 0.339 79, 0.313 26, and 0.295 18 for Prox 77, Prox 88, and Prox 00, potentials, respectively. The analytical parametrized fusion barrier positions therefore, read as $${R_B^{par}} = {s_B^{par}} + C_1 + C_2. \label{eq:16}$$ The quality of our parametrized fusion positions can be judged by analyzing the percentage deviation defined as $$\Delta R_{B}~(\%) = \frac{R_{B}^{par}-
R_{B}^{exact}}{R_{B}^{exact}}\times 100. \label{eq:17}$$ We plot in Fig. 2, the percentage deviation $\Delta R_{B}~(\%)$ as a function of the product of charges $Z_{1}Z_{2}$. Very encouragingly, we see that in all three cases, our analytical parametrized form gives very good results within $\pm1\%$ of the actual exact barriers positions. The average deviations calculated over 400 reactions are -0.01%, -0.02%, and 0% for Prox 77, Prox 88, and Prox 00, respectively. This is very encouraging since it is for the first time that such accurate parametrization has been obtained. Note that our parametrizations depend on the charges and masses of the colliding nuclei only. This definitely introduces great simplification in the calculation of fusion barrier positions within proximity concept.
In Fig. 3, we parametrize the fusion barrier heights $V_{B}$ as a function of $\frac{1.44
Z_1Z_2}{R_B^{par}}(1-\frac{0.75}{R_B^{par}})$, similar to the one reported in Refs. [@ng04; @broglia81]. The first part is the Coulomb contribution whereas the second part is the reduction due to the nuclear potential. We see that the fusion barrier heights in all three proximity potentials can be parametrized using the following relation: $$V^{par}_{B} = \delta [\frac{1.44Z_1
Z_2}{R_B^{par}}(1-\frac{0.75}{R_B^{par}})]. \label{eq:18}$$ Where $\delta$ is a constant having values 0.99903, 0.99868, and 1.002 for Prox 77, Prox 88, and Prox 00, respectively. Here second term in the above relation is introduced to take care of the deviations that happen in the lower tail of the fusion barrier heights. We see that one can parametrize the barrier heights very closely. The quality of our analytical parametrization is tested in the Fig. 4, where again percentage difference between parametrized and exact values are shown. Mathematically, $$\Delta V_{B}~(\%) = \frac{V_{B}^{par}-
V_{B}^{exact}}{V_{B}^{exact}}\times 100. \label{eq:19}$$ Very encouragingly, we see that our fits are within $\pm1\%$ of the actual values. Some slight deviations can be seen for lighter masses. This may also be due to the limitations of proximity potentials in handling the lighter masses where surface is of the order of nuclear radius. It is very encouraging to note that our parametrized form give barrier heights and positions within $\pm
1\%$ of the actual values. The average deviations are -0.10%, -0.12%, and 0.07% for Prox 77, Prox 88, and Prox 00, respectively. In Table 1, we display the actual and analytical parametrized values of some selected collisions for all three versions of proximity potentials. We note that our results are in very close agreement with the actual value and therefore, introduces great simplification in the calculation of fusion barriers. Finally, we compare our outcome with experimental data in Fig. 5. Here we display our analytically parametrized calculated fusion barrier heights $V_{B}^{par}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:18\])\] with experimentally extracted fusion barrier heights $V_{B}^{expt}$. The experimentally extracted fusion barrier heights displayed in this figure are obtained in the approach, when shapes of both colliding nuclei are spherical. The experimental data are taken from Refs [@ms2000; @wang06; @expt]. It is clear from the figure that our results are in good agreement with experimental data. In a recent attempt [@id], we presented comparison of 16 different proximity based potentials and found that potentials due to Bass [@wr94], Aage Winther [@aw95], and Denisov [@id] (marked as Bass 80, AW 95, and Denisov DP in Ref. [@id]) were performing better than other proximity based potentials. The analytical parametrizations of such potentials will be presented elsewhere [@idd].
\[summary\]Summary
==================
Using three versions of proximity potentials, we obtained analytical relations for the fusion barrier heights and positions. Our analysis is based on the calculations of 400 reactions. Our analytical parametrized values are in very close agreement with actual as well as experimental values. Therefore, introducing great simplifications in the calculation of fusion barrier heights and positions. These results can be used as a guide line for estimating the fusion barriers in those cases where measurements do not exist and also for the study of new nuclei yet unexplored.\
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by a research grant from the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.
[0]{} R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. [**A 23**]{}, 429 (2005); R. Arora [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**8**]{}, 103 (2000); R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**3**]{}, 277 (1998); R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**43**]{}, 315 (1991); R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**45**]{}, 1837 (1992). Y. K. Vermani [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 064613 (2009); A. Sood [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**70**]{}, 034611 (2004); J. Singh [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**62**]{}, 044617 (2000); C. Fuchs [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**22**]{}, 131 (1996). R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **54** R28 (1996); R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. **A 575,** 733 (1994); S. Kumar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 3494 (1998); R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, J. Comput. Phys. [**162**]{}, 245 (2000); S. Kumar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 1618 (1998). G. Batko [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**20**]{}, 461 (1994); S. W. Huang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B 298,**]{} 41 (1993); S. W. Huang [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**30**]{}, 105 (1993). E. Lehmann [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{}, 2113 (1995); E. Lehmann [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**30**]{}, 219 (1993). R. K. Gupta, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**47**]{}, 561 (1993); R. K. Gupta [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**18**]{}, 1533 (1992); S. S. Malik [*et al.*]{}, Pramana J. Phys. [**32**]{}, 419 (1989); R. K. Puri [*et al.*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**9**]{}, 767 (1989); R. K. Puri, [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**18**]{}, 903 (1992). J. Blocki, J. Randrup, W. J. Światecki, and C. F. Tsang, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**105**]{}, 427 (1977). W. Reisdorf, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**20**]{}, 1297 (1994). V. Y. Denisov, Phys. Lett. [**B 526**]{}, 315 (2002). W. D. Myers and W. J. Światecki Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 044610 (2000); and earlier references therein. M. Liu [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. **A 768,** 80 (2006); A. Dobrowolski [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. **A 729,** 713 (2003); J. Bartel [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. [**A 14**]{}, 179 (2002). V. Tripathi *et al.*, Phys. Rev. C **65**, 014614 (2001); S. Sinha, M. R. Pahlavani, R. Varma, R. K. Choudhury, B. K. Nayak, and A. Saxena, [*ibid.*]{} **64**, 024607 (2001); I. Padron *et al.*, [*ibid.*]{} **66**, 044608 (2002); J. O. Newton *et al.*, [*ibid.*]{} **70**, 024605 (2004); J. J. Kolata *et al.*, [*ibid.*]{} **69**, 047601 (2004); Z. H. Liu *et al.*, Eur. Phys. J. **A 26**, 73 (2005); S. Mitsuoka, H. Ikezoe, K. Nishio, K. Tsuruta, S. C. Jeong, and Y. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 182701 (2007); A. M. Stefanini *et al.*, Phys. Rev. C **78**, 044607 (2008); K. Washiyama and D. Lacroix, [*ibid.*]{} [**78,**]{} 024610 (2008); A. M. Stefanini, *et al.*, Phys. Lett. **B 679**, 95 (2009). R. Bass, Phys. Lett. B [**47**]{}, 139 (1973); R. Bass, Nucl. Phys. **A 231,** 45 (1974). C. Ngô [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. **A 252,** 237 (1975). S. K. Gupta and S. Kailas, Phys. Rev. C [**26**]{}, 747 (1982). N. G. Nicolis, Eur. Phys. J. A [**21**]{}, 265 (2004). R. Moustabchir and G. Royer, Nucl. Phys. **A 683,** 266 (2001). W. D. Myers and W. J. Światecki, Nucl. Phys. **81,** 1 (1966). W. D. Myers and W. J. Światecki, Ark. Fys. [**36**]{}, 343 (1967). P. Möller and J. R. Nix, Nucl. Phys. **A 361,** 117 (1981). P. Möller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Światecki, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables **59,** 185 (1995). W. D. Myers and W. J. Światecki, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**55**]{}, 395 (1969); [**84**]{}, 186 (1974); Nucl. Phys. **A 336,** 267 (1980). C. W. de Jager, H. de Vries and C. de Vries, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**14**]{}, 479 (1974); H. de Vries, C. W. de Jager and C. de Vries, [*ibid.*]{} [**36**]{}, 495 (1987). B. Nerlo-Pomorska and K. Pomorski, Z. Phys. A [**348**]{}, 169 (1994). V. Y. Denisov and N. A. Pilipenko, Phys. Rev. C [**76,**]{} 014602 (2007); A. S. Umar and V. E. Oberacker, Phys. Rev. C [**77,**]{} 064605 (2008); M. Ismail, W. M. Seif, and M. M. Botros Nucl. Phys. [**A828,**]{} 333 (2009). R. M. Anjos [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B 534**]{}, 45 (2002). R. A. Broglia and A. Winther, Heavy-Ion Reactions Lecture Notes (Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley) p 116 (1981). D. G. Kovar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**20**]{}, 1305 (1979). P. R. Christensen and A. Winther, Phys. Lett. [**B 65**]{}, 19 (1976). C. Ngô [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. **A 240,** 353 (1975); F. Stancu [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. **A 270,** 236 (1976); M. Ismail [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**24**]{}, 458 (1981). H. Ngô and Ch. Ngô, Nucl. Phys. **A 348,** 140 (1980). I. Dutt and R. K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{}, 044615 (2010). A. Winther, Nucl. Phys. **A 594,** 203 (1995). I. Dutt and R. K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C -under preparation.
\[scale=0.4\] [fig1.ps]{}-0.2 cm
-0.4 cm
\[scale=0.4\] [fig2.ps]{}-0.2 cm
-0.4 cm
\[scale=0.4\] [fig3.ps]{}-0.2 cm
-0.4 cm
\[scale=0.4\] [fig4.ps]{}-0.2 cm
-0.4 cm
\[scale=0.4\] [fig5.ps]{}-0.2 cm
-0.4 cm
Reaction
------------------------ --------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
R$_B^{exact}$ R$_B^{par}$ R$_B^{exact}$ R$_B^{par}$ R$_B^{exact}$ R$_B^{par}$ V$_B^{exact}$ V$_B^{par}$ V$_B^{exact}$ V$_B^{par}$ V$_B^{exact}$ V$_B^{par}$
$^{6}$Li + $^{9}$Be 7.01 7.03 7.26 7.27 6.74 6.81 2.21 2.20 2.14 2.13 2.29 2.26
$^{10}$B + $^{12}$C 7.22 7.21 7.47 7.45 6.99 7.03 5.36 5.36 5.19 5.20 5.54 5.50
$^{16}$O + $^{16}$O 7.65 7.65 7.90 7.90 7.51 7.54 10.86 10.86 10.55 10.55 11.10 11.03
$^{20}$Ne + $^{20}$Ne 7.95 7.97 8.20 8.21 8.42 8.28 16.39 16.35 15.94 15.92 15.68 15.85
$^{24}$Mg + $^{26}$Mg 8.40 8.37 8.65 8.61 8.86 8.73 22.54 22.53 21.95 21.96 21.47 21.75
$^{24}$Mg + $^{34}$S 8.61 8.61 8.86 8.85 8.89 8.80 29.34 29.28 28.60 28.55 28.64 28.80
$^{16}$O + $^{64}$Ni 9.01 9.03 9.26 9.27 9.05 9.08 35.17 35.06 34.33 34.22 35.08 34.99
$^{6}$Li + $^{238}$U 10.87 10.97 11.07 11.21 10.81 10.93 34.07 33.72 33.46 33.04 34.28 33.94
$^{12}$C + $^{124}$Sn 9.88 9.94 10.13 10.18 9.97 10.00 40.31 40.14 39.49 39.26 40.20 40.04
$^{16}$O + $^{110}$Pd 9.88 9.90 10.08 10.13 10.02 10.01 49.60 49.42 48.56 48.38 49.12 49.07
$^{30}$Si + $^{64}$Ni 9.63 9.60 9.83 9.84 9.71 9.65 54.13 54.16 52.94 52.92 53.93 54.06
$^{48}$Ca + $^{48}$Ca 9.89 9.81 10.09 10.05 9.89 9.83 53.96 54.18 52.84 52.97 53.93 54.24
$^{32}$S + $^{58}$Ni 9.40 9.45 9.65 9.68 9.50 9.53 63.04 62.79 61.60 61.40 62.64 62.49
$^{40}$Ar + $^{60}$Ni 9.82 9.78 10.02 10.02 10.00 9.94 68.40 68.45 66.91 66.92 67.37 67.64
$^{16}$O + $^{166}$Er 10.64 10.66 10.84 10.89 10.77 10.76 68.56 68.25 67.25 66.89 67.93 67.87
$^{16}$O + $^{186}$W 10.86 10.90 11.06 11.13 11.18 11.15 73.09 72.76 71.74 71.34 71.39 71.45
$^{36}$S + $^{90}$Zr 10.30 10.28 10.55 10.50 10.41 10.36 82.99 83.03 81.30 81.39 82.35 82.69
$^{35}$Cl + $^{92}$Zr 10.25 10.25 10.50 10.47 10.39 10.36 88.58 88.45 86.75 86.71 87.64 87.85
$^{32}$S + $^{110}$Pd 10.43 10.45 10.68 10.68 10.65 10.65 94.21 94.05 92.33 92.15 92.43 92.70
$^{64}$Ni + $^{64}$Ni 10.48 10.47 10.73 10.70 10.60 10.57 99.84 100.00 97.86 97.98 98.90 99.43
$^{40}$Ar + $^{110}$Pd 10.75 10.73 10.95 10.95 11.07 10.98 103.19 103.25 101.21 101.30 100.61 101.37
$^{32}$S + $^{138}$Ba 10.87 10.87 11.07 11.09 10.93 10.96 110.71 110.40 108.62 108.33 109.73 109.89
$^{40}$Ar + $^{130}$Te 11.05 11.03 11.25 11.26 11.22 11.18 113.63 113.78 111.56 111.58 111.96 112.69
$^{24}$Mg + $^{208}$Pb 11.41 11.44 11.61 11.66 11.73 11.69 116.04 115.63 114.02 113.56 113.09 113.66
$^{29}$Si + $^{178}$Hf 11.27 11.28 11.47 11.50 11.55 11.49 120.24 120.00 118.08 117.83 117.75 118.32
$^{34}$S + $^{168}$Er 11.35 11.32 11.55 11.55 11.39 11.40 129.16 129.10 126.86 126.67 128.04 128.65
$^{64}$Ni + $^{96}$Zr 11.13 11.08 11.33 11.30 11.21 11.19 135.37 135.58 132.87 133.07 134.04 134.74
$^{38}$S + $^{181}$Ta 11.69 11.64 11.89 11.87 11.79 11.78 134.80 135.05 132.51 132.56 133.21 133.96
$^{48}$Ca + $^{154}$Sm 11.61 11.59 11.86 11.80 11.72 11.68 143.72 143.95 141.26 141.51 142.55 143.35
$^{40}$Ar + $^{180}$Hf 11.65 11.66 11.90 11.88 11.81 11.80 149.63 149.61 147.07 146.98 147.58 148.40
$^{38}$S + $^{208}$Pb 11.98 11.94 12.18 12.16 12.00 12.00 147.89 148.15 145.47 145.60 147.31 147.90
$^{64}$Ni + $^{124}$Sn 11.55 11.52 11.75 11.73 11.68 11.68 163.23 163.45 160.37 160.67 160.85 161.84
$^{40}$Ar + $^{206}$Pb 11.93 11.94 12.18 12.16 12.11 12.10 166.66 166.67 163.89 163.79 164.19 165.10
$^{86}$Kr + $^{100}$Mo 11.59 11.57 11.84 11.79 11.68 11.70 175.40 175.81 172.33 172.69 173.67 174.51
$^{90}$Zr + $^{90}$Zr 11.42 11.42 11.67 11.64 11.56 11.59 188.23 188.32 184.79 184.94 185.53 186.30
$^{40}$Ar + $^{238}$U 12.31 12.28 12.51 12.49 12.30 12.35 182.29 182.15 179.41 179.22 181.07 181.72
$^{96}$Mo + $^{100}$Mo 11.75 11.72 11.95 11.93 11.81 11.86 202.39 202.67 198.85 199.28 200.05 201.03
$^{54}$Cr + $^{196}$Os 12.22 12.19 12.42 12.40 12.34 12.34 201.86 202.01 198.62 198.75 199.21 200.31
$^{51}$V + $^{208}$Pb 12.23 12.24 12.48 12.45 12.36 12.40 208.11 208.09 204.75 204.73 205.18 206.18
$^{54}$Cr + $^{209}$Bi 12.33 12.32 12.53 12.53 12.59 12.61 218.37 218.45 214.85 214.95 212.95 214.38
$^{96}$Zr + $^{124}$Sn 12.15 12.13 12.40 12.34 12.28 12.29 222.18 222.53 218.53 218.91 219.15 220.48
$^{55}$Mn + $^{208}$Pb 12.35 12.32 12.55 12.53 12.24 12.35 224.74 224.80 221.13 221.20 224.89 224.96
$^{70}$Zn + $^{176}$Yb 12.35 12.31 12.55 12.52 12.36 12.41 230.12 230.47 226.42 226.76 228.67 229.41
$^{58}$Fe + $^{208}$Pb 12.39 12.40 12.64 12.61 12.38 12.47 232.38 232.38 228.67 228.68 231.26 231.85
$^{59}$Co + $^{208}$Pb 12.42 12.41 12.62 12.62 12.50 12.57 241.20 241.15 237.34 237.30 237.99 238.98
$^{59}$Co + $^{209}$Bi 12.43 12.42 12.63 12.63 12.62 12.69 244.02 243.90 240.10 240.01 238.47 239.75
$^{63}$Cu + $^{197}$Au 12.39 12.37 12.59 12.57 12.20 12.36 250.40 250.29 246.33 246.46 251.22 251.22
$^{64}$Ni + $^{208}$Pb 12.56 12.54 12.76 12.75 12.53 12.64 247.56 247.65 243.66 243.74 245.68 246.54
$^{70}$Zn + $^{208}$Pb 12.71 12.67 12.91 12.87 12.76 12.85 262.60 262.78 258.53 258.86 259.01 260.10
$^{86}$Kr + $^{208}$Pb 12.99 12.98 13.24 13.18 12.92 13.09 308.05 308.27 303.40 303.77 306.16 306.75
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Traffic correlation attacks to de-anonymize Tor users are possible when an adversary is in a position to observe traffic entering and exiting the Tor network. Recent work has brought attention to the threat of these attacks by network-level adversaries ([*e.g.,* ]{}Autonomous Systems). We perform a historical analysis to understand how the threat from AS-level traffic correlation attacks has evolved over the past five years. We find that despite a large number of new relays added to the Tor network, the threat has grown. This points to the importance of increasing AS-level diversity in addition to capacity of the Tor network.
We identify and elaborate on common pitfalls of AS-aware Tor client design and construction. We find that succumbing to these pitfalls can negatively impact three major aspects of an AS-aware Tor client – (1) security against AS-level adversaries, (2) security against relay-level adversaries, and (3) performance. Finally, we propose and evaluate a Tor client – [Cipollino]{}– which avoids these pitfalls using state-of-the-art in network-measurement. Our evaluation shows that [Cipollino]{}is able to achieve better security against network-level adversaries while maintaining security against relay-level adversaries and performance characteristics comparable to the current Tor client.
author:
- |
Rishab Nithyanand Rachee Singh Shinyoung Cho Phillipa Gill\
\
bibliography:
- './bibliography.bib'
title: 'Holding all the ASes: Identifying and Circumventing the Pitfalls of AS-aware Tor Client Design'
---
[**Data and source-code release:** ]{} In an effort to enable reproducibility and ease future comparative evaluation efforts, the following resources will be made available on acceptance of this work: the [Cipollino]{}Tor client, the destination-based graphs provided by PathCache during the time of this study, and the Web and mixed-application user-models used in our simulations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, new equivalence relationships between a network code with link errors (NCLE) and an index code with side information errors (ICSIE) are studied. First, for a given network coding instance, the equivalent index coding instance is derived, where an NCLE is converted to the corresponding ICSIE and vice versa. Next, for a given index coding instance, the equivalent network coding instance is also derived, where an ICSIE is converted to the corresponding NCLE and vice versa if a pair of encoding functions of an original link and the duplicated link are functionally related in the network code. Finally, several properties of an NCLE are derived from those of the equivalent ICSIE using the fact that the NCLE and the ICSIE are equivalent.'
author:
- 'Jae-Won Kim and Jong-Seon No, [^1]'
title: Equivalences Between Network Codes With Link Errors and Index Codes With Side Information Errors
---
Index codes, index codes with side information errors (ICSIE), network codes, network codes with link errors (NCLE), side information, side information graph
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Network coding was introduced in [@networkflow] to improve the throughput gain of terminals in a network structure, where a source node transmits information to terminal nodes through links and internal nodes. In order to improve the throughput gain, some internal nodes encode their incoming symbols, which is called network coding. In [@linearnetworkcode], it was proved that a linear network code for multicast in a network can achieve the max-flow bound. For multicast cases, there exist some algorithms to construct network codes achieving the maxflow-mincut capacity for a single source [@networkalgorithm1], [@networkalgorithm2].
In contrast to an error-free link case, a network code dealing with erroneous data on links was also studied, referred to as a network code with link errors (NCLE) in this paper. As erroneous data on links in a network are considered, the number of overall link errors in a network which network codes can overcome was studied [@networkerror1], [@networkerror2].
Index coding was introduced in [@Informed] for satellite communication systems which consist of one sender and several receivers. A sender has to transmit messages to receivers through a broadcast channel and receivers want to receive some messages and also know some messages priory as side information. Owing to its applications and relevance to other problems, index coding has attracted significant attention and various index coding schemes have accordingly been researched. For example, the optimal linear index coding scheme based on rank minimization over finite fields was introduced in [@ICSI] and random index coding was studied for infinitely long message length [@RI].
In addition to researches on the index coding schemes, relevance to other problems has been researched such as the equivalence between network coding and index coding, topological interference management, and duality with distributed storage systems [@EQU], [@TIM], [@DSS]. There are also many researches on variations of index coding instances. For example, erroneous broadcast channels were considered in [@SECIC] and coded side information was studied in [@BCSI], [@ICCSI]. Moreover, blind index coding instances where a sender only knows the probability distribution of side information were researched [@BlindIC] and functional index coding instances were introduced in [@FIC]. In contrast to conventional assumptions on side information, an index code in which side information errors exist, called an index code with side information errors (ICSIE) was studied in [@ICSIE].
Among these researches, we focus on an equivalence between network coding and index coding [@EQU] in which their equivalence was introduced and a corresponding index coding instance was derived for a given network coding instance. It was also shown that any network codes can be converted to the corresponding index codes and vice versa. However, the equivalence between two problems for a given index coding instance was not presented in [@EQU]. In [@FEQU], they showed an equivalence between network computation and functional index coding for a given network coding instance and also suggested their relation for a given index coding instance with the corresponding models for both a network coding instance and an index coding instance, called the equivalent index coding instance and network coding instance, respectively. However, their models of the corresponding instances are defined in a different manner, that is, if a given network coding instance is converted to the corresponding index coding instance and converted back to the network coding instance again, the re-converted network coding instance differs from the originally given network coding instance. Similarly, the same problem occurs to a given index coding instance. Thus, we propose a method to solve these problems in this paper.
In this paper, we show new equivalences between an NCLE and an ICSIE for both a given network coding instance and a given index coding instance. For a given network coding instance, the corresponding index coding instance is derived in a manner similar to that in an earlier study [@EQU] and convertibility of their solutions is proved. For a given index coding instance, we modify a given side information graph by adding receivers, messages, and edges or by deleting some edges in order to derive the corresponding network coding instance in a similar manner. We also show the convertibility of their solutions if a pair of encoding functions of an original link and the duplicated link are functionally related in the network code. Our models of the corresponding instances not only offer convertibility of the coding solutions but also ensure that a given network (index) coding instance is identical to the re-converted network (index) coding instance from the corresponding index (network) coding instance. Moreover, the equivalent index coding instance of a given network coding instance does not contain the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$, which was given in the earlier studies [@EQU], [@FEQU]. In [@SEQU], it was noted that an equivalence between secure network and index coding can be achieved without $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$. Similarly, we prove in detail that the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ of the corresponding index coding instance is redundant in general. Since an NCLE and an ICSIE are equivalent, we derive several properties of an NCLE from the properties of an ICSIE such as the property of redundant links and the relationship between the conventional network code with error-free links and an NCLE.
The paper is organized as follows. Several definitions, notations, and problem settings are given in Section \[Preliminary\]. The main results on equivalence relationships between an NCLE and an ICSIE for both a given network coding instance and a given index coding instance are derived in Section \[Equivalence\]. In Section \[Properties\], several properties of an NCLE are derived from those of an ICSIE based on the equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE. Finally, conclusions are presented in Section \[Sec:Conclusion\].
Preliminary {#Preliminary}
===========
In this section, we define network codes with link errors and index codes with side information errors and then state their problem settings and notations, where hatted notations are used for index coding to avoid confusion.
Notations
---------
Some of the notations are defined as follows:
1. $Z[n]$ denotes a set of positive integers $\{1,2,...,n\}$.
2. Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be the finite field of size $q$, where $q$ is a power of prime and $\mathbb{F}_q^{*}=\mathbb{F}_q\setminus\{0\}$.
3. For the vector $\bold{X}\in \mathbb{F}_q^n$, $\rm{\rm{wt}}(\bold{X})$ denotes Hamming weight of $\bold{X}$.
4. Let $\bold{X}_D$ be a sub-vector $(X_{i_1},X_{i_2},\ldots,X_{i_{|D|}})$ of a vector $\bold{X}=(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_n)\in \mathbb{F}_q^n$ for a subset $D=\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{|D|}\}\subseteq Z[n]$, where $i_1<i_2<\ldots<i_{|D|}$.
Network Codes With Link Errors
------------------------------
In this paper, in order to provide an equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE for any given index coding instance, a generalized network coding scenario is considered, where each internal node can resolve their erroneous incoming symbols.
For this scenario, if we know the probability distribution of the link errors, the throughput gain can be improved by assigning suitable error resistance capabilities to the internal nodes in a network structure. That is, large error resistance capabilities of internal nodes for the vulnerable links can improve throughput gain of an entire network because error propagation may be moderated. In this perspective, we introduce a new network code which deals with erroneous data on links.
First, we introduce a network coding instance with a network structure ${\mathbb{G}}=(V,E,\mathcal{F})$, where $V$ and $E$ denote the sets of nodes and edges in $\mathbb{G}$, respectively and a vector of the error resistance capabilities $\bm{\delta}$ described by a directed acyclic graph and a function of terminals $\mathcal{F}$ as follows:
1. $\bar{S}\subseteq V$ denotes a set of source nodes in ${\mathbb{G}}$, where source nodes do not have incoming links.
2. $S$ denotes a set of source messages, that is, $\bar{s}\in\bar{S}$ has some elements $s\in S$.
3. $T\subseteq V$ denotes a set of terminal nodes in ${\mathbb{G}}$, where terminal nodes do not have outgoing links.
4. $\mathcal{F}$ denotes a function of the terminal nodes in ${\mathbb{G}}$, which indicates a set of indices of each terminal’s desired messages.
5. For a link $e=(u,v)\in E$, ${\rm In}(e)$ denotes a set of incoming links of $u$, where $u,v\in V$.
6. In the case of $u\in \bar{S}$, ${\rm In}(e)$ denotes a set of messages that $u$ has and ${\rm In}(t)$ denotes a set of incoming links of $t$ for which $t\in T$.
7. At the ends of the links, errors may occur due to transmissions through links, referred to as link errors and source nodes may have erroneous source symbols.
8. $\bm{\delta}=(\delta_{e_1},...,\delta_{e_{|E|}},\delta_{t_1},...,\delta_{t_{|T|}})$ is a vector whose elements correspond to the error resistance capability for each outgoing link from the node and terminal in $E\cup T$.
9. When it is straightforward, we regard $s$, $e$, and $t$ as some indices.
In this network coding instance, we assume the followings:
1. Each message is one symbol in $\mathbb{F}_q$.
2. Each link carries one symbol in $\mathbb{F}_q$.
3. $X_s$ denotes an element of a message vector $\bold{X}\in \mathbb{F}_q^{|S|}$.
4. $X_e$ denotes a symbol on a link $e$ for which $e\in E$.
5. For a set $A\subseteq S$, $\bold{X}_A$ denotes a sub-vector of $\bold{X}$ and for a set $B\subseteq E$, $\bold{X}_B$ denotes a vector consisting of $|B|$ symbols of the corresponding links.
6. $\bold{\tilde{X}}_A=(\tilde{X}_1,...,\tilde{X}_{|A|})$ and $\bold{\tilde{X}}_B=(\tilde{X}_1,...,\tilde{X}_{|B|})$ denote vectors with erroneous symbol elements.
![Node processing in the network code.[]{data-label="fig:node processing"}](fig11)
Next, we describe node processing in the network code as in Fig. \[fig:node processing\], where $e^{\prime}_i, 1\leq i\leq l,$ denote the incoming edges of a node $u$ and $e_i, 1\leq i\leq k,$ denote the outgoing edges of $u$. At the node $u$, outgoing symbols for edges $e_i, 1\leq i\leq k,$ are computed by encoding functions as $X_{e_i}=F_{e_i}(\tilde{X}_{e^\prime_1},...,\tilde{X}_{e^\prime_l}), 1\leq i \leq k$. We consider a network code capable of resolving some link errors. Assume that there are less than or equal to $\delta_{e_1}$ symbol errors in the incoming links of $u$. If an encoding function $F_{e_1}$ can make a correct encoded outgoing symbol $X_{e_1}$ from $l$ incoming symbols with less than or equal to $\delta_{e_1}$ symbol errors, then $F_{e_1}$ is said to have an error resistance capability $\delta_{e_1}$. When $u$ is a source node, incoming symbols of $u$ denote the source messages possessed by $u$, meaning that up to $\delta_{e_1}$ message symbols are erroneous. Similarly, the decoding function $D_t$ of a terminal $t\in T$ is said to have an error resistance capability $\delta_t$ if $D_t$ can correctly obtain a decoded vector $\bold{X}_{\mathcal{F}(t)}$ from incoming symbols with less than or equal to $\delta_t$ symbol errors. In such a case, a network code with link errors is summarized as follows.
Let $\bm{\delta}=(\delta_{e_1},...,\delta_{e_{|E|}},\delta_{t_1},...,\delta_{t_{|T|}})$ be a vector whose elements correspond to the error resistance capability for each outgoing link and terminal in $E\cup T$. Then, a network code with link errors with parameters $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, denoted by a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE consists of:
1. An encoding function $F_e: \mathbb{F}_q^{|{\rm In}(e)|}\rightarrow \mathbb{F}_q$ for $e\in E$
2. A decoding function $D_t: \mathbb{F}_q^{|{\rm In}(t)|}\rightarrow \mathbb{F}_q^{|\mathcal{F}(t)|}$ for $t\in T$
3. Satisfying $F_e(\bold{X}_{{\rm In}(e)})=F_e(\bold{\tilde{X}}_{{\rm In}(e)})$ and $D_t(\bold{X}_{{\rm In}(t)})=D_t(\bold{\tilde{X}}_{{\rm In}(t)})$ for any $e\in E$ and $t\in T$, where ${\rm wt}(\bold{X}_{{\rm In}(e)}-\bold{\tilde{X}}_{{\rm In}(e)})\leq\delta_e$ and ${\rm{wt}}(\bold{X}_{{\rm In}(t)}-\bold{\tilde{X}}_{{\rm In}(t)})\leq\delta_t$.
Note that the error resistance capabilities are defined for encoding and decoding functions, that is, encoding functions for the outgoing links of one node can have different error resistance capabilities despite the fact that they have identical erroneous incoming symbols. The above encoding functions of links are local functions. However, the global function $\bar{F}_e$ is defined as $\bar{F}_e(\bold{\tilde{X}}_S)=F_e(\bold{\tilde{X}}_{{\rm In}(e)})$.
Index Codes With Side Information Errors
----------------------------------------
We introduce index codes with side information errors as in [@ICSIE]. First, an index coding instance is described as follows:
1. There are one sender which has $n$ information messages as $\bold{\hat{X}}=(\hat{X}_1,\ldots,\hat{X}_n)\in\mathbb{F}_q^n$ and $m$ receivers (or users) $R_1,R_2,\ldots,R_m$, having sub-vectors of $\bold{\hat{X}}$ as side information.
2. Let ${{\mathcal{X}}_i}$ be the set of side information indices of a receiver $R_i$ for $i\in Z[m]$.
3. Each receiver $R_i$ wants to receive some elements in $\bold{\hat{X}}$, referred to as the wanted messages denoted by $\bold{\hat{X}}_{f(i)}$, where $f(i)$ represents the set of indices of the wanted messages of $R_i$ and $f(i)\cap{{\mathcal{X}}_i}=\phi$.
4. A side information graph $\mathcal{G}$ shows the wanted messages and side information of all receivers and the sender knows $\mathcal{G}$. A side information graph is a bipartite graph which consists of message nodes and receiver nodes. A directed edge from a message node to a receiver node means that the receiver wants to receive that message. Conversely, a directed edge from a receiver node to a message node means that the receiver has that message as side information.
5. Let $\bm{\delta}_s=(\delta_s^{(1)},...,\delta_s^{(m)})$ be a vector whose elements correspond to the side information error resistance capability of each receiver.
6. The sender transmits messages to receivers through an error-free broadcast channel.
Next, a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-index code with side information errors is introduced. We consider an index code which can overcome arbitrary side information errors for each receiver, where each receiver does not know which side information is erroneous. Specifically, each receiver $R_i$ has a side information error resistance capability $\delta_s^{(i)}$ such that the receiver can decode the wanted messages even though less than or equal to $\delta_s^{(i)}$ symbols of side information are erroneous. Then, the $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-index code with side information errors is described as follows [@ICSIE].
Let $\bm{\delta}_s=(\delta_s^{(1)},...,\delta_s^{(m)})$ be the vector of side information error resistance capabilities. An index code with side information errors with parameters $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, denoted by a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE is a set of codewords having:
1. An encoding function $\hat{F}: \mathbb{F}_q^n\rightarrow\mathbb{F}_q^N$
2. A set of decoding functions $\hat{D}_1,\hat{D}_2,\ldots,\hat{D}_m$ such that $\hat{D}_i: {\mathbb{F}_q^N}\times{\mathbb{F}_q^{|{{\mathcal{X}}_i}|}}\rightarrow\mathbb{F}_q^{|f(i)|}$ satisfying $$\hat{D}_i(\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}}),{\bold{\hat{X}}}_{\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_i})=\bold{\hat{X}}_{f(i)}
\nonumber$$ for all $i\in Z[m]$, $\bold{\hat{X}}\in\mathbb{F}_q^n$, and ${\rm wt}(\bold{\hat{X}}_{{\mathcal{X}}_i}-\bold{\hat{X}}_{\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_i})\leq\delta_s^{(i)}$, where $\bold{\hat{X}}_{\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_i}=(\hat{X}_{\tilde{1}},...,\hat{X}_{\tilde{|\mathcal{X}_i|}})$ is the erroneous side information vector of a receiver $R_i$.
A $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE in [@ICSIE] is a linear code. However, a general index code containing a nonlinear case is considered in this paper. Thus, we should modify and re-prove some of the properties of a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE.
Let $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$ be a set of vectors defined by $$\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)=\bigcup_{i\in Z[m]}\mathcal{I}_i(q,\mathcal{G},\delta_s^{(i)})
\nonumber$$ where $\mathcal{I}_i(q,\mathcal{G},\delta_s^{(i)})=\{\bold{\hat{Z}}\in\mathbb{F}_q^n | {\rm wt}(\bold{\hat{Z}}_{\mathcal{X}_i})\leq2\delta_s^{(i)}, \bold{\hat{Z}}_{f(i)}\neq\bold{0}\}$. Then, a property of a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE is given in the following theorem.
A $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE is valid if and only if $$\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}})\neq \hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}) \textrm{ for all } \bold{\hat{X}}-\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s).
\label{equ:encoding}$$ \[encoding\]
Each receiver $R_i$ has to recover $\bold{\hat{X}}_{f(i)}$ using the received codeword $\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}})$ and the side information $\bold{\hat{X}}_{\tilde{\mathcal{X}}_i}$. Then, the sender has to encode some confusing messages as different codewords. Because each receiver $R_i$ is only interested in $\bold{\hat{X}}_{f(i)}$, the codewords of distinct messages with an identical $\bold{\hat{X}}_{f(i)}$ do not need to be distinguished. Moreover, the codewords of two messages $\bold{\hat{X}}$ and $\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}$ such that ${\rm{wt}}(\bold{\hat{X}}_{\mathcal{X}_i}-\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}_{\mathcal{X}_i})>2\delta_s^{(i)}$ do not need to be distinguished because they can be distinguished by the side information of $R_i$. Thus, only problematic types of messages can be represented by two messages $\bold{\hat{X}}$ and $\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}$ such that $\bold{\hat{X}}_{f(i)}\neq\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}_{f(i)}$ and ${\rm{wt}}(\bold{\hat{X}}_{\mathcal{X}_i}-\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}_{\mathcal{X}_i})\leq2\delta_s^{(i)}$. Given that $\bold{\hat{X}}$ and $\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime}$ are confusing, $\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}})\neq\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}}^{\prime})$ should be satisfied for all $i\in Z[m]$.
For a linear $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE, (\[equ:encoding\]) becomes $\bold{\hat{Z}}G\neq\bold{0}$ for all $\bold{\hat{Z}}\in\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$, where $G$ is the corresponding generator matrix.
Let $\Phi$ be a set of subsets of $Z[n]$ defined by $$\Phi=\{B\subseteq Z[n]\big||\mathcal{X}_i\cap B|\geq2\delta_s^{(i)}+1 \textrm{ for all } i\in Z[m] \textrm{ s.t. } f(i)\cap B\neq \phi\}
\nonumber$$ for the side information graph $\mathcal{G}$ of a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE. Then, we have the following definition for a $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle.
For a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE, a subgraph $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ of $\mathcal{G}$ is termed a $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle if the set of message node indices of $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ is an element of $\Phi$ (i.e., $B$) and the set of user node indices of $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ consists of $i\in Z[m]$ such that $f(i)\in B$ and its edges consist of the corresponding edges in $\mathcal{G}$. The graph $\mathcal{G}$ is said to be $\bm{\delta}_s$-acyclic if there is no $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle in $\mathcal{G}$. \[def:delta cycle\]
A $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle is an important subgraph for a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE problem because the existence of the $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle is a necessary and sufficient condition for the possibility to reduce its codelength. The following lemma shows the importance of the $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle.
$\mathcal{G}$ is $\bm{\delta}_s$-acyclic if and only if $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})=n$ for a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE, where $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$ is the optimal codelength.
The sufficiency part is similarly proved as in [@ICSIE] by showing the linear index code with codelength $n-1$, that is, $(\hat{X}_1+\hat{X}_2,\hat{X}_2+\hat{X}_3,...,\hat{X}_{n-1}+\hat{X}_n)$. The necessity part is based on the fact that $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$ is a set of all vectors in $\mathbb{F}_q^n$ except for $\bold{0}$ if $\mathcal{G}$ is $\bm{\delta}_s$-acyclic. Specifically, because $Z[n]$ is not a $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle, we can assume that there is at least one receiver $R_1$ with a wanted message $\hat{X}_1$ and $|\mathcal{X}_1\cap Z[n]|\leq 2\delta_s^{(1)}$ without loss of generality. Then, every $\bold{\hat{Z}}\in\mathbb{F}_q^n$ with $\hat{Z}_1\neq 0$ is included in $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$. Similarly, because $Z[n]\setminus\{1\}$ is not a $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle, we can assume that there is at least one receiver $R_2$ with a wanted message $\hat{X}_2$ and $|\mathcal{X}_2\cap \{Z[n]\setminus\{1\}\}|\leq 2\delta_s^{(2)}$. Then, every $\bold{\hat{Z}}\in\mathbb{F}_q^n$ with $\hat{Z}_1=0$ and $\hat{Z}_2\neq 0$ is included in $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$. The similar result for $R_i$ is that every $\bold{\hat{Z}}\in\mathbb{F}_q^n$ with $\hat{Z}_1=\hat{Z}_2=\cdots=\hat{Z}_{i-1}=0$ and $\hat{Z}_{i}\neq 0$ is included in $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$, which means that $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)=\mathbb{F}_q^n\setminus\{\bold{0}\}$. In this case, all of the message vectors in $\mathbb{F}_q^n$ should be encoded to different codewords. Thus, $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})=n$.
\[delta\_s-cycle\]
Equivalences Between Network Codes With Link Errors and Index Codes With Side Information Errors {#Equivalence}
=================================================================================================
In this section, we prove the equivalences between network codes with link errors and index codes with side information errors. First, their equivalence is proved for a given network coding instance, similar to an earlier approach in [@EQU]. We also show some differences from that in [@EQU] for the corresponding index coding instance. Second, their equivalence is proved for a given index coding instance. For a given index coding instance, Gupta and Rajan defined the corresponding network coding instance and showed an equivalence between a network computation problem and a functional index coding problem [@FEQU]. However, the equivalence in [@FEQU] for a given index coding instance has some weak points, which will be explained in this section. In order to mitigate these weak points, for a given index coding instance, we introduce a corresponding network coding instance which differs from that in [@FEQU] and show a different equivalence relationship between them. In the following definition, the equivalence between two problems is described.
NCLE and ICSIE problems are said to be equivalent if and only if the NCLE can be converted to the corresponding ICSIE and vice versa.
Equivalence for a Given Network Coding Instance
-----------------------------------------------
For a given network coding instance, we can construct the corresponding index coding instance in a manner similar to that in the aforementioned research [@EQU]. The differences between our corresponding model and that in [@EQU] are the error resistance capabilities and the existence of the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$. In what follows, the relationship between two coding instances of a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE and the corresponding $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE is given as follows:
1. A sender of a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE has a message $\bold{\hat{X}}=(\bold{\hat{X}}_S, \bold{\hat{X}}_E)$ and there are $|E|+|T|$ receivers, each of which is a corresponding receiver $R_e$ of a link or $R_t$ of a terminal in a given network coding instance.
2. For $e\in E$, $R_e$ of the $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE can be described as $\mathcal{X}_e={\rm In}(e)$, $f(e)=\{e\}$, and $\delta_s^{(e)}=\delta_e$.
3. For $t\in T$, $R_t$ of the $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE can be described as $\mathcal{X}_t={\rm In}(t)$, $f(t)=\mathcal{F}(t)$, and $\delta_s^{(t)}=\delta_t$.
4. The codelength of the $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE is the number of links in a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE.
This relationship is derived from a given network coding instance. Fig. \[fig:network example\] shows an example of a network coding instance and the corresponding index coding instance. Before showing validity of this model, some restrictions for the corresponding index coding instance should be satisfied as shown in the following proposition.
The corresponding index coding instance of a given network coding instance should satisfy the followings:
1. In the corresponding side information graph $\mathcal{G}$, there is no cycle in a subgraph which consists of $\{R_e | e\in E\}$ and $\{\hat{X}_e | e\in E\}$.
2. Each element of $\{\hat{X}_e | e\in E\}$ should be wanted by one receiver.
3. If $R_i$ has $\hat{X}_s$ as side information for $s\in S$, $R_i$ cannot have $\hat{X}_e$ as side information for $e\in E$.
If a network structure is valid, the network structure is directed acyclic and the source nodes are not intermediate. Thus, to be directed acyclic, 1) should be satisfied. 2) is due to our setting of the relation and 3) should be satisfied because the source nodes are not intermediate nodes.
\[prop:condition\]
From Proposition \[prop:condition\], we note that the corresponding models do not cover all index coding instances but cover some index coding instances satisfying conditions in the above proposition necessarily. However, it is important to note that all network structures can be covered by this model.
In this model, one difference from that in [@EQU] is the existence of the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ which can be described as $\mathcal{X}_{\hat{t}_{\rm all}}=S$, $f(\hat{t}_{\rm all})=E$, and $\delta_s^{(\hat{t}_{\rm all})}=0$. In fact, the existence of $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ in [@EQU] originates from a directed acyclic network structure. Thus, an identical result can be obtained even if we remove $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ in the corresponding index coding instance as in the following proposition.
For a given network coding instance, the modeling of the corresponding index coding instance in [@EQU] obtains an identical result even if the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ is removed, that is, $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ is redundant.
From 1) of Proposition \[prop:condition\], we can see that there is no cycle in a subgraph which consists of $\{R_e | e\in E\}$ and $\{\hat{X}_e | e\in E\}$ and thus there is no $\bm{\delta}_s$-cycle. Since this subgraph is $\bm{\delta}_s$-acyclic, the optimal codelength for the subgraph is $|E|$ by Lemma \[delta\_s-cycle\], meaning that every vector $\bold{\hat{Z}}\in\mathbb{F}_q^{|S|+|E|}$ such that $\bold{\hat{Z}}_S=\bold{0}$ and $\bold{\hat{Z}}_E\neq\bold{0}$ belongs to $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$. In [@EQU], $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ wants to receive $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E}$ and has $\bold{\hat{X}}_S$ as side information with $\delta_s^{(\hat{t}_{\rm all})}=0$. In fact, we do not need $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ because there is no cycle in the subgraph mentioned above. From Theorem \[encoding\], $\mathcal{I}_{\hat{t}_{\rm all}}(q,\mathcal{G},\delta_s^{(\hat{t}_{\rm all})})$ is the set of all vectors in $\mathbb{F}_q^{|E|+|S|}$ such that $\bold{\hat{Z}}_S=\bold{0}$ and $\bold{\hat{Z}}_E\neq\bold{0}$. Since every vector in $\mathcal{I}_{\hat{t}_{\rm all}}(q,\mathcal{G},\delta_s^{(\hat{t}_{\rm all})})$ is already included in $\mathcal{I}(q,\mathcal{G},\bm{\delta}_s)$, the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ can be removed from the corresponding index coding instance.
\[prop:tall\]
Thus, we can remove the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ from the corresponding index coding instance. From the proof of Proposition \[prop:tall\] and Lemma \[delta\_s-cycle\], the following observation is given.
The optimal index codelength of the corresponding index coding instance is larger than or equal to $|E|$. \[ob:codelength\]
At this point, we prove validity of this model and the equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE. In order to show that they are equivalent, the following lemma is needed.
In the equivalent $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE for a given network coding instance, there is a unique $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ such that $\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}}_S,\bold{\hat{X}}_E)=\bm{\sigma}$ for any codeword $\bm{\sigma}\in\mathbb{F}_q^{|E|}$ and $\bold{\hat{X}}_S$.
From Proposition \[prop:condition\], there is no cycle in a subgraph which consists of the set of receivers $\{R_e | e\in E\}$ and the set of messages $\{\hat{X}_e | e\in E\}$. Thus, $N_{\rm{opt}}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})\geq |E|$ and we assume that a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE with codelength $|E|$ exists. Since different symbols of $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ for given $\bold{\hat{X}}_S$ result in different codewords and the codelength is $|E|$ by Lemma \[delta\_s-cycle\], there exists unique $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ such that $\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}}_S,\bold{\hat{X}}_E)=\bm{\sigma}$ for the above conditions.
\[lemma:existence\]
Next, the equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE for a given network coding instance is shown in the following theorem.
For a given network coding instance, a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE exists if and only if the corresponding $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE exists.
This can be proved by a method similar to that in [@EQU] but the differences are the existence of $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$ and the fact that there are link errors and side information errors.
Necessity: Assume that there exists a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE. First, the encoding function of the corresponding $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE is defined as $\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}})=\bold{\hat{X}}_B=(\hat{X}_B(e): e\in E)$ such that $\hat{X}_B(e)=\hat{X}_e+\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$. Next, we define the decoding functions and show that all receivers in the corresponding index coding instance can recover what they want. It is already given that $R_e$ can be described as $\mathcal{X}_e={\rm In}(e)$, $f(e)=\{e\}$, and $\delta_s^{(e)}=\delta_e$. Thus, for each $e^{\prime}\in {\rm In}(e)$, the decoder can compute $\hat{X}_B(e^{\prime})-\hat{X}_{\tilde{e^{\prime}}}$, which can be an erroneous value of $\bar{F}_{e^{\prime}}(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$. Then, $\delta_s^{(e)}$ symbols of them can be erroneous. Since the link $e$ in the network coding instance has an error resistance capability $\delta_e=\delta_s^{(e)}$, evaluating these symbols with $F_e$ results in the correct value of $\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$. Now, $R_e$ can obtain $\hat{X}_e$ by subtracting $\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$ from $\hat{X}_B(e)$. It is also given that $R_t$ can be described as $\mathcal{X}_t={\rm In}(t)$, $f(t)=\mathcal{F}(t)$, and $\delta_s^{(t)}=\delta_t$. Similar to the $R_e$ case, $R_t$ can recover what it wants because it can obtain $\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$ for all $e\in {\rm In}(t)$, whose $\delta_s^{(t)}$ symbols can be erroneous. However, evaluating these symbols using the decoding function $D_t$ of the network coding instance results in the correct values because $\delta_t=\delta_s^{(t)}$.
Sufficiency: Assume that there exists a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE together with its codeword $\bm{\sigma}$ by Lemma \[lemma:existence\]. Then, the encoding functions of the links and the decoding functions of the terminals in the corresponding network coding instance are defined using the decoding functions of the $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE. For $e\in E$, $F_e$ is defined as a function whose output is $X_e=\hat{D}_e(\bm{\sigma},(\tilde{X}_{e^{\prime}} : e^{\prime}\in {\rm In}(e)))$. For $t\in T$, $D_t$ is defined as a function whose output is $\hat{D}_{t}(\bm{\sigma},(\tilde{X}_{e^{\prime}} : e^{\prime}\in {\rm In}(t)))$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\bold{X}_S=\bold{\hat{X}}_S$ and then, there is a unique $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ such that $\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}}_S,\bold{\hat{X}}_E)=\bm{\sigma}$ for any $\bold{\hat{X}}_S$ from Lemma \[lemma:existence\]. For $e \in E$, $\hat{D}_e(\bm{\sigma},(\tilde{X}_{e^{\prime}} : e^{\prime}\in {\rm In}(e)))=\hat{X}_e$ because $\delta_e=\delta_s^{(e)}$ and $\hat{X}_e$ is unique. For $t\in T$, $\hat{D}_{t}(\bm{\sigma},(\tilde{X}_{e^{\prime}} : e^{\prime}\in {\rm In}(t)))=\bold{\hat{X}}_{\mathcal{F}(t)}=\bold{X}_{\mathcal{F}(t)}$ because $\delta_t=\delta_s^{(t)}$.
\[theorem:equ\]
Thus, Theorem \[theorem:equ\] tells us that an NCLE problem is equivalent to the corresponding ICSIE problem when a network coding instance is given. The following example shows the equivalence between the two problems.
Suppose that a given network coding instance and the corresponding side information graph with $\bm{\delta}_s$ are given as in Fig. \[fig:network example\]. A network code for Fig. \[fig:fig1\] can be described as follows:
1. $X_{e_1}=X_{e_2}=X_{e_5}=X_{e_8}=X_{e_{10}}=X_{s_1}$
2. $X_{e_3}=X_{e_4}=X_{e_7}=X_{e_{12}}=X_{s_2}$
3. $X_{e_6}=X_{e_9}=X_{e_{11}}=X_{s_1}+X_{s_2}$
4. $D_t$ is given in Algorithm 1.
Then, the corresponding index code for Fig. \[fig:fig7\] can be described as follows:
1. The transmitted codeword $\hat{F}(\bold{\hat{X}})=\hat{{\bold{X}}}_B=(\hat{X}_B(e) : e\in E)$ consists of 12 components.
2. $\hat{X}_B(e_i)=\hat{X}_{e_i}+\hat{X}_{s_1}$ for $i\in \{1, 2, 5, 8, 10\}$
3. $\hat{X}_B(e_i)=\hat{X}_{e_i}+\hat{X}_{s_2}$ for $i\in \{3, 4, 7, 12\}$
4. $\hat{X}_B(e_i)=\hat{X}_{e_i}+\hat{X}_{s_1}+\hat{X}_{s_2}$ for $i\in \{6, 9, 11\}$
5. The decoding functions of receivers can be defined as in Theorem \[theorem:equ\].
Thus, by finding a network code for a given network coding instance, we can find the corresponding index code. Furthermore, if we find an index code with codelength $|E|$ for Fig. \[fig:fig7\], we can obtain the corresponding network code for Fig. \[fig:fig1\].
Equivalence for a Given Index Coding Instance
---------------------------------------------
Similarly, for a given index coding instance, we can construct the corresponding network coding instance. Since some index coding instances cannot be converted to corresponding network coding instances, as noted in Proposition $\ref{prop:condition}$, it is necessary to modify a given index coding instance to use the previous relationship between two coding instances. Specifically, some receivers and messages are added to the given index coding instance, where $\mathcal{G}$ becomes $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ and $\bm{\delta}_s$ becomes $\bm{\delta}_s^{\prime}$.
For simplicity, we can assume that every receiver wants to receive only one message because a receiver who wants to receive more than one message can be split into receivers with identical side information. Now, we explain how to make $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$, $\bm{\delta}_s^{\prime}$, and the corresponding network coding instance including $\mathbb{G}$ and $\bm{\delta}$.
In order to make the corresponding network coding instance using the same relationship between two coding instances in the previous section, it is necessary to determine which part is $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ or $\bold{\hat{X}}_S$ for a given side information graph $\mathcal{G}$. $\hat{X}_e$ is said to be a unicast message if $\hat{X}_e$ is wanted by one receiver. Suppose that the maximal unicast acyclic subgraph of $\mathcal{G}$ consists of unicast messages $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E}$ and the receivers who want one of $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E}$, that is, $\{R_{e} | e\in E\}$. In such a case, the validity of the corresponding network structure is not guaranteed but for the directed acyclic network structure, it is guaranteed when we convert $\mathcal{G}$ to the corresponding network structure as in the previous section. Next, let $\bold{\hat{X}}_S$ and $\{R_t | t\in T\}$ be the remaining messages and the remaining receivers, respectively. Subsequently, we modify $\mathcal{G}$ to $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ and determine $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E^\prime}$ in $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ in order to ensure the validity of the corresponding network structure. Specifically, we determine $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E^\prime}$ by adding several messages to $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E}$ and determine $\{R_{e^\prime} | e^\prime\in E^\prime\}$ by adding a number of receivers to $\{R_{e} | e\in E\}$. Accordingly, some of the corresponding links of these added receivers are referred to as duplicated links, as explained later. Before choosing $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E^\prime}$, we classify problematic cases based on the outgoing edges of the receivers in $\mathcal{G}$, which should be modified to obtain $\mathcal{G}^\prime$.
There are six problematic cases based on message nodes and four problematic cases based on receiver nodes for the modification of the side information graph as in the following claim.
The problematic cases based on the outgoing edges of receivers in a side information graph $\mathcal{G}$ can be classified into the following ten cases, which should be modified to make the modified side information graph $\mathcal{G}^\prime$.
1. $\hat{X}_s$ has one incoming edge from $\{R_t | t\in T\}$ for $s\in S$.
2. $\hat{X}_s$ has more than one incoming edge from $\{R_t | t\in T\}$ for $s\in S$.
3. $\hat{X}_s$ has one incoming edge from $\{R_{e^\prime} | e^\prime\in E\}$ and one incoming edge from $\{R_t | t\in T\}$ for $s\in S$.
4. $\hat{X}_e$ has one incoming edge from $\{R_{e^\prime} | e^\prime\in E\}$ and one incoming edge from $\{R_t | t\in T\}$ for $e\in E$.
5. $\hat{X}_e$ has more than one incoming edge from $\{R_{e^\prime} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $e\in E$.
6. $\hat{X}_e$ has more than one incoming edge from $\{R_t | t\in T\}$ for $e\in E$.
7. $R_e$ has one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_s | s\in S\}$ and one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_{e^{\prime}} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $e\in E$.
8. $R_t$ has one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_s | s\in S\}$ for $t\in T$.
9. $R_t$ has more than one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_s | s\in S\}$ for $t\in T$.
10. $R_t$ has one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_s | s\in S\}$ and one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_{e^{\prime}} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $t\in T$.
\[claim:cases\]
In contrast to the ten problematic cases in Claim \[claim:cases\], there are ten cases which do not need to be modified for $\mathcal{G}^\prime$ as:
1. $\hat{X}_e$ has one incoming edge from $\{R_{e^\prime} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $e\in E$.
2. $\hat{X}_e$ has one incoming edge from $\{R_t | t\in T\}$ for $e\in E$.
3. $\hat{X}_s$ has one incoming edge from $\{R_{e^\prime} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $s\in S$.
4. $\hat{X}_s$ has more than one incoming edge from $\{R_{e^\prime} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $s\in S$.
5. $R_e$ has one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_s | s\in S\}$ for $e\in E$.
6. $R_e$ has more than one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_s | s\in S\}$ for $e\in E$.
7. $R_e$ has one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_{e^{\prime}} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $e\in E$.
8. $R_e$ has more than one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_{e^{\prime}} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $e\in E$.
9. $R_t$ has one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_{e^{\prime}} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $t\in T$.
10. $R_t$ has more than one outgoing edge to $\{\hat{X}_{e^{\prime}} | e^\prime\in E\}$ for $t\in T$.
For example, the above case 1) can be described as $e^\prime$ being an incoming edge of $e$, which does not violate the network structure. Thus, the case 1) does not need to be modified.
At this point, we suggest how to modify the ten problematic cases in Claim \[claim:cases\] so that the corresponding network coding instance is valid as in Fig. \[fig:modification\].
The case 1) in Claim \[claim:cases\] is described as $R_t$ having $\hat{X}_s$ as side information for $t\in T$ and $s\in S$, implying that the terminal and the source are identical. To address this, we add a new link-related receiver ${R}_e$ having $\hat{X}_s$ as side information with $\delta_s^{(e)}=0$ and wanting the corresponding message $\hat{X}_e$. In addition, we delete the incoming edge of $\hat{X}_s$ from $R_t$ and add a new edge from $R_t$ to $\hat{X}_e$, after which we have the corresponding network structure as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. The cases 2), 3), 8), 9), and 10) can be solved similarly to the case 1).
The case 4) indicates that the terminal node is the intermediate node, that is, $R_t$ and $R_{e^\prime}$ have $\hat{X}_e$ as side information. This can be modified by adding a new link-related receiver $R_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ having side information identical to that of $R_{e}$ with the identical $\delta_s^{(e^{\prime\prime})}=\delta_s^{(e)}$ and the corresponding message $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$, where $e^{\prime\prime}$ is a duplicated link of $e$. We delete the edge from $R_{e^\prime}$ to $\hat{X}_e$ and add a new edge from $R_{e^\prime}$ to $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ and thus we have the corresponding network structure as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]. The case 5) can be a problem when two receivers with $\hat{X}_e$ as the side information have different side information as in Fig. \[fig:fig4\]. This situation can be modified by a method similar to that in the case 4).
The case 6) is described as one in which $R_t$ and $R_{t^\prime}$ have $\hat{X}_e$ as side information, which means that the terminals $t$ and $t^\prime$ are identical. This situation can be modified by adding a new link-related receiver ${R}_{e^{\prime}}$ having the side information identical to that of $R_e$ with the same $\delta_s^{(e^{\prime})}=\delta_s^{(e)}$ and the corresponding message $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}$, where $e^{\prime}$ is a duplicated link of $e$. We delete the edge from $R_t$ to $\hat{X}_e$ and add a new edge from $R_t$ to $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}$, after which we have the corresponding network structure as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig5\].
The case 7) indicates that the source node is the intermediate node, that is, $R_e$ has $\hat{X}_s$ and $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime}}$ as side information. This can be modified by adding a new link-related receiver $R_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ having $\hat{X}_s$ as side information with $\delta_s^{(e^{\prime\prime})}=0$ and the corresponding message $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$. We delete the edge from $R_e$ to $\hat{X}_s$ and add a new edge from $R_e$ to $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$. Accordingly, we have the corresponding network structure as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig6\].
By solving the above problematic cases and modifying $\mathcal{G}$ with $\bm{\delta}_s$ to $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ with $\bm{\delta}_s^\prime$, the valid corresponding network coding instance can be derived from any index coding instance. Once the corresponding network coding instance is derived, we show the equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE for a given index coding instance as in the following theorem.
For a given side information graph $\mathcal{G}$ with $\bm{\delta}_s$, a $(\bm{\delta}_s^{\prime},\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$-ICSIE with codelength $|E^\prime|$ exists if and only if the corresponding $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-network code with link errors exists.
By solving the problematic cases in Claim \[claim:cases\], we can determine $\{R_{e^\prime} | e\in E^{\prime}\}$ and $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E^\prime}$. Since we can have the valid network coding instance, a $(\bm{\delta}_s^{\prime},\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$-ICSIE with the codelength $|E^\prime|$ exists if and only if the corresponding $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-network code with link errors exists by Theorem \[theorem:equ\].
\[theorem:indexequ1\]
Our main concern is the equivalence between an index code for $\mathcal{G}$ and a network code for $\mathbb{G}$. However, Theorem \[theorem:indexequ1\] shows the equivalence between an index code for $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ and a network code for $\mathbb{G}$. Thus, we have the following corollary.
A $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE with the codelength $|E|$ exists if and only if the corresponding $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-network code with link errors exists, where each encoding function of the duplicated links is a function of each encoding function of the original links in the network code.
Using the problematic cases in Claim \[claim:cases\], we prove the corollary, where the same notations for the above cases are used.
Necessity: Assume that a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE with codelength $|E|$ exists. For the case 1) in Claim \[claim:cases\], we need one more transmission $\hat{X}_e+\hat{X}_s$. Then, $R_t$ can still obtain what $R_t$ wants because $R_t$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{\tilde{s}}$ from $\hat{X}_e+\hat{X}_s-\hat{X}_{\tilde{e}}$, which is the same situation as before. Trivially, ${R}_e$ can obtain $\hat{X}_e$ from $\hat{X}_e+\hat{X}_s-\hat{X}_s$. For the case 4), we also need one more transmission $\hat{X}_e+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$. Then, $R_{e^{\prime}}$ can still obtain what $R_{e^{\prime}}$ wants because $R_{e^{\prime}}$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{\tilde{e}}$ from $\hat{X}_e+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}-\hat{X}_{\tilde{e^{\prime\prime}}}$. $R_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ can easily obtain $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ from $\hat{X}_e+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}-\hat{X}_e$ because $R_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ can recover $\hat{X}_e$. For the case 5), we need one more transmission $\hat{X}_{e}+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}$. Then, $R_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ can still obtain what $R_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ wants because $R_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{\tilde{e}}$ from $\hat{X}_{e}+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}-\hat{X}_{\tilde{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}}$. Clearly, $R_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}$ from $\hat{X}_e+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}-\hat{X}_e$ because $R_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}$ can recover $\hat{X}_e$. For the case 6), we need one more transmission $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}+\hat{X}_e$. Then, $R_t$ can still obtain what $R_t$ wants because $R_t$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{\tilde{e}}$ from $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}+\hat{X}_e-\hat{X}_{\tilde{e^\prime}}$. $R_{e^\prime}$ can easily recover $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}$ from $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}+\hat{X}_e-\hat{X}_e$ because $R_{e^\prime}$ can recover $\hat{X}_e$. For the case 7), we also need one more transmission $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$. Then, $R_e$ can obtain $\hat{X}_e$ because $R_e$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{\tilde{s}}$ from $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}-\hat{X}_{\tilde{e^{\prime\prime}}}$, which is identical to the earlier situation. ${R}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ can easily obtain $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ from $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}-\hat{X}_s$. Thus, a $(\bm{\delta}_s^{\prime},\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$-ICSIE with codelength $|E^\prime|$ exists if a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE with codelength $|E|$ exists using additional transmissions as described above because the number of additional transmissions is $|E^\prime|-|E|$ and thus the corresponding $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE exists by Theorem \[theorem:indexequ1\]. Since the encoding functions of the corresponding network code are defined by the decoding functions of a given index code and each decoding function of the added receivers is a function of each decoding function of the original receivers, each encoding function of duplicated links is a function of each encoding function of the original links in the network code.
Sufficiency: Suppose that a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE exists. Then, we have a $(\bm{\delta}_s^{\prime},\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$-ICSIE with codelength $|E^\prime|$, that is, $\bold{\hat{X}}_B=(\hat{X}_B(e): e\in E^\prime)$, where $\hat{X}_B(e)=\hat{X}_e+\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$. In fact, selecting $|E|$ components of the given index code is sufficient for making a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE with codelength $|E|$. For the case 1), $R_t$ can obtain what $R_t$ wants even if we do not transmit $\hat{X}_e+\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$. $R_t$ simply needs $\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_s)$ related to $e$. Since $R_t$ has $\hat{X}_{\tilde{s}}$ as side information in $\mathcal{G}$, $R_t$ can calculate $\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_s)$, which may be erroneous. The case 7) is derived similarly to how the case 1) was derived. For the case 4), showing that $R_{e^\prime}$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}$ even though we do not transmit $\hat{X}_{e^{\prime\prime}}+\bar{F}_{e^{\prime\prime}}(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$ is sufficient. Since $R_{e^\prime}$ has $\hat{X}_{\tilde{e}}$ as side information in $\mathcal{G}$, $R_{e^\prime}$ can have $\bar{F}_e(\hat{X}_1,...,\hat{X}_{|S|})$, which may be erroneous. Thus, $R_{e^\prime}$ can obtain $\hat{X}_{e^\prime}$ if $\bar{F}_{e^{\prime\prime}}$ is a function of $\bar{F}_e$. The cases 5) and 6) are derived similarly to the case 4).
\[cor:indexequ2\]
For a given index coding instance, we can make the corresponding network coding instance by introducing some links, referred to as duplicated links, which are in fact duplicated encoding functions. The duplicated links in the corresponding network coding instance can always be made depending on the original links but some of them can be made independent in the perspective of network coding. Thus, the sufficiency in Corollary \[cor:indexequ2\] holds for the intended dependent situations, where each encoding function of the duplicated links is a function of each encoding function of the original links.
In [@FEQU], the corresponding network coding instance can easily be converted from the original index coding instance. However, the given original network coding instance is different from the network coding instance re-converted from the corresponding index coding instance. That is, assume that for a given network coding structure $\mathbb{G}$ with $\bm{\delta}$, we have the corresponding side information graph $\mathcal{G}$ with $\bm{\delta}_s$. If we derive the corresponding network coding structure $\mathbb{G}^{\prime}$ from $\mathcal{G}$ using the method in [@FEQU], $\mathbb{G}^{\prime}$ is always different from $\mathbb{G}$. Similarly, the same problem occurs for a given index coding instance. However, for a given network coding instance, we can make $\mathbb{G}=\mathbb{G}^{\prime}$ with $\bm{\delta}=\bm{\delta^\prime}$ using the proposed modification of the side information graph and ensure convertibility between the two codes when the encoding functions of the duplicated links are functions of the encoding functions of the original links in the corresponding network code. A similar approach can be applied to a problem for a given index coding instance.
Suppose that a given side information graph $\mathcal{G}$ with $\bm{\delta}_s$ is given in Fig. \[fig:fig8\]. Then, a modified side information graph $\mathcal{G}^\prime$ with $\bm{\delta}^{\prime}_s$ and the corresponding network coding instance are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig9\] and Fig. \[fig:fig10\], respectively. We assume the field size $q=2$.
We first find the maximal unicast acyclic subgraph of $\mathcal{G}$ and determine $\bold{\hat{X}}_{E}$, $\hat{X}_s$, and the corresponding receivers as in Fig. \[fig:fig8\]. Subsequently, we can make a modified side information graph by solving the case 4) in Claim \[claim:cases\] twice. An index code for $\mathcal{G}$ with codelength $|E|=3$ is $(\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_1},\hat{X}_{e_1}+\hat{X}_{e_2},\hat{X}_{e_2}+\hat{X}_{e_3})$. Then, every receiver can recover what it wants. For example, $R_t$ can calculate $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_1}$, $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_2}$, and $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_3}$ from the received codeword. Since $\delta_s^{(t)}=1$ and $R_t$ has $\hat{X}_{\tilde{e_1}}$, $\hat{X}_{\tilde{e_2}}$, and $\hat{X}_{\tilde{e_3}}$ as side information, subtracting them from $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_1}$, $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_2}$, and $\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_3}$, respectively results in the true symbol by majority decoding. With Theorem \[theorem:indexequ1\] and Corollary \[cor:indexequ2\], we can find an index code for $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ as $(\hat{X}_s+\hat{X}_{e_1},\hat{X}_{e_1}+\hat{X}_{e_2},\hat{X}_{e_2}+\hat{X}_{e_3},\hat{X}_{e_3}+\hat{X}_{e_4},\hat{X}_{e_2}+\hat{X}_{e_5})$ and a network code for $\mathbb{G}$ as follows:
1. $X_{e_1}=\hat{D}_{e_1}(\bold{0},(X_{e^\prime} : e^\prime\in {\rm In}(e_1)))=0+0+X_{e_5}=X_{e_5}$
2. $X_{e_2}=0+0+X_{e_4}=X_{e_4}$
3. $X_{e_3}=0+0+0+X_{s}=X_s$
4. $X_{e_4}=0+0+0+0+X_s=X_s$
5. $X_{e_5}=0+0+0+X_{e_4}=X_{e_4}$
6. $D_t=\hat{D}_t(\bold{0},(\tilde{X}_{e^\prime} : e^\prime\in {\rm In}(t)))$
By Claim \[claim:cases\], $e_4$ is a duplicated link of $e_3$ and $e_5$ is a duplicated link of $e_2$. It is clear that $X_{e_4}$ is a function of $X_{e_3}$ and $X_{e_5}$ is a function of $X_{e_2}$. Similarly, we can find an index code for $\mathcal{G}$ from a network code for $\mathbb{G}$ if each encoding function of the duplicated links is a function of each encoding function of the original links in the network code.
\[ex:given index\]
In general, a given side information graph can be converted to several distinct modified side information graphs but any modified side information graph can be re-converted to the original side information graph. Furthermore, there is a one-to-one correspondence between a modified index coding instance and the corresponding network coding instance. Thus, for a given index coding instance, there are several distinct corresponding network coding instances but each corresponding network coding instance can be re-converted to the original index coding instance.
Relationship of Some Properties {#Properties}
===============================
In this section, several properties of an NCLE are introduced using the properties of an ICSIE. Since the equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE is shown when either a network coding instance or an index coding instance is given, we can utilize the properties of an ICSIE to derive those of an NCLE. First, we introduce a property of an ICSIE in the following lemma, which is similar to that in [@ICSIE].
Suppose that a $(\bold{0},\bar{\mathcal{G}})$-IC problem is constructed by deleting any less than or equal to min$(2\delta_s^{(i)}, |\mathcal{X}_i|)$ outgoing edges from each receiver $R_i$ in a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE problem. That is, each receiver of $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$ has larger than or equal to max$(0, |\mathcal{X}_i|-2\delta_s^{(i)})$ side information symbols and then it becomes the conventional index coding problem. Then, $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bold{0},\bar{\mathcal{G}})\leq N_{\rm opt}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$.
This is proved similarly to the method in [@ICSIE] and thus we omit it here.
\[lowerbound\]
Lemma \[lowerbound\] shows the relationship between the conventional index code and an ICSIE. Thus, we can infer that a property between the conventional network code with $\bm{\delta}=\bold{0}$ and an NCLE is derived by Lemma \[lowerbound\] as in the following theorem.
Let $E_v$ be a set of outgoing links of $v\in V$ and $\delta_v$ be ${\rm min}\{\delta_e | e\in E_v\}$. If a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE exists for a given network structure $\mathbb{G}$, there exists the conventional network code with $\bm{\delta}=\bold{0}$ after deleting arbitrary $2\delta_v$ links from ${\rm In}(v)$ for all $v\in V$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
Let $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$ be the side information graph of the corresponding index code of the conventional network code and $\mathcal{G}$ be the side information graph of the corresponding index code of a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE. Instead of deleting arbitrary $2\delta_v$ incoming links for all $v\in V\setminus\bar{S}$ in $\mathbb{G}$, we can consider these links as incoming links of dummy nodes with no outgoing link. Then, from Theorem \[theorem:equ\] and Observation \[ob:codelength\], $N_{\rm{opt}}^q(\bold{0},\bar{\mathcal{G}})=|E|$ if the conventional network code is valid. From Lemma \[lowerbound\], $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bold{0},\bar{\mathcal{G}})\leq N_{\rm opt}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$ and $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})=|E|$ if the $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE is feasible. If the conventional network code is not valid, $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bold{0},\bar{\mathcal{G}})>|E|$, which results in the fact that the $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE is not feasible.
Thus, we can find the conventional network code whenever we have an NCLE. Next, another property of an NCLE is introduced. Before showing it, we define an independent component of an index code.
A component $\hat{X}_e$ in $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ is said to be independent if fixing the value of $\hat{X}_e$ results in reduction of the code dimension by one.
Independent components in the corresponding index coding instance are always in $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ because a network structure is directed acyclic and $N_{\rm opt}^q(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})=|E|$.
Now, we introduce a property related to the redundant links of a network code. From the equivalence between a network code and an index code, we can infer that redundant links may be related to some properties of an index code as shown in the following theorem.
Redundant links in a network code are equivalent to independent components in $\bold{\hat{X}}_E$ of the corresponding index code.
Necessity: If $e$ is a redundant link in the given network code, removing $e$ does not affect the feasibility of the given network code. If we remove $e$, the corresponding index code should have codelength $|E|-1$ by Theorem \[theorem:equ\]. It means that removing $R_e$ and $\hat{X}_e$ from the corresponding index coding problem results in reduction of the code dimension by one.
Sufficiency: If $\hat{X}_e$ is an independent component, fixing its value causes reduction of the code dimension by one and this index code is feasible by Theorem \[encoding\]. Thus, we can say that $e$ is a redundant link.
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusion}
===========
In this paper, a new equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE was proposed. In order to provide the equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE, we considered a new type of a network code, referred to as a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE, where the intermediate nodes can resolve incoming errors.
First, we showed the equivalence between a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE and a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE for a given network coding instance with $\mathbb{G}$ and $\bm{\delta}$. We also showed that the corresponding side information graph does not need the receiver $\hat{t}_{\rm all}$, which is contained in the previous models [@EQU], [@FEQU].
In addition to the equivalence between an NCLE and an ICSIE for a given network coding instance, their equivalence was also derived for a given index coding instance. For a given side information graph $\mathcal{G}$ with $\bm{\delta}_s$, we derived the corresponding network coding instance with $\mathbb{G}$ and $\bm{\delta}$ by modifying $\mathcal{G}$ with $\bm{\delta}_s$ to $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ with $\bm{\delta^\prime}_s$. With the proposed method of modifying $\mathcal{G}$, we showed an equivalence between a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE and a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE for a given index coding instance if a pair of encoding functions of the original link and the duplicated link are functionally related.
Finally, several properties of a $(\bm{\delta},\mathbb{G})$-NCLE were derived from the properties of a $(\bm{\delta}_s,\mathcal{G})$-ICSIE using their equivalence relationship.
[10]{}
R. Ahlswede, N. Cai, R. Li, and R. Yeung, “Network information flow,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1204–1216, 2000.
N. Cai, R. Li, and R. Yeung, “Linear network coding,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 371–381, 2003.
R. Koetter and M. Medard, “An algebraic approach to network coding,” [*IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking*]{}, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 782–795, 2003.
S. Jaggi, P. Sanders, P. A. Chou, M. Effros, S. Egner, K. Jain, and L. M. G. M. Tolhuizen, “Polynomial time algorithms for multicast network code construction,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1973–1982, 2005.
R. W. Yeung and N. Cai, “Network error correction, part 1 and part 2,” [*Commun. and Inf. Systems*]{}, vol. 6, pp. 19–36, 2006.
Z. Zhang, “Linear network-error correction codes in packet networks,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 209–218, 2008.
Y. Birk and T. Kol, “Informed-source coding-on-demand (ISCOD) over broadcast channels,” in [*Proc. IEEE Conf. on Comput. Commun. (INFOCOM)*]{}, San Francisco, CA, 1998, pp. 1257–1264.
Z. Bar-Yossef, Y. Birk, T. S. Jayram, and T. Kol, “Index coding with side information,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1479–1494, 2011.
F. Arbabjolfaei, B. Bandemer, Y.-H. Kim, E. Sasoglu, and L. Wang, “On the capacity region for index coding,” [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT)*]{}, Jul. 2013, pp. 962–966.
M. Effros, S. EI Rouayheb, and M. Langberg, “An equivalence between network coding and index coding,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2478–2487, 2015.
S. A. Jafar, “Topological interference management through index coding,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 529–568, 2014.
A. Mazumdar, “On a duality between recoverable distributed storage and index coding,” [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT)*]{}, Jun. 2014, pp. 1977–1981.
S. H. Dau, V. Skachek, and Y. M. Chee, “Error correction for index coding with side information,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1517–1531, 2013.
K. W. Shum, M. Dai, and C. W. Sung, “Broadcasting with coded side information,” [*2012 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC)*]{}, vol. 89, no. 94, pp. 9–12, Sep. 2012.
N. Lee, A. G. Dimakis, and R. W. Heath, “Index coding with coded side information,” [*IEEE Commun. Lett.*]{}, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 319–322, 2015.
D. T. H. Kao, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and A. S. Avestimehr, “Blind index coding,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*]{}, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 2076–2097, 2017.
A. Gupta and B. S. Rajan, “Error-correcting functional index codes, generalized exclusive laws and graph coloring,” [*Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.*]{}, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct. 2016, pp. 1–7.
J. W. Kim and J. S. No, “Index coding with erroneous side information,” \[Online\]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09361
A. Gupta and B. S. Rajan, “A relation between network computation and functional index coding problems,” [*IEEE Trans. Commun.*]{}, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 705–714, 2017.
L. Ong, B. N. Vellambi, J. Kliewer, and P. L. Yeoh, “An equivalence between secure network and index coding,” [*2016 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps)*]{}, Washington, DC, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[^1]: J.-W. Kim and J.-S. No are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, INMC, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In the present work, we have searched the existence of $\Lambda$CDM-type cosmological model in anisotropic Heckmann-Schucking space-time. The matter source that is responsible for the present acceleration of the universe consist of cosmic fluid with $p = \omega\rho$, where $\omega$ is the equation of state parameter. The Einstein’s field equations have been solved explicitly under some specific choice of parameters that isotropizes the model under consideration. It has been found that the derived model is in good agreement with recent SN Ia observations. Some physical aspects of the model has been discussed in detail.\
**Keywords:** Heckmann-Schucking metric, dark energy, $\Lambda$CDM model\
---
\
\
\
\
\
\
Introduction
============
The SN Ia observations [@Riess1998; @Perlmutter1999] suggest that the observable universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion. This remarkable discovery stands a major break through of the observational cosmology and indicates the presence of unknown fluid - dark energy (DE) that opposes the self attraction of the matter. This acceleration is realized with positive energy density and negative pressure. So, it violate the strong energy condition (SEC). The authors of ref. [@caldwell2006] confirmed that the violation of SEC gives a reverse gravitational effect that provides an elegant description of transition of universe from deceleration to cosmic acceleration. The cosmological constant cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmological model is the simplest model of universe that describes the present acceleration of universe and fits with the present day cosmological data [@gron2007]. It is based on the Einstein’s theory of general relativity with a spatially flat, isotropic and homogeneous space-time. The observed acceleration of universe has been explained by introducing a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$ which is mathematically equivalent to vacuum energy with equation of state (EOS) parameter set equal to $-1$. It suffers from two problems on theoretical front, concerning the cosmological constant $(\Lambda)$. These problems are known as fine tunning and cosmic coincidence problems [@carroll1992; @copeland2006]. In the contemporary cosmology, the source that derives the present acceleration of universe is still mystery and is discussed under the generic name DE. In the literature, the simplest candidate of dark energy is a positive $\Lambda$ besides some scalar field DE models, namely the phantom, quintessence and k-essence [@copeland2006; @alam2003]. In the physical cosmology, the dynamical form of DE with an effective equation of state (EOS), $\omega < -\frac{1}{3}$, were proposed instead of constant vacuum energy. The current cosmological data from large scale-structure [@komastu2009], Supernovae Legacy survey, Gold Sample of Hubble Space Telescope [@Riess2004; @Astier2006] do not support the possibility of $\omega << -1$. However, $\omega = -1$ is a favorable candidate for DE that crossing the phantom divide line (PDL). Setare and Saridakis [@setare2008; @setare2009] have studied the quintom model that described the nature of DE with $\omega$ across -1 and give the concrete theoretical justification for existence of quintom model\
We notice that after publication of WMAP data, today there is considerable evidence in support of anisotropic model of universe. On the theoretical front, Misner [@misner1968] has investigated an anisotropic phase of universe, which turns into isotropic one. The authors of ref. [@koivisto2008; @mota2008] have investigated the accelerating model of universe with anisotropic EOS parameter and have also shown that the present SN Ia data permits large anisotropy. Recently DE models with variable EOS parameter in anisotropic space-time have been studied by Yadav and Yadav [@yadav2011], Yadav et al [@yadavetal2011; @yadavetal2012], Akarsu and Kilinc [@akarsu2010], Yadav [@yadav2012], Saha and Yadav [@saha2012] and Pradhan [@pradhan2013]. In the present work, however, we present $\Lambda$CDM-type cosmological model in spatially homogeneous and anisotropic Heckmann-Schucking space-time. The outline of paper is as follows: in section 2, the field equation and it’s solution are described. Section 3 deals with dust filled universe and Hubble’s parameter. Section 4 covers the study of observational parameters for the model under consideration. The deceleration parameter (DP) and certain physical properties of the universe are presented in section 5 and 6 respectively. Finally conclusions are summarized in section 7.
Field equations
===============
. We consider a general Heckmann-Schucking metric $$\label{metric}
ds^{2}= c^{2}dt^{2}- A^{2}dx^{2}-B^{2}dy^{2}-C^{2}dz^{2}$$ where A, B and C are functions of time only. we consider energy momentum tensor for a perfect fluid i.e. $$\label{emt}
T_{ij}=(p+\rho)u_{i}u_{j}-pg_{ij}$$ where $g_{ij}u^{i}u^{j}=1$ and $u^{i}$ is the 4-velocity vector.\
In co-moving co-ordinates $$u^{\alpha}=0,~~~~~~~~~\alpha=1,2, 3.$$
The Einstein field equations are $$\label{efe}
R_{ij}-\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ij}+ \Lambda g_{ij}= -\frac{8\pi
G}{c^{4}}T_{ij}$$ Choosing co-moving coordinates,the field equations (\[efe\]) in terms of line element (\[metric\]) can be write down as $$\frac{B_{44}}{B}+\frac{C_{44}}{C}+\frac{B_{4}C_{4}}{BC}=-\frac{8\pi G}{c^{2}} p+\Lambda
c^{2}$$ $$\frac{A_{44}}{A}+\frac{C_{44}}{C}+\frac{A_{4}C_{4}}{AC}=- \frac{8\pi G}{c^{2}}p+\Lambda
c^{2}$$ $$\frac{A_{44}}{A}+\frac{B_{44}}{B}+\frac{A_{4}B_{4}}{AB}=- \frac{8\pi G}{c^{2}}p+\Lambda
c^{2}$$ $$\frac{A_{4}B_{4}}{AB}+\frac{B_{4}C_{4}}{BC}+\frac{C_{4}A_{4}}{AC}= \frac{8\pi G}{c^{2}}\rho+\Lambda
c^{2}$$ where $A_{4}$, $B_{4}$ and $C_{4}$ stand for time derivatives of A, B, and C respectively.\
The mass-energy conservation equation $T^{ij}_{;j}=0$ gives $$\rho_{4}+(p+\rho)(\frac{A_{4}}{A}+\frac{B_{4}}{B}+\frac{C_{4}}{C})=0$$ Subtracting eqs.(5) from (6),(6) from (7) and (7) from (6), we obtain $$\frac{A_{44}}{A}-
\frac{B_{44}}{B}+\frac{A_{4}C_{4}}{AC}-\frac{B_{4}C_{4}}{BC} = 0$$ $$\frac{B_{44}}{B}-
\frac{C_{44}}{C}+\frac{A_{4}B_{4}}{AB}-\frac{A_{4}C_{4}}{AC} = 0$$ $$\frac{C_{44}}{C}-
\frac{A_{44}}{A}+\frac{B_{4}C_{4}}{BC}-\frac{A_{4}B_{4}}{AB} = 0$$ Subtracting(12) from (10), we get $$\frac{B_{44}}{B}+\frac{C_{44}}{C}+\frac{2B_{4}C_{4}}{BC}=2\frac{A_{44}}{A}+\frac{A_{4}C_{4}}{AC}+\frac{A_{4}B_{4}}{AB}$$ This equation can be re-written in the following form $$\biggl(\frac{(BC)_{4}}{BC}\biggr)_{4}+\biggl(\frac{(BC)_{4}}{BC}\biggr)^{2}=2\biggl(\frac{A_{4}}{A}\biggr)_{4}+2\frac{A^{2}_{4}}{A^{2}}+\frac{A_{4}(BC)_{4}}{ABC}$$ Integrating this equation, we get the following first integral $$\bigl(\frac{(BC)_{4}}{BC}-\frac{2A_{4}}{A}\bigr)ABC= L$$ where L is constant of integration.\
The exact solution of eq. (15), in general, is not possible however one can solve eq. (15) explicitly, by choosing $L = 0$ that reveals $A^{2} = BC$. The present day observations suggest that the initial anisotropy dissipated out for large value of time and the directional scale factors have same values in all direction i.e. $A = B = C$ which is easily obtained by putting $L = 0$ in eq. (15). That is why $L = 0$ has physical meaning.\
Now we can assume $$B=AD$$ $$C=AD^{-1}$$ where $$D=D(t)$$ Further integrating equation (11), we get the first integral $$\frac{D_{4}}{D}=\frac{K}{A^{3}}$$ where K is an arbitrary constant of integration.\
With help of equation(15), eq (9) simplifies as $$\rho_{4}+3\frac{A_{4}}{A}(p+\rho)=0$$ Thus the Hubble’s parameter in this model is $$H=u^{i}_{;i}=\frac{1}{3}
(\frac{A_{4}}{A}+\frac{B_{4}}{B}+\frac{C_{4}}{C})=\frac{A_{4}}{A}$$ Equations(5)-(8) are simplified as $$2\frac{A_{44}}{A}+\frac{A^{2}_{4}}{A^{2}}+\frac{K^{2}}{A^{6}}=-\frac{8\pi
G}{c^{2}}p+\Lambda c^{2}$$ Taking $K = 0$, we obtain the Einstein’s field equation for spatially homogeneous and isotropic flat FRW model as $$\frac{A^{2}_{4}}{A^{2}}-\frac{K^{2}}{3A^{6}}=\frac{8\pi
G}{3c^{2}}\rho+\frac{\Lambda c^{2}}{3}$$ $$2\frac{A_{44}}{A}+\frac{A^{2}_{4}}{A^{2}}=-\frac{8\pi
G}{c^{2}}p+\Lambda c^{2}$$ $$\frac{A^{2}_{4}}{A^{2}}=\frac{8\pi G}{3c^{2}}\rho+\frac{\Lambda
c^{2}}{3}$$ where A is expansion scale factor.\
Thus equations(21)-(23) may be regarded as counterpart of FRW Equations in our anisotropic model. Equations(22) and (23) may be re-written as $$2\frac{A_{44}}{A}+\frac{A^{2}_{4}}{A^{2}}=-\frac{8\pi
G}{3c^{2}}\Bigl(p-\frac{\Lambda c^{4}}{8\pi
G}+\frac{K^{2}c^{2}}{8\pi GA^{6}}\Bigr)$$ $$H^{2}=\frac{A^{2}_{4}}{A^{2}}=\frac{8\pi
G}{3c^{2}}\Bigl(\rho+\frac{\Lambda c^{4}}{8\pi
G}+\frac{K^{2}c^{2}}{8\pi GA^{6}}\Bigr)$$ We now assume that the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and the term due to anisotropy also act like energies with densities and pressures as $$\rho_{\Lambda}=\frac{\Lambda c^{4}}{8\pi G}\hspace{.5in}
\rho_{\sigma}=\frac{K^{2}c^{2}}{8\pi GA^{6}}$$ $$p_{\Lambda}=-\frac{\Lambda c^{4}}{8\pi G}\hspace{.5in}
p_{\sigma}=\frac{K^{2}c^{2}}{8\pi GA^{6}}$$ It can be easily verified that energy conservation law (20) holds separately for $\rho_{\Lambda}$ and $\rho_\sigma$ i.e. $$(\rho_{\Lambda})_{4}+3H(p_\Lambda+\rho_\Lambda)=0$$\
$$(\rho_{\sigma})_{4}+3H(p_\sigma+\rho_\sigma)=0$$\
The equations of state for matter, $ \sigma$ and $\Lambda$ energies are as follows $$p_m=\omega_m\rho_m$$ where $\omega_m = 0$ for matter in form of dust, $\omega_m=\frac{1}{3}$ for matter in form of radiation. There are certain more values of $\omega_m$ for matter in different forms during the course of evolution of the universe. $$p_{\Lambda}=\omega_{\Lambda}\rho_{\Lambda}$$ Since $$p_{\Lambda}+ \rho_{\Lambda}=0$$ Therefore $$\omega_{\Lambda}=-1$$ Similarly $$p_{\sigma}=\rho_{\sigma}$$ So, $$\omega_{\sigma}=1$$ Now we use the following relation between scale factor A and red shift z $$\frac{A_{0}}{A}=1+z$$ The suffix(0) is meant for the value at present time.\
The energy density $\rho$ comprises of following components $$\label{E.D.}
\rho=\bigl(\rho_m+\rho_\Lambda+\rho_\sigma \bigr)$$ Equations (20) and (31) yield $$\rho=\sum_i(\rho_i)_0(1+z)^{3(1+\omega_i)}$$ Equations (26) and (27) take the form $$2\frac{A_{44}}{A}+H^{2}=-\frac{8\pi G}{c^{2}}\Bigl(p_m+p_\Lambda
+p_\sigma\Bigr)$$ $$H^{2}=\frac{8\pi
G}{3c^{2}}\bigl(\rho_m+\rho_{\Lambda}+\rho_{\sigma}\bigr)$$
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Dust filled universe
====================
For dust filled universe, we have $p_{m} = 0$ and $\rho_{m} = \frac{3c^{2}H^{2}}{8\pi G}$\
Then eq. (35) gives $$\Omega_{m}+ \Omega_{\Lambda}+ \Omega_{\sigma}=1$$ where $
\Omega_{m}=\frac{\rho_{m}}{\rho_{c}}
=\frac{(\Omega_m)_0H^2_0(1+z)^3}{H^2}$, $
\Omega_{\Lambda}=\frac{\rho_{\Lambda}}{\rho_{c}}
=\frac{(\Omega_\Lambda)_0H^2_0}{H^2}$ and $\Omega_{\sigma}=\frac{\rho_{\sigma}}{\rho_{c}}
=\frac{(\Omega_\sigma)_0H^2_0(1+z)^6}{H^2}$
Expression for Hubble’s Constant
--------------------------------
Equations (31) and (35) yields $$H^2 = H_{0}^{2}\left[(\Omega_{m})_{0}(1+z)^{3}+(\Omega_{\sigma})_{0}(1+z)^{6}+(\Omega_{\Lambda})_{0}\right]=
H^{2}_0\bigl[(\Omega_m)_0(\frac{A_0}{A})^3+(\Omega_\sigma)_0(\frac{A_0}{A})^6+(\Omega_\Lambda)_0\bigr]$$ The behaviour of Hubble’s parameter versus redshift and scale function have been depicted in Figure 1. We notice from figure 1 that $\frac{H}{H_{0}}$ increases with redshift while it decreases with scale function. From the right panel of figure (1), it is also clear that for $\Lambda$ dominated universe, the Hubble’s parameter is either almost stationary or it is decreasing slowly with scale function i.e. time.
Some observational constraints
==============================
The luminosity distance which determines flux of the source is given by $$D_{L}=A_{0} x (1+z)$$ where $x$ is the spatial co-ordinate distance of a source.\
The Geodesic for metric (1) ensures that if in the beginning $\frac{dy}{ds}=0$; $\frac{dz}{ds}=0$ then $\frac{d^2y}{ds^2}=0$; $\frac{d^2z}{ds^2}=0$.\
So if a particle moves along x- direction, it continues to move along x- direction always.If we assume that line of sight of a vantage galaxy from us is along x-direction then path of photons traveling through it satisfies $$ds^{2}= c^{2}dt^{2}- A^{2}dx^2=0$$ From this we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
x&=&\int^x_{0}dx=\int^{t_{0}}_{t}\frac{dt}{A(t)}=\frac{1}{A_{0}H_{0}}\int^z_0\frac{dz}{h(z)} \\
&=&\frac{1}{A_{0}H_{0}}\int^z_0\frac{dz}{\sqrt{\bigl[(\Omega_m)_0(1+z)^3+(\Omega_\sigma)_0(1+z)^6+(\Omega_\Lambda)_0\bigr]}}\end{aligned}$$ $$$$ where we have used $ dt=dz/\dot{z}$ and from eqs. (21) and (31) $$\dot{z}=-H(1+z)$$ $$h(z)=\frac{H}{H_0}$$\
So, the luminosity distance is given by $$\label{LD}
D_{L}=\frac{c(1+z)}{H_{0}}\int^z_0\frac{dz}{\sqrt{\bigl[(\Omega_m)_0(1+z)^3+(\Omega_\sigma)_0(1+z)^6+(\Omega_\Lambda)_0\bigr]}}$$
Apparent Magnitude and Red Shift relation:
------------------------------------------
The absolute magnitude $(M)$ and apparent magnitude $(m)$ are related to the redshift by following relation $$m-M = 5log_{10}\bigl(\frac{D_L}{Mpc}\bigr)+25$$ For low redshift, one can easily obtain the luminosity distance from eq. (41) $$D_L=\frac{cz}{H_0}$$ Combining equations (41), (42) and (43), one can easily obtain the expression for the apparent magnitude in terms of redshift parameter $(z)$ as follows
$$m = M+5log_{10}\left(\left(\frac{c(1+z)}{H_{0}Mpc}
\right)\int^{z}_{0}\frac{dz}{\sqrt{[(\Omega_m)_0(1+z)^3+(\Omega_\sigma)_0(1+z)^6+(\Omega_\Lambda)_0]}}\right)$$
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Figure 2 shows the behaviour of luminosity distance $(D_{L})$ and apparent magnitude $(m)$ with redshift for some certain values of $\Omega_{m}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and $\Omega_{\sigma}$.\
In the present analysis, we use 60 data set of SN Ia for the low red shift $(z < 0.5)$ as reported by Perlmutter et al. [@Perlmutter1999]. In this case $\chi^{2}_{SN}$ has been computed according to the following relation
$\vphantom{}$
$(\Omega_{m)_0}$ $(\Omega_{\Lambda})_0$ $( \Omega_\sigma)_0$ $ \chi_{SN}^{2}$ $\chi_{SN}^{2}/dof$
------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------ --------------------- --
.29 .69 .02 7.41417 0.1257
.98 0 .02 8.9135 0.1511
0 .98 .02 7.8437 0.1329
**Table: 1**
Here, dof stands for degree of freedom. From the table 1, we note that the best fit values of $(\Omega_{\Lambda})_{0} = 0.69$ with $\chi^{2}_{SN} = 7.41417$ and the reduced $\chi^{2}$ value is 0.1257.
Age of the Universe
-------------------
The present age of the universe is obtained as follows $$% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
t_{0}=\int^{t_0}_{0}dt=
\int^{\infty}_0\frac{dz}{H_0 (1+z)\sqrt{\bigl[(\Omega_m)_0(1+z)^3+(\Omega_\sigma)_0(1+z)^6+(\Omega_\Lambda)_0\bigr]}}$$ where we have used $ dt=dz/\dot{z}$ and $\dot{z}=-H(1+z)$\
The left panel of figure 3 shows the variation of time with redshift. It is also observed that the $\Lambda$ dominated universe gives the age of the universe as $H_ot_0 \simeq .9$\
Since, $ H_{0}^{-1}=1.3574e+010$\
$\Rightarrow t_{0}= 0.9(1.357e+010)~Gyrs = 12.30891~Gyrs$.\
From WMAP data, the empirical value of present age of universe is $13.73_{-.17}^{+.13}$ which is very close to present age of universe, estimated in the derived model.
Deceleration Parameter
======================
The deceleration parameter is given by $$q = -\frac{A_{44}}{AH^2}=-\frac{AA_{44}}{A_{4}^{2}}$$ From equation (34) $$\begin{aligned}
-2q + 1&=& -3\sum_{i}\omega_{i}\Omega_{i} \\
-2q&=& 3\Omega_{\Lambda}-3\Omega_{\sigma}-1\end{aligned}$$ This equation clearly shows that without presence of $\Lambda$ term in the Einstein’s field equation (\[efe\]), one can’t imagine of accelerating universe.This equation also expresses the fact that anisotropy raises the lower limit value of $\Lambda$ required for acceleration. This may be seen in the following way.\
For FRW model, acceleration requires\
$$\Omega_{\Lambda}\geq.33$$ where as for anisotropic model $$\Omega_{\Lambda}\geq.33+\Omega_{\sigma}$$ Combining equations (34), (35), (36) and (37), the expression for DP in terms of redshift $(z)$ is given by $$q = \frac{3}{2}\Bigl( \frac{(\Omega_m)_o (1+z)^3 +
2(\Omega_\sigma)_o (1+z)^6}{(\Omega_m)_o
(1+z)^3+(\Omega_\Lambda)_o + (\Omega_\sigma)_o
(1+z)^6}\Bigr)-1$$ Since in the derived model, the best fit values of $(\Omega_{m})_{0}$, $(\Omega_{\Lambda})_{0}$ and $(\Omega_{\sigma})_{0}$ are 0.29, 0.69 and 0.02 respectively hence we compute the present value of DP for derived $\Lambda$CDM universe by putting $z = 0$ in eq. (49). The present value of DP is given by $$q_{0} = -0.505$$
Some Physical Properties of the Model
=====================================
The energy density in the universe
----------------------------------
The energy density $\rho$ is given by
$$\rho=\underset{i}{\sum}(\rho_{i})_{0}(1+z)^{3\left(1+\omega_{i}\right)}$$
where $$(\rho_{i})_{0}=\frac{3c^{2}H_{0}^{2}}{8\pi G}(\Omega_{i})_{0}$$ Here $(\rho_{i})_{0}$ are the present energy density of various components. Taking, $$(\Omega_{m})_{0} \simeq .3, (\Omega_{\Lambda})_{0} \simeq .7, H_{0}=72km/sec./Mpc$$ Therefore, the present value of dust energy density $(\rho_{m})_{0}$ and dark energy density $(\rho_{\Lambda})_{0}$ are obtained as $$(\rho_{m})_{0}=2.8727\times10^{-19}gm/cm^{3}$$ $$(\rho_{\Lambda})_{0}=\frac{(\Omega_{\Lambda})_{0}}{(\Omega_{m})_{0}}(\rho_{m})_{0}=6.7030\times10^{-19}gm/cm^{3}$$
Shear Scalar
------------
The shear scalar is given by $$\sigma^2=\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{ij}\sigma^{ij}$$ where $$\sigma_{ij}= u_{i;j}-\Theta(g_{ij}-u_iu_j)$$ In our model $$\sigma^2= \frac{D^2_4}{D^2}=
\frac{K^2}{A^6}=3(\Omega_\sigma)_0H^2_0(1+z)^6$$ From eq. (57), it is clear that shear scalar vanishes as $A\rightarrow\infty$.
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Relative Anisotropy
-------------------
The relative anisotropy is given by $$\frac{\sigma^2}{\rho_m}=\frac{3(\Omega_\sigma)_0H^2_0(1+z)^3}{(\rho_c)_0(\Omega_m)_0}$$ This follows the same pattern as shear scalar. This means that relative anisotropy decreases over scale factor i.e. time.\
Evolution of the scale factor $(A)$
-----------------------------------
We begin with the integral $$t = \intop_{0}^{t}dt
= \intop_{0}^{A}\frac{dA}{AH}$$ Equations (37) and (59) lead to $$t=\intop_{0}^{A}\frac{dA}{AH_0\sqrt{\bigl[((\Omega_m)_0(\frac{A_0}{A})^3++(\Omega_\sigma)_0(\frac{A_0}{A})^6
+(\Omega_\Lambda)_0\bigr]}}$$ The right panel of figure 3 shows the variation of time with scale function for the derived model.\
Final remarks
=============
In this paper, we have investigated the $\Lambda$CDM-type cosmological model in Heckmann-Shucking space-time. Under some specific choice of parameters, the model under consideration isotropizes and have consistency with recent SN Ia observation. We have estimated some physical parameters at present epoch for derived model which is summarized as
$t_{0}$ 12.30891 Gyrs
------------------------ -------------------------------------
$q_{0}$ -0.505
$(\rho_{m})_{0}$ $2.8727 \times 10^{-19}~ gm/cm^{3}$
$(\rho_{\Lambda})_{0}$ $6.7030 \times 10^{-19}~ gm/cm^{3}$
**Table: 2**
We observe from the result displayed in table 2 that the derived model is observationally indistinguishable in the vicinity of present epoch of universe. Thus the $\Lambda$CDM model fits better with the observational data.\
[000]{}
A. G. Riess et al., Astron. J. [**116**]{}, 1009 (1998)
S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. [**517**]{}, 565 (1999)
R. R. Caldwell, W. Knowp, L. Parker, D. A. T. Vanzella, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 023513 (2006)
$\O{}$. Gr$\o{}$n, S. Hervik: Einstien’s General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Application in Cosmology, Springer, New York (2007).
S. M. Carroll, W. H. Press, E. L. Turner, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**30**]{}, 499 (1992)
E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**15**]{}, 1753 (2006)
U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, MNRAS [**344**]{}, 1057 (2003)
E. Komastu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. [**180**]{}, 330 (2009)
A. G. Riess et al., Astron. J. [**607**]{}, 665 (2004)
P. Astier et al., Astron. Astrophys. [**447**]{}, 31 (2006)
M. R. Setare, E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B [**668**]{}, 177 (2008)
M. R. Setare, E. N. Saridakis, JCAP [**0903**]{}, 002 (2009)
C. W. Misner, APJ [**151**]{}, 431 (1968)
T. Koivisto, D. F. Mota, arXiv: 0801.3676 \[astro-ph\] (2008)
T. Koivisto, D. F. Mota, Astrophys. J. [**679**]{}, 1 (2008)
A. K. Yadav, L. Yadav, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**50**]{}, 218 (2011)
A. K. Yadav, F. Rahaman, S. Ray, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**50**]{}, 871 (2011)
A. K. Yadav, F. Rahaman, S. Ray, G. K. Goswami, Euro. Phys. J. Plus [**127**]{}, 127 (2012)
O. Akarsu, C. B. Kilinc, Gen. Relativ. grav. [**42**]{}, 119 (2010)
A. K. Yadav, Astrophys. Space Sc. [**335**]{}, 565 (2012)
B. Saha, A. K. Yadav, Astrophys. Space Sc. [**341**]{}, 651 (2012)
A. Pradhan, Res. Astron. Astrophys. [**13**]{}, 139 (2013)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The current article shall contribute to understanding the classical analogue of the minimal photon sector in the Lorentz-violating Standard-Model Extension (SME). It is supposed to complement all studies performed on classical point-particle equivalents of SME fermions. The classical analogue of a photon is not a massive particle being described by a usual equation of motion, but a geometric ray underlying the eikonal equation. The first part of the paper will set up the necessary tools to understand this correspondence for interesting cases of the minimal SME photon sector. In conventional optics the eikonal equation follows from an action principle, which is demonstrated to work in most (but not all) Lorentz-violating cases as well. The integrands of the action functional correspond to Finsler structures, which establishes the connection to Finsler geometry. The second part of the article treats Lorentz-violating light rays in a weak gravitational background by implementing the principle of minimal coupling. Thereby it is shown how Lorentz violation in the photon sector can be constrained by measurements of light bending at massive bodies such as the Sun. The phenomenological studies are based on the currently running ESA mission GAIA and the planned NASA/ESA mission LATOR. The final part of the paper discusses certain aspects of explicit Lorentz violation in gravity based on the setting of Finsler geometry.'
author:
- 'M. Schreck'
title: 'Eikonal approximation, Finsler structures, and implications for Lorentz-violating photons in weak gravitational fields'
---
Introduction
============
During the past 15 years plenty of progress has been made in understanding [*CPT*]{}- and Lorentz violation and its possible implications on physics from both a theoretical and a phenomenological point of view. This was made possible by establishing the Standard-Model Extension (SME) in 1998 [@Colladay:1998fq] and by the subsequent tireless work of people in our community eager to study imprints of Planck-scale physics detectable by experiments operating at much smaller energies. The SME is a powerful framework incorporating all Lorentz-violating operators into the Standard Model of elementary particles and General Relativity. It neither modifies the gauge structure of the Standard Model nor does it introduce new particles. The power-counting renormalizable contributions of the SME are grouped into its minimal part where the remaining higher-order operators comprise the nonminimal SME [@Kostelecky:2009zp; @Kostelecky:2011gq; @Kostelecky:2013rta]. This framework allows for astounding experimental tests of Lorentz invariance where even presently some experiments reach a sensitivity of the Planck scale square (see [@Kostelecky:2008ts] for a yearly updated compilation of experimental contraints on Lorentz-violating coefficients). Since Lorentz violation implies [*CPT*]{}-violation according to a theorem by Greenberg [@Greenberg:2002uu], the Standard-Model Extension involves all [*CPT*]{}-odd operators as a subset. Note that Lorentz violation has been predicted by various prototypes of fundamental theories such as string theory [@Kostelecky:1988zi; @Kostelecky:1991ak; @Kostelecky:1994rn], loop quantum gravity [@Gambini:1998it; @Bojowald:2004bb], noncommutative spacetime [@AmelinoCamelia:1999pm; @Carroll:2001ws], spacetime foam [@Klinkhamer:2003ec; @Bernadotte:2006ya; @Hossenfelder:2014hha], and models with nontrivial spacetime topology [@Klinkhamer:1998fa; @Klinkhamer:1999zh].
In the recent past profound studies of modified quantum field theories based on the SME were performed at tree-level and including quantum corrections. The result of these studies is that most sectors are free of any inconsistencies [@Kostelecky:2000mm; @oai:arXiv.org:hep-ph/0101087; @Casana-etal2009; @Casana-etal2010; @Klinkhamer:2010zs; @Schreck:2011ai; @Cambiaso:2012vb; @Colladay:2014dua; @Maniatis:2014xja; @Schreck:2013gma; @Schreck:2013kja; @Cambiaso:2014eba; @Schreck:2014qka; @Colladay:2014dua; @Albayrak:2015ewa]. Furthermore the SME was explicitly shown to be renormalizable at one loop [@Kostelecky:2001jc; @Colladay:2006rk; @Colladay:2007aj; @Colladay:2009rb] where latest computations have demonstrated renormalizability of the modified quantum electrodynamics [@Santos:2015koa] and the pure Yang-Mills sector [@Santos:2014lfa] at infinite-loop order using algebraic techniques. Therefore as long as the SME is restricted to Minkowski spacetime, it seems to be a reasonable, well-behaved, and model-independent test framework for Planck-scale physics.
The gravitational sector of the SME was constructed in the seminal article [@Kostelecky:2003fs]. In the aftermath, studies on its theory and phenomenology were performed in a successive series of papers [@Bailey:2006fd; @Kostelecky:2007kx; @Kostelecky:2008in; @Bailey:2009me; @Kostelecky:2010ze; @Tasson:2010nr; @Tasson:2012nx; @Tasson:2012au; @Bonder:2013sca; @Bonder:2015maa] with recent investigations of even nonminimal operators in short-range gravity tests [@Bailey:2014bta; @Long:2014swa]. One of the most important theoretical results of [@Kostelecky:2003fs] is a no-go theorem stating that explicit Lorentz violation is incompatible with the geometric framework of General Relativity, which is Riemannian geometry. Considering Lorentz-violating matter in a gravitational background results in modified conservation laws of the energy-momentum tensor based on Noether’s theorem. However Lorentz violation does [*a priori*]{} not modify the geometrical base such as the Bianchi identities of the Riemann curvature tensor. Due to the Einstein equations the second Bianchi identity is tightly bound to the conservation of energy-momentum, which is then incommensurate with the modified matter sector.
A possibility of circumventing this clash is to perform phenomenological studies in theories resting on spontaneous Lorentz violation. This means that a Lorentz-violating background field arises dynamically as the vacuum expectation value of a vector or tensor field. Such models have been studied since the early 1990s [@Kostelecky:1988zi; @Kostelecky:1989jp; @Kostelecky:1989jw; @Bluhm:2008yt; @Hernaski:2014jsa; @Bluhm:2014oua] (even before the SME existed) and they can be considered as one of the motivations that lead to the construction of the SME. The crucial point within models of spontaneous Lorentz violation is to take into account the Nambu-Goldstone modes that are linked to the symmetry breaking. This can lead to arduous perturbative calculations within such a theory.
For these reasons it would be preferable to have a setup available that allows for incorporating explicit Lorentz violation into a curved background without possible tensions with the underlying geometrical properties. A suggestion was already given in [@Kostelecky:2003fs] along the same lines as the no-go theorem: introducing an alternative geometrical framework that can include preferred directions naturally. Such an extension of Riemannian geometry has been known in the mathematics community for almost 100 years. It is named Finsler geometry in reference to the famous mathematician Finsler who studied generalized path length functionals in his Ph.D. thesis [@Finsler:1918; @Cartan:1933] (cf. [@Bao:2000] for a comprehensive mathematical overview on the subject).
Finsler geometry has been applied to various fields of physics [@Antonelli:1993]. In the context of the Standard-Model Extension it found its use just a couple of years ago when it was shown that the minimal Lorentz-violating fermion sector can be mapped to classical-particle descriptions [@Kostelecky:2010hs; @Kostelecky:2011qz; @Kostelecky:2012ac; @Colladay:2012rv; @Russell:2015gwa]. The corresponding Lagrange functions are closely linked to Finsler structures, i.e., generalized path length functionals. Recently a nonminimal case was studied [@Schreck:2014hga] as well as classical-particle trajectories in electromagnetic fields and modified spin precession based on an isotropic set of minimal fermion coefficients [@Schreck:2014ama]. In [@Silva:2013xba] a particular class of Finsler spaces known as bipartite is investigated closer from a physics point of view and [@Foster:2015yta] suggests classical-mechanics systems that are linked to three-dimensional versions of Finsler $b$ space [@Kostelecky:2011qz]. In a very recent paper [@Colladay:2015wra] $b$ space is discussed from a mathematical point of view. Its indicatrix (surface of constant value of the Finsler structure) is a two-valued deformation from a sphere that is characterized by singularities with ambiguous derivatives. Considering the indicatrix as an algebraic variety, the Hironaka theorem says that such singularities can be removed [@Hironaka:1964]. In [@Colladay:2015wra] a coordinate transformation was found, which allows to remove the singular sets and to glue the remaining parts together appropriately. This results in a well-defined mathematical description of $b$ space that can be used for future physical investigations.
The goals of the current article are threefold. First, analogous classical equivalents for the minimal [*CPT*]{}-even photon sector of the SME shall be found. Second, with these equivalents at hand we intend to study phenomenological aspects of Lorentz-violating photons in weak gravitational fields. Last but not least we would like to understand various consequences of this approach on the base of Finsler geometry. The procedures to be developed will differ extensively from the SME fermion counterparts. The paper is organized as follows. In the Lorentz-violating framework, which all investigations are based on, is introduced. A brief review on Finsler geometry and Finsler structures in the SME fermion sector is given in , followed by an explanation of the method to constructing Finsler structures in the photon sector. In that section we investigate different cases that are the most interesting ones from a physics point of view. In the geometric-optics approximation photons are described by the eikonal equation, which forms the cornerstone of . It is demonstrated how the Finsler structures obtained are linked to the eikonal equation for the different sectors analyzed in the previous section. Since the isotropic modification of the [*CPT*]{}-even sector can be considered to be the most important one, all forthcoming studies will be based on the latter. Section \[sec:gravitational-backgrounds\] is dedicated to investigating the isotropic eikonal equation in a weak gravitational background. We develop a phenomenological framework to study light bending at massive bodies within such a theory. In this context prospects are given on detecting isotropic Lorentz violation of photons propagating in a gravitational background. This is carried out for two space-based missions: GAIA and LATOR. The final part of the paper is more theoretical. In the modified conservation law of the energy-momentum tensor is investigated, interpreting the results from the point of view of explicit versus spontaneous Lorentz violation. Last but not least, in we examine the properties of the isotropic spacetime that has been subject to the studies in from a Finsler-geometric point of view. The most important findings in total are concluded on and discussed in . Essential calculational details can be found in Appx. \[sec:lagrangians-massive-photons\] to \[sec:eikonal-equation-inhomogeneous-anisotropic\]. Throughout the article natural units with $\hbar=c=1$ are chosen unless otherwise stated.
Construction of classical Lagrangians {#sec:construction-classical-lagrangians}
=====================================
The base of the current article is formed by the minimal SME photon sector whose action $S_{\upgamma}$ is comprised of [*CPT*]{}-even modified Maxwell (mM) [@Colladay:1998fq; @Kostelecky:2002hh; @BaileyKostelecky2004] theory and [*CPT*]{}-odd Maxwell-Chern-Simons (MCS) theory [@Carroll:1989vb; @Colladay:1998fq; @Kostelecky:2002hh; @BaileyKostelecky2004]:
\[eq:action-modified-maxwell-theory\] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\upgamma}&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^4}\mathrm{d}^4x\,\left[\mathcal{L}_\text{mM}(x)+\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MCS}}(x)+\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{mass}}(x)\right]\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:lagrange-density-modmax}
\mathcal{L}_\text{mM}(x)&=-\frac{1}{4}\,\eta^{\mu\rho}\,\eta^{\nu\sigma}\,F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\rho\sigma}(x)-\frac{1}{4}\,(k_F)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}\,F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\varrho\sigma}(x)\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:lagrange-density-mcs}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MCS}}(x)&=\frac{m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}}{2}(k_{AF})^{\kappa}\varepsilon_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}A^{\lambda}(x)F^{\mu\nu}(x)\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{mass}}(x)&=m_{\upgamma}^2A_{\mu}(x)A^{\mu}(x)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Here $F_{\mu\nu}(x)\equiv \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}(x)-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}(x)$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor that involves the *U*(1) gauge field $A_{\mu}(x)$. The fields are defined on Minkowski spacetime with metric $(\eta_{\mu\nu})=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$. The totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol in four spacetime dimensions is denoted as $\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ with $\varepsilon^{0123}=1$. The controlling coefficients characteristic for the framework considered are comprised in the fourth-rank observer tensor $(k_F)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ and the observer vector $(k_{AF})^{\kappa}$. Both have dimensionless components and they do not transform covariantly with respect to particle Lorentz transformations, which renders this theory explicitly Lorentz-violating. The field operator of modified Maxwell theory is of dimension four, whereas the operator of MCS theory has mass dimension three. Therefore MCS theory involves the Chern-Simons mass scale $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$ for dimensional consistency. It is well-known that a photon mass term encoded in $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{mass}}$ (with the photon mass $m_{\upgamma}$) violates *U*(1) gauge invariance. It has been introduced here for certain purposes that will be explained below, but for most occasions $m_{\upgamma}$ will be set to zero. Anyhow in [@Colladay:2014dua] it was demonstrated that certain birefringent cases of modified Maxwell theory require a nonvanishing photon mass (at least in intermediate calculations) to have a consistent Gupta-Bleuler quantization. Finally, a gauge fixing term will be omitted in the action, since all considerations will be carried out at the classical level.
Classical Lagrangians and Finsler structures {#sec:classical-lagrangians-finsler-structures}
--------------------------------------------
The major goal is to understand how Lorentz-violating photons can be described in the context of gravity. Since Einstein’s relativity is a classical theory, it is reasonable to obtain a classical analogue of the quantum field theory based on the action of . With such an analogue at hand it should be possible to study how an explicitly Lorentz-violating theory of gravity could be constructed consistently. As an introduction to the topic the mapping procedure of the SME fermion sector to a classical point-particle description [@Kostelecky:2010hs] shall be reviewed. From a quantum theoretical point of view a particle can be understood as a suitable superposition of free-field solutions with dispersion relation $$\label{eq:dispersion-relation-general}
f(p_{\mu},m_{\psi},k_x)=0\,,\quad (p_{\mu})=\begin{pmatrix}
p_0 \\
\mathbf{p} \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ such that its probability density is nonzero in a localized region and drops off to zero sufficiently fast outside. Here $p_0$ is the particle energy, $\mathbf{p}$ its three-momentum, $m_{\psi}$ the fermion mass, and $k_x$ denotes a particular set of Lorentz-violating coefficients where $x$ represents a Lorentz index structure. The physical propagation velocity of such a wave packet is the group velocity $$\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{gr}}\equiv \frac{\partial p_0}{\partial\mathbf{p}}\,.$$ A classical, relativistic pointlike particle is assumed to propagate with four-velocity $u^{\mu}=\gamma(1,\mathbf{v})$ where $\mathbf{v}$ is the three-velocity. To map the wave packet to such a classical particle, it makes sense to identify the group velocity components with the appropriate spatial four-velocity components: $$\label{eq:group-velocity-correspondence}
\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{gr}}\overset{!}{=} -\frac{\mathbf{u}}{u^0}\,.$$ The minus sign has its origin in the different position of the spatial index on both sides of the equation. Since the physics of the classical particle rests on a Lagrange function $L=L(u^0,\mathbf{u})$, its construction is of paramount importance. If the Lagrange function is positive homogeneous of degree one, i.e., $L(\lambda u^0,\lambda\mathbf{u})=\lambda L(u^0,\mathbf{u})$ for $\lambda>0$, the action is parameterization-invariant. In this case the physics does not depend on the way how the particle trajectory is parameterized, which is a very reasonable property to have. Positive homogeneity gives the following condition on the Lagrange density according to Euler’s theorem [@Bao:2000]: $$\label{eq:lagrange-function}
L=-p_{\mu}u^{\mu}\,,\quad p_{\mu}=-\frac{\partial L}{\partial u^{\mu}}\,,$$ with the conjugate momentum $p_{\mu}$. The latter is identified with the momentum that appears in the quantum theoretical dispersion relation of . The global minus sign in its definition has been introduced such that the nonrelativistic kinetic energy is positive. Now Eqs. (\[eq:dispersion-relation-general\]), (\[eq:group-velocity-correspondence\]), and (\[eq:lagrange-function\]) comprise a set of five conditions that shall be used to determine $p_{\mu}$ and $L$. Hence all four-momentum components and the Lagrange function are supposed to be solely expressed in terms of four-velocity components.
The Lagrange functions corresponding to the standard fermion dispersion law $p_0^2-\mathbf{p}^2-m_{\psi}^2=0$ read $L=\pm m_{\psi}\sqrt{(u^0)^2-\mathbf{u}^2}$. The two signs are the classical counterparts of the particle-antiparticle solutions at the level of quantum field theory. It can be checked that the five equations above are fulfilled for this choice of $L$. The latter can also be written in the form $L=\pm m_{\psi}\sqrt{r_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}}$ with $r_{\mu\nu}$ known as the intrinsic metric. This metric is essential to determine lengths of vectors and angles enclosed by vectors. In the particular case considered it corresponds to the (indefinite) Minkowski metric: $r_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}$. This is not surprising, since the starting point to obtaining the Lagrange function was a field theory defined in Minkowski spacetime. By a Wick rotation the Lagrange function is related to a new function $F$ based on a positive definite intrinsic metric: $$F(y)\equiv F(\mathbf{y},y^4)\equiv \frac{\mathrm{i}}{m_{\psi}}L(\mathrm{i}y^4,\mathbf{y})=\sqrt{r_{ij}y^iy^j}\,,\quad r_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)_{ij}\,.$$ Promoting $r_{ij}$ to an arbitrary position-dependent metric $r_{ij}(x)$, the function $F$ becomes dependent on $x$: $F(y)\mapsto F(x,y)$. It can then be interpreted as the integrand of a path length functional of a Riemannian manifold $M$ where $y\in T_xM$. A Finsler structure is a generalization of that obeying the following properties:
- $F(x,y)>0$,
- $F(x,y)\in C^{\infty}$ for all $y\in T_xM\setminus \{\mathrm{slits}\}$,
- positive homogeneity in $y$, i.e., $F(x,\lambda y)=\lambda F(x,y)$ for $\lambda>0$, and
- the derived metric (Finsler metric) $$g_{ij}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 F^2}{\partial y^i\partial y^j}\,,$$ is positive definite.
Prominent examples for Finsler structures that are outside the scope of Riemannian geometry are Randers structures, $F(y)=\alpha+\beta$, and Kropina structures, $F(y)=\alpha^2/\beta$, with $\alpha=\sqrt{a_{ij}y^iy^j}$ and $\beta=b_iy^i$ where $a_{ij}$ is a Riemannian metric and $b_i$ a one-form. There are certain theorems available to classify Finsler structures using various kinds of torsions. The most important one is the Cartan torsion $C_{ijk}$, which is given by [@Bao:2004] $$\label{eq:cartan-torsion}
C_{ijk}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial g_{ij}}{\partial y^k}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^3F^2}{\partial y^i\partial y^j\partial y^k}\,.$$ In some books $C_{ijk}$ is defined with an additional prefactor $F$ (see, e.g., [@Bao:2000]). The mean Cartan torsion reads as follows: $$\label{eq:mean-cartan-torsion}
\mathbf{I}\equiv I_iy^i\,,\quad I_i\equiv g^{jk}C_{ijk}\,,\quad (g^{ij})\equiv (g_{ij})^{-1}\,,$$ with the inverse derived metric $g^{ij}$. Deicke’s theorem says that a Finsler space is Riemannian if and only if $\mathbf{I}$ vanishes [@Deicke:1953]. The Matsumoto torsion provides a further set of quantities that are very useful to classify Finsler structures: $$\label{eq:matsumoto-torsion}
M_{ijk}\equiv C_{ijk}-\frac{1}{n+1}(I_ih_{jk}+I_jh_{ik}+I_kh_{ij})\,,\quad h_{ij}\equiv F \frac{\partial^2F}{\partial y^i\partial y^j}\,.$$ Here $n$ is the dimension of the Finsler structure considered [@Bao:2004]. According to the Matsumoto-Hōjō theorem a Finsler structure is either of Randers or Kropina type if and only if the Matsumoto torsion is equal to zero [@Matsumoto:1978]. These theorems will be used frequently throughout the paper to classify Finsler structures encountered.
According to the rules recalled at the beginning of the current section classical Lagrange functions of the SME fermion sector were derived in [@Kostelecky:2010hs; @Colladay:2012rv; @Schreck:2014hga; @Schreck:2014ama; @Russell:2015gwa]. In the articles [@Colladay:2012rv; @Kostelecky:2011qz; @Kostelecky:2012ac; @Schreck:2014hga] their corresponding Finsler structures were examined. In this paper analogous investigations shall be performed for the minimal SME photon sector based on the action of . It will become evident that the possible techniques used differ from the procedures adopted for the fermion sector.
Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory
---------------------------
In the current section the [*CPT*]{}-even photon sector components $(k_F)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ in will be set to zero restricting our considerations to the MCS term of only. Furthermore the photon mass $m_{\upgamma}$ will be set to zero as well. In the seminal article [@Carroll:1989vb] the magnitude of $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}(k_{AF})^{\kappa}$ was constrained tightly due to the absence of astrophysical birefringence. A collection of all constraints on components of $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}(k_{AF})^{\kappa}$ can be found in the data tables [@Kostelecky:2008ts]. In spite of the tight bounds, MCS theory is very interesting from a theoretical point of view. The structure of the quantum field theory based on MCS theory is quite involved, which was shown by extensive investigations carried out in [@oai:arXiv.org:hep-ph/0101087].[^1] The smoking-gun results of the latter reference are that MCS theory is well-behaved as long as the preferred spacetime direction $(k_{AF})^{\kappa}$ is spacelike. For timelike $(k_{AF})^{\kappa}$ issues with either microcausality or unitarity arise, though. Interestingly this behavior mirrors in the classical Finsler structure of MCS theory that will be derived as follows. First of all spacelike MCS theory shall be considered. The modified field equations in momentum space read as follows [@Colladay:1998fq]:
$$\begin{aligned}
M^{\alpha\delta}(p)A_{\delta}&=0\,, \\[2ex]
M^{\alpha\delta}(p)&=\eta^{\alpha\delta}k^2-k^{\alpha}k^{\delta}-2\mathrm{i}m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}(k_{AF})_{\beta}\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}k_{\gamma}\,,\end{aligned}$$
where $k_{\mu}$ is the four-momentum to be distinguished from the four-momentum $p_{\mu}$ used for fermions. Imposing Lorenz gauge $k^{\delta}A_{\delta}=0$, the condition of a vanishing determinant of $M$ results in $$k^4+4m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2\left[k^2(k_{AF})^2-(k\cdot k_{AF})^2\right]=0\,,$$ leading to the following dispersion relations: $$\omega_{1,2}=\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^2+2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2(\mathbf{k}_{AF})^2\pm 2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}\sqrt{m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2(\mathbf{k}_{AF})^4+(\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{k}_{AF})^2}}\,.$$ Here the spatial momentum $\mathbf{k}$ is not to be confused with the spatial part $\mathbf{k}_{AF}$ of the MCS vector. Following the procedure outlined in leads to the Lagrange function $$\label{eq:lagrange-function-mcs-theory}
L|_{\mathrm{MCS}}^{\pm}=\pm m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}\left(\sqrt{-(k_{AF})^2u^2}\pm \sqrt{(k_{AF}\cdot u)^2-(k_{AF})^2u^2}\right)\,.$$ First of all, this result matches the Lagrange function first obtained in [@McGinnis:2014]. For spacelike $k_{AF}$ it corresponds to the Lagrange density of the minimal fermionic $b^{\mu}$ coefficient where here $(k_{AF})^{\mu}$ takes the role of $b^{\mu}$ and the Chern-Simons mass $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$ takes the role of the fermion mass $m_{\psi}$. This is because there exists a correspondence between MCS theory and the fermion theory involving the $b^{\mu}$ coefficient whose Lagrangian has the form $b^{\mu}\overline{\psi}\gamma_5\gamma_{\mu}\psi$. The associated field operator is of dimension three and it is [*CPT*]{}-odd [@Kostelecky:2009zp], which parallels some of the properties of MCS theory. Therefore the Wick-rotated version of can be interpreted as a $b$ space. The form of the Lagrangian of remains the same even for MCS theory with a timelike $k_{AF}$, which can be shown by direct computation. Undoubtedly, issues arise for timelike $k_{AF}$, since in this case the Lagrange function is not a real function any more.
A classical Lagrange function is of mass dimension one, which is why is directly proportional to the single mass scale $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$ that appears in this framework. In the limit $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}\mapsto 0$ the Lagrange function vanishes, which reveals the challenge in deriving appropriate Lagrange functions corresponding to Lorentz-violating frameworks that do not have a dimensional scale associated to them. This is especially the case for a photon theory based on modified Maxwell theory, which will be discussed as follows.
Modified Maxwell theory {#eq:lagrange-function-massive-modmax}
-----------------------
In the remainder of the paper the Chern-Simons mass $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$ will be set to zero and the Lagrange density of MCS theory, , will not be taken into account any more. The observer four-tensor $(k_F)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ in will be decomposed into contributions involving the Minkowski metric and a $(4\times 4)$ matrix $\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}$ according to the nonbirefringent *Ansatz* [@BaileyKostelecky2004; @Altschul:2006zz]$$\label{eq:nonbirefringent-ansatz}
(k_F)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}=\frac{1}{2}(\eta^{\mu\varrho}\widetilde{\kappa}^{\nu\sigma}-\eta^{\mu\sigma}\widetilde{\kappa}^{\nu\varrho}-\eta^{\nu\varrho}\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\sigma}+\eta^{\nu\sigma}\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\varrho})\,.$$ The matrix $\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}$ is supposed to be symmetric and traceless. Its particular choice amounts to different Lorentz-violating cases in the minimal, [*CPT*]{}-even photon sector characterized by nonbirefringent photon dispersion laws at first order in the Lorentz-violating coefficients. This means that resulting dispersion relations for the two physical photon polarization states coincide with each other at first order in Lorentz violation. The notation — especially for the controlling coefficients — is mainly based on [@Kostelecky:2002hh].
First of all the photon mass is kept. The equations of motion for the photon field $A_{\mu}$ in momentum space then take the following form [@Colladay:1998fq; @McGinnis:2014]:
\[eq:field-equations-modmax\] $$\begin{aligned}
M^{\alpha\delta}(k)A_{\delta}&=0\,, \\[2ex]
M^{\alpha\delta}(k)&=\eta^{\alpha\delta}(k^2-m_{\upgamma}^2)-k^{\alpha}k^{\delta}-2(k_F)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}k_{\beta}k_{\gamma}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Now different interesting cases of modified Maxwell theory (including a photon mass term) will be examined. The simplest case is undoubtedly the isotropic one, which is characterized by a single controlling coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ and one preferred timelike spacetime direction $\xi^{\mu}$. The matrix $\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}$ is then diagonal and it is given as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:matrix-kappas-isotropic-case}
\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}&=2\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}\left(\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}-\frac{1}{4}\xi^2\eta^{\mu\nu}\right)=\frac{3}{2}\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}\,\mathrm{diag}\left(1,\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}\right)^{\mu\nu}\,, \\[2ex]
(\xi^{\mu})&=(1,0,0,0)^T\,.\end{aligned}$$
The dispersion equation, which follows from claiming a vanishing determinant of $M^{\alpha\delta}$ in using Lorenz gauge $k^{\delta}A_{\delta}=0$, results in
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-isotropic-massive}
m_{\upgamma}^2&=a^{\mu\nu}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}\,, \\[2ex]
a^{\mu\nu}&=\mathrm{diag}\left(1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}},-[1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}],-[1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}],-[1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}]\right)^{\mu\nu}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The next case to be considered is a nonbirefringent, anisotropic one that is characterized by a single (parity-even) controlling coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}$ and one spacelike direction $\zeta^{\mu}$. Furthermore $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{e}-}^{22}=\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{e}-}^{33}=-2\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}$ and all remaining ones vanish. The matrix $\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}$ for the nonbirefringent *Ansatz* is given as follows:
\[eq:kappas-anisotropic-nonbirefringent-case\] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}&=3\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}\left(\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}-\frac{1}{4}\zeta^2\eta^{\mu\nu}\right)=\frac{3}{4}\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}\,\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,3)^{\mu\nu}\,, \\[2ex]
(\zeta^{\mu})&=(0,0,0,1)^T\,.\end{aligned}$$
The latter has a similar structure compared to and it is again diagonal. However its spatial coefficients differ from each other revealing the anisotropy. The modified photon dispersion equation can be written in the same form as for the isotropic case:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-anisotropic-massive}
m_{\upgamma}^2&=b^{\mu\nu}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}\,, \\[2ex]
b^{\mu\nu}&=\mathrm{diag}\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11},-\left[1+\frac{3}{2}\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}\right],-\left[1+\frac{3}{2}\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}\right],-\left[1-\frac{3}{2}\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}\right]\right)^{\mu\nu}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The third particular case of modified Maxwell theory to be examined in this context is characterized by three (parity-odd) controlling coefficients $\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}$, and $\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}$ where all remaining ones that are not related by symmetries vanish. Furthermore there are two preferred spacetime directions: a timelike direction $\xi^{\mu}$ and a spacelike one $\zeta^{\mu}$. The matrix $\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}$ in the nonbirefrigent *Ansatz* can be cast into
$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}&=\frac{1}{2}(\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\zeta^{\mu}\xi^{\nu})-\frac{1}{4}(\xi\cdot\zeta)\eta^{\mu\nu}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:four-vectors-parity-odd}
(\xi^{\mu})&=(1,0,0,0)^T\,,\quad (\zeta^{\mu})=-2(0,\boldsymbol{\zeta})^T\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\zeta}=(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23},\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31},\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12})^T\,.\end{aligned}$$
Due to observer Lorentz invariance the coordinate system can be set up such that $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ points along its third axis. The first photon dispersion equation is quadratic and reads as follows:
\[eq:dispersion-relation-parity-odd-massive-1\] $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\upgamma}^2&=c^{\mu\nu}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}\,, \\[2ex]
c^{\mu\nu}&=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & -\mathcal{E} \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
-\mathcal{E} & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
\end{pmatrix}^{\mu\nu}\,,\quad \mathcal{E}=\sqrt{(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23})^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31})^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12})^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the latter has an equivalent structure to Eqs. (\[eq:dispersion-relation-isotropic-massive\]), (\[eq:dispersion-relation-anisotropic-massive\]). However the second dispersion equation is quartic and it is given by $$\label{eq:dispersion-relation-parity-odd-massive-2}
0=(k^2-m_{\upgamma}^2)^2-(k\cdot\zeta)(k\cdot\xi)(k^2-m_{\upgamma}^2)+\frac{1}{4}\left\{(k\cdot\zeta)^2+\zeta^2[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\right\}k^2\,.$$ For $m_{\upgamma}=0$ the right-hand side of the latter factorizes into $k^2$ and a quadratic dispersion relation that differs from (for $m_{\upgamma}=0$) at second order in the controlling coefficients. The nonbirefringent *Ansatz* of prevents birefringence to occur only at leading order in Lorentz violation.
Now the classical Lagrange functions for all cases previously introduced are given as follows. The derivation for one particular of those is shown in and it works analogously for the remaining ones. For the isotropic case (denoted as $\circledcirc$) the Lagrange functions read as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:massive-lagrangian-isotropic}
L|_{\circledcirc}^{\pm}&=\pm m_{\upgamma}\sqrt{a_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}}\,, \\[2ex]
(a_{\mu\nu})&=\mathrm{diag}\left(\frac{1}{1+\kappa_{\mathrm{tr}}},-\frac{1}{1-\kappa_{\mathrm{tr}}},-\frac{1}{1-\kappa_{\mathrm{tr}}},-\frac{1}{1-\kappa_{\mathrm{tr}}}\right)=(a^{\mu\nu})^{-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For the nonbirefringent, anisotropic case ($\varobar$) they are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:massive-lagrangian-anisotropic}
L|_{\varobar}^{\pm}&=\pm m_{\upgamma}\sqrt{b_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}}\,, \\[2ex]
(b_{\mu\nu})&=\mathrm{diag}\left(\frac{1}{1+(3/2)\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}},-\frac{1}{1+(3/2)\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}},-\frac{1}{1+(3/2)\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}},-\frac{1}{1-(3/2)\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}}\right) \notag \\
&=(b^{\mu\nu})^{-1}\,,\end{aligned}$$
Finally for the first dispersion relation of the parity-odd case ($\otimes$) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:massive-lagrangian-parity-odd}
L|_{\otimes}^{\pm}&=\pm m_{\upgamma}\sqrt{c_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
(c_{\mu\nu})&=\begin{pmatrix}
1/(1+\mathcal{E}^2) & 0 & 0 & -\mathcal{E}/(1+\mathcal{E}^2) \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
-\mathcal{E}/(1+\mathcal{E}^2) & 0 & 0 & -1/(1+\mathcal{E}^2) \\
\end{pmatrix}=(c^{\mu\nu})^{-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Finding a classical Lagrangian that corresponds to the quartic dispersion equation of is a challenging task that we leave for the future. The examples for Lagrange functions of Lorentz-violating photons in , , and reveal the general behavior. When the photon dispersion equation is of the form $Q^{\mu\nu}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}=m_{\upgamma}^2$ with an invertible $(4\times 4)$ matrix $Q$ the associated Lagrange function generically reads as (see [@Kostelecky:2010hs] for the fermion analogue): $$L^{\pm}=\pm m_{\upgamma}\sqrt{Q^{-1}_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}}\,,$$ These Lagrange functions rely on the existence of a nonzero photon mass. In general, Lagrange functions are of mass dimension one, which is why they have to involve some dimensionful scale characteristic for the physical problem considered. For the classical fermionic point-particle analogues studied in [@Kostelecky:2010hs] this scale corresponds to the particle mass. In MCS theory the Chern-Simons mass $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$ takes the role of the characteristic dimensionful scale as we saw in . However since modified Maxwell theory does not involve a dimensionful scale, a photon mass $m_{\upgamma}$ had to be introduced to construct Lagrange functions for the classical point-particle analogues.
Classical wavefront
-------------------
A photon mass is undoubtedly not an attractive feature in a theory, since the mass term violates gauge invariance. Even if a photon mass has to be introduced as an intermediate ingredient to regularize infrared divergences in quantum corrections or to grant a consistent quantization of a particular Lorentz-violating framework, cf. [@Colladay:2014dua], it should be possible to consider the limit $m_{\upgamma}\mapsto 0$ at the end of any calculation. For this reason an alternative procedure shall be developed to obtain the classical analogue of (Lorentz-violating) photons. Classically, an electromagnetic pulse makes up a wavefront that can be interpreted as a surface in four-dimensional spacetime: $w=w(t,\mathbf{x})=0$. In a Lorentz-invariant theory it fulfills the following equation [@Fock:1959]: $$\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}\right)^2-(\boldsymbol{\nabla}w)^2=0\,.$$ Computing the square root and choosing one particular sign results in: $$\label{eq:wave-front-equation}
\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}-\sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}\right)^2}=0\,.$$ The latter is a Hamilton-Jacobi equation where $w$ is understood as the action $S$ and the expression on the right-hand side as the Hamilton function: $$\label{eq:hamilton-jacobi-equation}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}+H(\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\nabla}S)=0\,,\quad S(t,\mathbf{x})=w(t,\mathbf{x})\,,\quad H(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{k})=-\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^2}\,,$$ where $\mathbf{k}$ is the wave vector (momentum). Examples that obey are
$$\begin{aligned}
w&=t-\widehat{\mathbf{a}}\cdot \mathbf{x}\,,\quad |\widehat{\mathbf{a}}|=1\,, \\[2ex]
w&=t-\sqrt{\mathbf{x}^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The first describes a plane wavefront with unit normal vector $\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$ and the second a spherical wavefront. This can be seen by equating $w$ with zero and considering a fixed value for $t$. Introducing $\lambda$ as a parameter for the trajectory of the wave, both wavefronts can be differentiated with respect to $\lambda$, which leads to
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial w}{\partial\lambda}&=u^0-\widehat{\mathbf{a}}\cdot\mathbf{u}\,, \\[2ex]
\frac{\partial w}{\partial\lambda}&=u^0-\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}\,,\quad u^0\equiv \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\lambda}\,,\quad \mathbf{u}\equiv \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda}\,.\end{aligned}$$
At a first glance it may be assumed that the latter are suitable Lagrange functions, since they are positively homogeneous of degree one. However computing the derived metrics $g_{\mu\nu}$ according to $$g_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2L^2}{\partial u^{\mu}\partial u^{\nu}}\,,$$ quickly reveals that their resulting determinants vanish. Therefore such a $g_{\mu\nu}$ is not invertible and definitely fails to describe a possible (pseudo)-Finsler structure. This is a result that can be shown to hold in general. Assume that a Lagrange function $L$ exists describing the classical wave-front analogue of photons. Then the associated conjugated momentum $p_{\mu}$ must be lightlike to obey the photon dispersion relation: $$\label{eq:lightlike-canonical-momentum}
p_{\mu}=-\frac{\partial L}{\partial u^{\mu}}\,,\quad p_{\mu}=-f(u^0,u)\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\pm 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}_{\mu}\,.$$ Due to rotational symmetry in the Lorentz-invariant case it is sufficient to consider a (1+1)-dimensional spacetime, which is why a lightlike $p_{\mu}$ must be of the form stated in with a $C^{\infty}$ function $f(u^0,u)$ where $u\equiv |\mathbf{u}|$. The derived metric is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu}&=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 L^2}{\partial u^{\mu}\partial u^{\nu}}= L\frac{\partial^2 L}{\partial u^{\mu}\partial u^{\nu}}+\frac{\partial L}{\partial u^{\mu}}\frac{\partial L}{\partial u^{\nu}} \notag \\
&= L\begin{pmatrix}
f^{(1)} & f^{(2)} \\
\pm f^{(1)} & \pm f^{(2)} \\
\end{pmatrix}_{\mu\nu}+\begin{pmatrix}
f^2 & \pm f^2 \\
\pm f^2 & f^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}
Lf^{(1)}+f^2 & Lf^{(2)}\pm f^2 \\
\pm( Lf^{(1)}+f^2) & \pm( Lf^{(2)}\pm f^2) \\
\end{pmatrix}_{\mu\nu}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $(1)$ denotes differentiation with respect to $u^0$ and $(2)$ means differentiation by $u$. It clearly holds that $\det(g_{\mu\nu})=0$ irrespective of the unknown function $f$. Therefore a Lagrange function $ L$ with an invertible derived metric cannot exist in the photon case. Because of this an alternative procedure has to be developed to assign a possible (pseudo)-Finsler structure to photons, which will be examined in what follows.
Finsler structures of the photon sector {#sec:finsler-structures-photon}
=======================================
In the previous section it was motivated that the usual method to finding Finsler structures in the fermion sector does not seem to work in the minimal [*CPT*]{}-even photon sector. The reason is the absence of a dimensionful physical scale needed for dimensional consistency of a Lagrange function. Photons must be treated differently from fermions to obtain something like a classical description. This shall be undertaken in the current section.
Lorentz-invariant case {#sec:lorentz-invariant-case}
----------------------
To become familiar with our goals, the situation in standard electrodynamics will be described first. In a Lorentz-invariant vacuum Maxwell’s equations in momentum space read as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maxwell-equations-1}
\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{B}+\omega\mathbf{E}&=\mathbf{0}\,,\quad \mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E}-\omega\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{0}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:maxwell-equations-2}
\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{E}&=0\,,\quad \mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{B}=0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Here $\mathbf{E}$ is the electric field, $\mathbf{B}$ the magnetic flux density, $\mathbf{k}$ the wave vector, and $\omega$ the frequency. The dispersion relation can be derived directly from the wave equation. The latter is obtained by computing the cross product of the wave vector and, e.g., the first of where the second equation has to be plugged in subsequently: $$\label{eq:lorentz-invariant-wave-equation}
\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{B})+\omega\,\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E}=\mathbf{k}(\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{B})-\mathbf{k}^2\mathbf{B}+\omega^2\,\mathbf{B}=(\omega^2-\mathbf{k}^2)\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{0}\,.$$ Here the second of is used as well, which says that in a Lorentz-invariant vacuum the magnetic field is transverse. Equation (\[eq:lorentz-invariant-wave-equation\]) has nontrivial solutions for the magnetic field only in case of $\omega^2=\mathbf{k}^2$, which immediately leads to the dispersion relation $\omega=|\mathbf{k}|$ of electromagnetic waves. The dispersion equation $$\label{eq:dispersion-equation-standard}
\omega^2-\mathbf{k}^2=0\,,$$ is the base to determine the Finsler structure associated to standard Maxwell theory. The method is introduced in [@Antonelli:1993] and will be described as follows. Let $M$ be a Finsler manifold and $F=F(x,y)$ the corresponding Finsler structure with $x\in M$ and $y\in T_xM$ where $T_xM$ is the tangent space at $x$. The indicatrix $S_xM$ at a point $x$ of a Finsler space is the set of all $y$ where the Finsler structure takes the constant value 1, i.e., $S_xM=\{y\in T_xM|F(x,y)=1\}$. Note that a Finsler structure defines an indicatrix, but conversely each indicatrix determines a Finsler structure [@Constantinescu:2009].
Finsler himself expressed the idea that an indicatrix might model the phase velocity of light waves in both isotropic and anisotropic materials. Hence what is needed to associate a Finsler structure to a photon theory is an indicatrix [@Antonelli:1993]. The phase velocity vector is defined as $\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{ph}}\equiv \widehat{\mathbf{k}}v_{\mathrm{ph}}$ with $v_{\mathrm{ph}}=\omega/|\mathbf{k}|$ and the unit wave vector is $\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\equiv \mathbf{k}/|\mathbf{k}|$. Since still depends on both the energy and the momentum components, we divide it by $|\mathbf{k}|^2$. This results in an equation that involves the phase velocity and quantities of zero mass dimension: $$\label{eq:phase-velocity-standard}
v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2-1=0\,.$$ Now can be considered as the indicatrix of the associated Finsler structure that it still to be found. This is accomplished using Okubo’s technique, which is outlined in [@Antonelli:1993; @Bao:2000]. Consider a surface within a Finsler manifold $M$ that is described by an equation $f(x,y)=0$. A function $F(y)$ taking a constant value 1 on such a surface can be found by solving the equation $f(x,y/F(y))=0$ with respect to $F(y)$ where the solution does not necessarily have to be unique. Denoting the phase velocity by $v_{\mathrm{ph}}\equiv |\mathbf{u}|$ with $\mathbf{u}\equiv (u^1,u^2,u^3)$ we perform the replacement $u^i\mapsto u^i/F(\mathbf{u})$ and obtain from $$\frac{\mathbf{u}^2}{F(\mathbf{u})^2}-1=0\,.$$ The latter can be solved for $F(\mathbf{u})$ immediately: $$\label{eq:finsler-structure-standard}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\text{LI}}^{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}=\pm\sqrt{r_{ij}u^iu^j}\,,\quad r_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)_{ij}\,.$$ As long as the intrinsic metric $r_{ij}$ is positive definite, which is the case for the particular $r_{ij}$ given, $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\text{LI}}^{+}$ fulfills all properties of . Therefore it can be interpreted as a three-dimensional Finsler structure where the derived metric $g_{\mathrm{LI},ij}^{\pm}$ corresponds to the intrinsic metric. Since the Cartan torsion vanishes, it must be a Riemannian structure according to Deicke’s theorem.
Isotropic case {#sec:isotropic-case}
--------------
In the Lorentz-violating case modified Maxwell’s equations can be constructed by using Eqs. (4) – (6) of [@Kostelecky:2002hh]. A Lorentz-violating vacuum behaves like an effective medium for electromagnetic waves, which is why Maxwell’s equations now involve nontrivial permeability and permittivity tensors. In momentum space they read as follows (where the spatial indices of $\mathbf{k}$ are understood to be upper ones):
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maxwell-equations-modified-1}
\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{H}+\omega\mathbf{D}&=\mathbf{0}\,,\quad \mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E}-\omega\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{0}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:maxwell-equations-modified-2}
\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{D}&=0\,,\quad \mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{B}=0\,.\end{aligned}$$
The first two of these deliver relationships between the electric displacement $\mathbf{D}$, the magnetic field $\mathbf{H}$, the electric field $\mathbf{E}$, and the magnetic flux density $\mathbf{B}$. The transformation between $(\mathbf{D},\mathbf{H})$ and $(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{B})$ is governed by $(3\times 3)$ matrices $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}$, $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}$, $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HE}}$, and $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}$ comprising the controlling coefficients and they are given by Eq. (4) in the latter reference. In the isotropic case considered here the matrices $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}$ and $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HE}}$ do not contribute. It then holds that
\[eq:isotropic-case-property-tensors\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}&=\mu^{-1}\mathbf{B}\,,\quad \mu^{-1}=\mathds{1}_3+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}=\mathds{1}_3-\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{D}&=\varepsilon\mathbf{E}\,,\quad \varepsilon=\mathds{1}_3+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}\,, \\[2ex]
\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}&=\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}\,\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)=-\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}\,, \\[2ex]
\varepsilon\mu&=n^2\,\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)\,,\quad n^{-1}=\mathcal{A}\equiv \sqrt{\frac{1-\kappa_{\mathrm{tr}}}{1+\kappa_{\mathrm{tr}}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Maxwell’s equations in momentum space will be needed to obtain the dispersion relations. Each of the equations involves different fields. However to obtain the dispersion relation, a single equation is required that contains one of the four fields only. Since according to the different fields are related by matrices proportional to the unit matrix, the standard procedure outlined in works here: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})-\omega(\mathbf{k} \times \mathbf{B})&=\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})-\omega\mu(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{H}) \notag \\
&=\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})+\omega^2\mu\mathbf{D}=\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})+\omega^2\varepsilon\mu\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{0}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Writing the equation explicitly in matrix form leads to $$\begin{pmatrix}
n^2\omega^2-(k_2^2+k_3^2) & k_1k_2 & k_1k_3 \\
k_1k_2 & n^2\omega^2-(k_1^2+k_3^2) & k_2k_3 \\
k_1k_3 & k_2k_3 & n^2\omega^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2) \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
E^1 \\
E^2 \\
E^3 \\
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ where $\mathbf{E}\equiv (E^1,E^2,E^3)^T$ is the electric field strength vector. Lowering the indices of the components of $\mathbf{k}$ does not lead to changes, since the components always appear in bilinear combinations. The condition of a vanishing determinant of the coefficient matrix, which is demanded for the existence of nontrivial solutions for the electric field, leads to the dispersion equation $$\label{eq:dispersion-relation-isotropic}
0=n^2\omega^2(n^2\omega^2-\mathbf{k}^2)^2\,.$$ From this we obtain the spurious solution $\omega=0$ associated to a nonpropagating wave and the modified dispersion relation $\omega=\mathcal{A}|\mathbf{k}|$. Now we again need an indicatrix. A reasonable choice to start with is . Dividing the latter by the prefactor and computing the square root does not change the set of physical zeros for $\omega$, i.e., we can also take $$n^2\omega^2-\mathbf{k}^2=0\,.$$ A subsequent division by $|\mathbf{k}|^2$ results in the indicatrix of the related Finsler structure: $$\label{eq:phase-velocity-isotropic}
v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2-\mathcal{A}^2=0\,.$$ Using Okubo’s technique we obtain $F(\mathbf{u})$ immediately:
$$\begin{aligned}
0&=\frac{\mathbf{u}^2}{F(\mathbf{u})^2}-\mathcal{A}^2\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:finsler-structure-isotropic}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\circledcirc}^{\pm}&=\pm\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}=\pm\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}\sqrt{r_{ij}u^iu^j}\,,\quad r_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)_{ij}\,,\end{aligned}$$
where the symbol $\circledcirc$ denotes “isotropic.” Comparing to we see that the only difference in comparison to the Lorentz-invariant case is the prefactor $1/\mathcal{A}$. This is not surprising, as the case considered is isotropic and the result involves the spatial velocity components only. For a positive definite $r_{ij}$, $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\circledcirc}^{+}$ fulfills all properties of a Finsler structure where the derived metric is given by $g_{\circledcirc,ij}^{\pm}=r_{ij}/\mathcal{A}^2$. Due to the isotropy the latter is still Riemannian, which can be explicitly checked via the Cartan torsion. In comparison to the Lorentz-invariant case it involves a global scaling factor.
Anisotropic, nonbirefringent case {#sec:anisotropic-nonbirefringent-case}
---------------------------------
The anisotropic case with a single modified dispersion relation reveals some peculiar properties. The matrices relating the different electromagnetic fields with each other are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:medium-tensors-anisotropic-nonbirefringent}
\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}&=\frac{3}{2}\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}\,\mathrm{diag}(1,1,-1)=-\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}\,, \\[2ex]
\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HE}}=\mathbf{0}_3\,,\end{aligned}$$
with the $(3\times 3)$ zero matrix $\mathbf{0}_3$. The matrices $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}$ and $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}$ are diagonal as well, but the difference to the isotropic case is that they are no longer proportional to the identity matrix. This is not surprising due to the preferred spacelike direction $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ pointing along the third spatial axis where there is a residual isotropy in the plane perpendicular to this axis. Therefore the first two components of the diagonal matrix $\varepsilon\mu$ are equal, but the third differs from those: $$\varepsilon\mu=\mathrm{diag}(n_1^2,n_2^2,n_3^2)\,,\quad n_1=n_2=\frac{1}{\mathcal{B}}\,,\quad n_3=\mathcal{B}\,,\quad \mathcal{B}\equiv \sqrt{\frac{1-(3/2)\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}}{1+(3/2)\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}}}\,.$$ Now we again need an equation that can serve as a basis for the indicatrix of the associated Finsler space. Multiplying the second of with $\mu^{-1}$, computing the cross product with $\mathbf{k}$, and using the first of leads to an equation for the electric field vector: $$\mathbf{k}\times \left[(\mu^{-1}(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})\right]+\omega^2\varepsilon \mathbf{E}=\mathbf{0}\,.$$ Multiplying the latter with an appropriate prefactor, in matrix form it reads as follows: $$\begin{pmatrix}
\omega^2-k_2^2-k_3^2n_3^2 & k_1k_2 & k_1k_3n_3^2 \\
k_1k_2 & \omega^2-k_1^2-k_3^2n_3^2 & k_2k_3n_3^2 \\
k_1k_3n_3^2 & k_2k_3n_3^2 & (\omega^2-k_1^2-k_2^2)n_3^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
E^1 \\
E^2 \\
E^3 \\
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ Lowering the components of $\mathbf{k}$ does not produce any changes. The determinant condition for this system of equations leads to
$$\begin{aligned}
0&=\omega^2(\omega^2-k_{\bot}^2-k_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\|$}}^2n_3^2)^2\,, \\[2ex]
k_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\|$}}&\equiv \mathbf{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{\zeta}\,,\quad k_{\bot}\equiv |\mathbf{k}-k_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\|$}}\boldsymbol{\zeta}|\,.\end{aligned}$$
For convenience the three-momentum $\mathbf{k}$ is decomposed into a component $k_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\|$}}$ along the preferred spatial direction $\boldsymbol{\zeta}=(0,0,1)^T$ and into a component $k_{\bot}$ perpendicular to $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$. This results in the spurious solution $\omega=0$ and a single dispersion relation for electromagnetic waves: $$\label{eq:dispersion-relation-anisotropic}
\omega=\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+\mathcal{B}^2k_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\|$}}^2}\,.$$ Here the remaining isotropy perpendicular to the preferred direction becomes evident as well. The photon will only be affected by Lorentz violation in case it has a momentum component pointing along the preferred direction. Note that the result of is very interesting from the perspective that the underlying Lorentz-violating framework is anisotropic, but in spite of this anisotropy there is only a single dispersion relation. In contrast, birefringence, i.e., the property of having two different dispersion laws dependent on photon polarization seems to always occur in anisotropic media in nature. The reason that there is a single dispersion relation here only is the extreme fine tuning of permeability and permittivity (cf. ), which can most probably not be found in any materials.
Now, the equation for the indicatrix follows from $$\omega^2-k_{\bot}^2-k_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\|$}}^2n_3^2=0\,,$$ in dividing it by $\mathbf{k}^2$. Introducing the angle $\vartheta$ between the wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ and the preferred spatial direction $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ leads to
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pre-indicatrix-anisotropic}
0&=v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2-\sin^2\vartheta-\mathcal{B}^2\cos^2\vartheta\,, \\[2ex]
\cos\vartheta&\equiv \widehat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot \boldsymbol{\zeta}\,,\quad \widehat{\mathbf{k}}\equiv \frac{\mathbf{k}}{|\mathbf{k}|}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Thinking of $\vartheta$ as the polar angle in spherical coordinates, can be reinterpreted using $$v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2=\mathbf{u}^2\,,\quad \cos\vartheta=\frac{u^3}{|\mathbf{u}|}\,,\quad \sin\vartheta=\frac{\sqrt{(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2}}{|\mathbf{u}|}\,,$$ as follows: $$\label{eq:indicatrix-anisotropic}
\mathbf{u}^4-\left[(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+\mathcal{B}^2(u^3)^2\right]=0\,.$$ The latter is the equation that determines the indicatrix. Okubo’s technique can again be used to obtain a Finsler structure directly when $\mathbf{u}$ is replaced by $\mathbf{u}/F(\mathbf{u})$ in : $$\mathbf{u}^4-F(\mathbf{u})^2\left[(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+\mathcal{B}^2(u^3)^2\right]=0\,.$$ This leads to the result $$\label{eq:finsler-structure-anisotropic}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}=\pm\frac{\mathbf{u}^2}{\sqrt{(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+\mathcal{B}^2(u^3)^2}}\,,$$ which can also be written in the form $$\label{eq:finsler-structure-anisotropic}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}=\pm\frac{r_{ij}u^iu^j}{\sqrt{s_{ij}u^iu^j}}\,,\quad r_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)_{ij}\,,\quad s_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,\mathcal{B}^2)_{ij}\,.$$ Here $\varobar$ means “anisotropic.” In principle the Finsler structure can be interpreted to involve an intrinsic metric $r_{ij}$ and a second metric $s_{ij}$. Since the background considered is flat, it is reasonable to take $r_{ij}$ as the metric that determines the lengths of vectors and the angles between vectors. For general $r_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}$ the derived metric is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
g_{ij}&=F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}\frac{\partial^2F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}}{\partial u^i\partial u^j}+\frac{\partial F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}}{\partial u^i}\frac{\partial F(\mathbf{u})|^{\pm}_{\varobar}}{\partial u^j}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\frac{\partial F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}}{\partial u^i}&=\pm\frac{1}{(s_{ab}u^au^b)^{3/2}}Q_{iklm}u^ku^lu^m\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\frac{\partial^2F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}}{\partial u^i\partial u^j}&=\mp\frac{3s_{jn}}{(s_{ab}u^au^b)^{5/2}}Q_{iklm}u^ku^lu^mu^n \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\phantom{{}={}}\pm\frac{1}{(s_{ab}u^au^b)^{3/2}}Q_{iklm}\left(\delta^{kj}u^lu^m+\delta^{jl}u^ku^m+\delta^{mj}u^ku^l\right)\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
Q_{iklm}&=2s_{kl}r_{im}-r_{kl}s_{im}\,.\end{aligned}$$
This result is not very illuminating. When contracted with appropriate velocity components it collapses to $(F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm})^2$, which follows from its homogeneity of degree 2: $$g^{\pm}_{\varobar,ij}u^iu^j=(F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm})^2\,,\quad g^{\pm}_{\varobar,ij}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2(F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm})^2}{\partial u^i\partial u^j}\,.$$ Now the following properties of $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}$ can be deduced:
- $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^+>0$ if $r_{ij}$ is positive definite,
- $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}\in C^{\infty}$ for $\mathbf{u}\in TM\setminus \{0\}$ as well as positive definite $s_{ij}$,
- $F(\lambda\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}=\lambda F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^{\pm}$ for $\lambda>0$, i.e., positive homogeneity,
- and the derived metric $g_{ij}$ is positive definite as long as $s_{ij}$ is positive definite.
Therefore as long as both $r_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}$ are positive definite, which in particular is the case for $r_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}$ given in , $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^+$ defines a three-dimensional Finsler structure, indeed. Furthermore both the Cartan and the Matsumoto torsion can be computed to be able to classify this Finsler structure. The results are complicated and they do not provide further insight, which is why they will be omitted. However they are nonzero in general whereby according to Deicke’s theorem, is not a Riemannian structure and according to the Matsumoto-Hōjō theorem it is neither a Randers nor a Kropina structure. The result corresponds to Eq. (4.2.2.6) of [@Antonelli:1993] where $a=\mathcal{B}$ and $b=1$ in their notation. They denote this type of Finsler structure as a second-order Kropina structure in resemblance to a Kropina structure $F(\mathbf{u})=\alpha^2/\beta$ with $\alpha=\sqrt{a_{ij}u^iu^j}$ and $\beta=b_iu^i$. In the latter reference appears in the context of light propagation in uniaxial media. The numerator involves the Euclidean intrinsic metric $r_{ij}$ only, whereas the denominator is characterized by another metric $s_{ij}$. The latter could be thought of as the metric governing physics, since it involves the physical quantity $\mathcal{B}$.
Anisotropic, birefringent (at second order) case {#sec:anisotropic-birefringent-case}
------------------------------------------------
The penultimate example provides a case of modified Maxwell theory that has not been considered in . It is parity-even and characterized by two preferred spacelike directions:$$\label{eq:preferred-directions-anisotropic-case}
(\zeta_1^{\mu})=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\boldsymbol{\zeta}_1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad (\zeta_2^{\mu})=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\boldsymbol{\zeta}_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\zeta}_1=\begin{pmatrix}
\sin\eta \\
0 \\
\cos\eta \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\zeta}_2=\begin{pmatrix}
-\sin\eta \\
0 \\
\cos\eta \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ They are normalized and enclose an angle of $2\eta$. We consider an observer frame with one nonzero controlling coefficient $\mathcal{G}$. Then the $(4\times 4)$ matrix employed in the nonbirefringent *Ansatz* reads $$\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}=\mathcal{G}\left(\zeta_1^{\mu}\zeta_2^{\nu}+\zeta_1^{\nu}\zeta_2^{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}(\zeta_1\cdot \zeta_2)\eta^{\mu\nu}\right)\,.$$ This corresponds to the following choices for the matrices that appear in Maxwell’s equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}&=\mathcal{G}\,\mathrm{diag}(1,\cos(2\eta),-1)=-\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}\,, \\[2ex]
\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HE}}=\mathbf{0}_3\,.\end{aligned}$$
Hence there are nontrivial permeability and permittivity tensors, but the electric and magnetic fields do still not mix. Using these matrices, modified Maxwell’s equations can be obtained according to the procedure used in . The condition of a vanishing coefficient determinant for nontrivial solutions results in an equation for the dispersion relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-off-shell-anisotropic-nonbirefringent}
0&=\omega^2\left[(1-\mathcal{G}^2)\omega^2-(1+\mathcal{G})[1-\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)]k_1^2-(1-\mathcal{G}^2)k_2^2-(1-\mathcal{G})[1-\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)]k_3^2\right] \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}}\times \left\{\omega^2[1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)]-(1+\mathcal{G})k_1^2-[1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)]k_2^2-(1-\mathcal{G})k_3^2\right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In contrast to the anisotropic case considered in the current framework is characterized by two distinct modified dispersion relations. They can be written in the form
\[eq:dispersion-relations-anisotropic-birefringent\] $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_1&=\sqrt{\mathcal{G}_1k_1^2+k_2^2+\mathcal{G}_2k_3^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\omega_2&=\sqrt{\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_1k_1^2+k_2^2+\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_2k_3^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:finsler-structure-anisotropic-birefringence-1-constants}
\mathcal{G}_1&\equiv\frac{1-\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)}{1-\mathcal{G}}\,,\quad \mathcal{G}_2\equiv\frac{1-\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)}{1+\mathcal{G}}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:finsler-structure-anisotropic-birefringence-2-constants}
\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_1&\equiv\frac{1+\mathcal{G}}{1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)}\,,\quad \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_2\equiv\frac{1-\mathcal{G}}{1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Evidently the contribution associated to the second three-momentum component stays unmodified which is reasonable, since the preferred directions of do not point along the second spatial axis. Each dispersion relation can be expanded for $\mathcal{G}\ll 1$ showing that they differ at second order in Lorentz violation. In general the nonbirefringent *Ansatz* of works at leading order only. Besides, the dispersion relations depend on the angle $2\eta$ enclosed by the two preferred directions. With the normalized propagation direction of the electromagnetic wave given by $\widehat{\mathbf{k}}$, the latter encloses the angles $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ with the first and the second preferred direction, respectively. These are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\cos\theta_1&=\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot \boldsymbol{\zeta}_1=\widehat{k}^1\sin\eta+\widehat{k}^3\cos\eta\,, \\[2ex]
\cos\theta_2&=\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot \boldsymbol{\zeta}_2=-\widehat{k}^1\sin\eta+\widehat{k}^3\cos\eta\,.\end{aligned}$$
The components of the propagation direction vector $\widehat{\mathbf{k}}$ can now be expressed in terms of the angles $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, and $\eta$. Note that $\widehat{\mathbf{k}}$ is a unit vector by construction: $$\label{eq:direction-angle}
\widehat{k}^1=\frac{\cos\theta_1-\cos\theta_2}{2\sin\eta}\,,\quad \widehat{k}^3=\frac{\cos\theta_1+\cos\theta_2}{2\cos\eta}\,,\quad \widehat{k}^2=\sqrt{1-(\widehat{k}^1)^2-(\widehat{k}^3)^2}\,.$$ Now the two individual factors of are considered giving the modified dispersion relations. Dividing each by the wave-vector magnitude $|\mathbf{k}|$, introducing the phase velocity, and expressing all propagation direction components by the angles of , equations for the phase velocities are obtained as before:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phase-velocity-equations-anisotropic}
0&=(1-\mathcal{G}^2)v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2+\frac{\mathcal{G}}{2}\left\{4\cos(\theta_1)\cos(\theta_2)-\mathcal{G}\left[\cos(2\theta_1)+\cos(2\theta_2)\right]\right\}-1\,, \\[2ex]
0&=\left[1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)\right](1-v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)-2\mathcal{G}\cos(\theta_1)\cos(\theta_2)\,.\end{aligned}$$
In dividing the second equation by $-[1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)]$ and expanding both equations to linear order in $\mathcal{G}$ these results correspond to each other as expected. Now we are in a position to interpret the latter equations geometrically, which will lead us directly to the Finsler structures associated to this particular sector. In doing so, the velocity $\mathbf{u}$ is introduced and both the phase velocity and the angles $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ are expressed by the magnitude or components of $\mathbf{u}$ as follows:
\[eq:correspondence-angle-velocities\] $$\begin{aligned}
v_{\mathrm{ph}}&=|\mathbf{u}|\,, \\[2ex]
\cos\theta_1&=\frac{u^1}{|\mathbf{u}|}\sin\eta+\frac{u^3}{|\mathbf{u}|}\cos\eta\,, \\[2ex]
\cos\theta_2&=-\frac{u^1}{|\mathbf{u}|}\sin\eta+\frac{u^3}{|\mathbf{u}|}\cos\eta\,.\end{aligned}$$
Inserting those into and using Okubo’s technique leads to two distinct Finsler structures. The first is given by $$\label{eq:finsler-structure-anisotropic-birefringence-1}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varovee}^{(1)\pm}=\pm\frac{r_{ij}u^iu^j}{\sqrt{s_{ij}u^iu^j}}\,,\quad r_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)_{ij}\,,\quad s_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(\mathcal{G}_1,1,\mathcal{G}_2)_{ij}\,,$$ and the second reads as $$\label{eq:finsler-structure-anisotropic-birefringence-2}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varovee}^{(2)\pm}=\pm\frac{r_{ij}u^iu^j}{\sqrt{s_{ij}u^iu^j}}\,,\quad r_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)_{ij}\,,\quad s_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_1,1,\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_2)_{ij}\,.$$ Here $\varovee$ means “anisotropic and birefringent (at second order).” The four Finsler structures obtained have a form analogous to the Finsler structure found in of . This is not surprising, since both sectors are anisotropic but parity-even. Having birefringence at second order in Lorentz violation does obviously not affect the form of the Finsler structure. In such a case we can obtain several distinct Finsler structures that differ from each other at second order in the controlling coefficients via the metrics $s_{ij}$.
In the latter $s_{ij}$ differs from the standard Euclidean metric only by the component $s_{33}$. Here both $s_{11}$ and $s_{33}$ are modified by Lorentz violation where they also depend on the angle $\eta$ enclosed by the two preferred directions. The component $s_{22}$ is standard, which again reflects the fact that the preferred directions have a vanishing second component. Since $s_{ij}$ involves the physical (dimensionless) constants $\mathcal{G}_i$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_i$ for $i=1\dots 2$, it is reasonable to say that $s_{ij}$ seems to govern the physical properties of photon propagation in these cases.
Parity-odd case {#sec:parity-odd-case}
---------------
The final interesting sector considered involves the three parity-odd coefficients $\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}$, and $\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}$ and it will turn out to be the most complicated one. The preferred spacetime directions are given in and the matrices relating the electromagnetic fields to each other read
$$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}&=\mathbf{0}_3\,,\quad \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}=\mathbf{0}_3\,, \\[2ex]
\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}&=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12} & -\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31} \\
-\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12} & 0 & \widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23} \\
\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31} & -\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23} & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HE}}=-\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}^T=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The relationships between the fields are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D}&=\mathbf{E}+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\mathbf{B}\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{H}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HE}}\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{B}=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{B}\,.\end{aligned}$$
In contrast to the aforementioned cases the parity-odd case has the peculiarity that the electric fields mix with the magnetic fields. Therefore obtaining an equation for the electric field from Maxwell’s equations is more involved here. Nevertheless it can be accomplished along the following chain of steps:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{0}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})-\omega\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\mathbf{B}\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{0}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})-\omega(\mathbf{D}-\mathbf{E})\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{0}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})+\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{H}+\omega\mathbf{E}\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{0}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})+\mathbf{k}\times (\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{B})+\omega\mathbf{E}\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{0}&=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})+\mathbf{k}\times (\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\mathbf{E})+\frac{1}{\omega}\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})+\omega\mathbf{E}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Inserting the explicit vectors and a subsequent multiplication with $\omega$ leads to the following system in matrix form:
\[eq:modified-maxwell-equations-parity-odd\] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}&=(A+B)\begin{pmatrix}
E^1 \\
E^2 \\
E^3 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
A&=\begin{pmatrix}
\omega^2-(k_2^2+k_3^2) & k_1k_2 & k_1k_3 \\
k_1k_2 & \omega^2-(k_1^2+k_3^2) & k_2k_3 \\
k_1k_3 & k_2k_3 & \omega^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2) \\
\end{pmatrix}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
B&=\omega\begin{pmatrix}
-2(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}k_2+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}k_3) & \widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}k_1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}k_2 & \widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}k_1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}k_3 \\
\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}k_1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}k_2 & -2(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}k_1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}k_3) & \widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}k_2+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}k_3 \\
\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}k_1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}k_3 & \widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12}k_2+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}k_3 & -2(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23}k_1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31}k_2) \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The total system can be completely decomposed into the standard part of $A$ and a Lorentz-violating contribution comprised in $B$. Note that here $B$ gets a global minus sign when lowering the indices of the $\mathbf{k}$ components. Therefore the determinant condition results in the following equation for the photon energy: $$\label{eq:dispersion-relation-parity-odd}
\omega^2(\omega^2-2\omega\,\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}^2)\left[(\omega-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{k})^2-(1+\boldsymbol{\zeta}^2)\mathbf{k}^2\right]=0\,.$$ Here $\boldsymbol{\zeta}\equiv (\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23},\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31},\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12})^T$ is the spatial part of the second preferred spacetime direction and $\mathbf{k}$ is understood to have lower components. The second and the third of the three factors can be solved for the energy giving two distinct dispersion relations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-parity-odd-1}
\omega_1&=\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{k}+\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^2+(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{k})^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-parity-odd-2}
\omega_2&=\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{k}+\sqrt{1+\boldsymbol{\zeta}^2}|\mathbf{k}|\,, \\[2ex]
\cos\vartheta&=\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{k}}\,,\quad \widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\equiv \frac{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}{\mathcal{E}}\,,\quad \widehat{\mathbf{k}}\equiv \frac{\mathbf{k}}{|\mathbf{k}|}\,,\quad \mathcal{E}\equiv |\boldsymbol{\zeta}|=\sqrt{(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{23})^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{31})^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{12})^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For convenience it is again reasonable to set up the coordinate system such that $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ points along its third axis where $\vartheta$ is the angle between the wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ and the spatial direction. Dividing the first factor of by $\mathbf{k}^2$ then leads to $$v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2-2\mathcal{E}v_{\mathrm{ph}}\cos\vartheta-1=0\,.$$ Introducing spherical polar coordinates with $v_{\mathrm{ph}}=|\mathbf{u}|$ results in $$\mathbf{u}^2-2\mathcal{E}u^3-1=0\,.$$ This is the indicatrix for the first Finsler space that can be associated to the parity-odd case. We can employ Okubo’s technique to obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
0&=\mathbf{u}^2-2\mathcal{E}F(\mathbf{u})u^3-F(\mathbf{u})^2\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:finsler-structure-parity-odd-1a}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm}&=-\mathcal{E}u^3\pm \sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2+(\mathcal{E}u^3)^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:finsler-structure-parity-odd-1b}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(1)\pm}&=-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u}\pm \sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2+(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u})^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
where is the generalization of for $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ pointing along an arbitrary direction and the symbol $\otimes$ denotes “parity-odd.” Without loss of generality the properties of the Finsler structure can be investigated with $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ pointing along the third axis of the coordinate system, which simplifies the calculations. The derived metric is again lengthy and does not seem to provide any deeper understanding. The derived metric contracted with the spatial velocity components leads to the square of : $$g^{(1)\pm}_{\otimes,ij}u^iu^j=(F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm})^2\,,\quad g^{(1)\pm}_{\otimes,ij}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2(F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm})^2}{\partial u^i\partial u^j}\,.$$ Therefore the following properties of $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm}$ in can be deduced:
- $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)+}>0$ for $\mathbf{u}\in TM\setminus \{0\}$,
- $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm}\in C^{\infty}$ for $\mathbf{u}\in TM\setminus \{0\}$,
- $F(\lambda\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm}=\lambda F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm}$ for $\lambda>0$, and
- the derived metric of $F(\lambda\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)\pm}$ is positive definite for $\mathbf{u}\in TM\setminus \{0\}$.
Due to the first item, only $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)+}$ is a Finsler structure. Its Matsumoto torsion vanishes, whereas the Cartan torsion does not. Furthermore when taking into account its form, $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(1)+}$ must be a Randers structure. This particular type of geometry was introduced by Randers to account for the fact that particles always move on timelike trajectories pointing forwards in time [@Randers:1941]. In contrast to General Relativity his framework incorporates an additional four-vector into the metric. However this four-vector should not be considered as a preferred spacetime direction, since it can be changed by a kind of gauge transformation without affecting the arc length travelled by a particle. In the Lorentz-violating case considered here $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ is a preferred direction, indeed.
The parity-odd framework is characterized by both a preferred timelike and a spacelike direction, cf. . For the isotropic and anisotropic cases, which are parity-even, the corresponding Finsler structures are expected to involve only bilinear expressions such as $a_{ij}u^iu^j$, since these are invariant under $u^i\mapsto u'^i=-u^i$. Due to parity violation the Finsler structure of the parity-odd case is expected to involve terms such as $b_iu^i$, though. The Randers structure is a very natural possibility with this property, but it is not the only one as we shall see below.
The Finsler structure of has the same form as the corresponding dispersion relation of not taking into account additional minus signs. Such structures could be called “automorphic.” They seem to appear when the dispersion equation (here ) involves one additional parity-odd contribution.
The parity-odd case of modified Maxwell theory has a second indicatrix, which follows from the second factor of using the same procedure:
$$\begin{aligned}
v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2-2\mathcal{E}v_{\mathrm{ph}}\cos\vartheta+\mathcal{E}^2\cos^2\vartheta-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)&=0\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{u}^2-2\mathcal{E}u^3+\frac{\mathcal{E}^2(u^3)^2}{\mathbf{u}^2}-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)&=0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Okubo’s technique leads to
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:finsler-structure-parity-odd-2a}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(2)\pm}&=\frac{-\mathcal{E}u^3\pm \sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}|\mathbf{u}|}{1+\mathcal{E}^2-(\mathcal{E}u^3)^2/\mathbf{u}^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:finsler-structure-parity-odd-2b}
F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(2)\boldsymbol{\zeta}\pm}&=\frac{-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u}\pm \sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}|\mathbf{u}|}{1+\mathcal{E}^2-(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u})^2/\mathbf{u}^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Let us investigate the characteristics of . We again obtain $$g^{(2)\pm}_{\otimes,ij}u^iu^j=(F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(2)\pm})^2\,,\quad g^{(2)\pm}_{\otimes,ij}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2(F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(2)\pm})^2}{\partial u^i\partial u^j}\,.$$ Hence for $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{(2)+}$ analogue properties hold such as for , which makes it to a Finsler structure. Note that the latter is not automorphic, since its off-shell dispersion relation in does not exclusively involve additional parity-odd terms, but also contributions like $(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \mathbf{k})^2$. For this structure the Matsumoto torsion does not vanish, which is why it is neither a Randers nor a Kropina structure. The deviation from a Randers structure is of second order in the controlling coefficients: $$F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(2)\pm}=-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u}\pm \sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}|\mathbf{u}|+\mathcal{O}(\widetilde{\kappa}_{o+}^2)\,.$$ Recall that the massive-photon dispersion equation of this mode, , was not quadratic, but quartic. For this reason it was challenging to derive a classical point-particle Lagrange function corresponding to the second photon polarization. It is also interesting to note that a large number of complications arise in the quantum field theory based on the parity-odd framework due to the behavior of this mode [@Schreck:2011ai]. On the contrary the first mode is much easier to handle. The Finsler structures obtained seem to reflect these properties. The first, given by , is a well-understood Randers structure, whereas the second deviates from such a structure at second order in Lorentz violation, which makes its properties much more involved to analyze.
The studies carried out in the current section will prove to be useful when describing photons in the geometric-optics approximation. Thereby the eikonal equation will play an important role. How all these concepts are linked to each other will be clarified in the forthcoming part of the article.
Classical ray equations {#sec:classical-equations-of-motion}
=======================
Propagating electromagnetic waves can be treated in the geometric-optics approximation as long as their wave lengths can be neglected in comparison to other physical length scales. For example this is possible for waves with low energies propagating over large distances when physical phenomena related to the wave character (such as diffraction) do not play a role. This physical regime could be called “classical” and the wave then corresponds to a geometric ray. The goal of the current section is to establish *ray equations* that describe the physical behavior of propagating rays.
Each electromagnetic pulse has a wavefront, which separates the region with nonzero electromagnetic fields from the region with vanishing fields. At any instant of time the wavefront can be considered as a two-dimensional surface in three-dimensional space, i.e., it can be described by an equation of the form $\psi(\mathbf{x})=t$ where $\mathbf{x}$ are spatial coordinates and $t$ is the time. The gradient $\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi$ points along the propagation direction and it is perpendicular to the surface. There is a relation between $\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi$ and the refractive index $n$ of the medium; it reads as $|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|=n$. The latter is called the *eikonal equation* in a subset of the literature. In what follows, $n$ is assumed to depend on the position $\mathbf{x}$ only, but not on the velocity $\mathbf{u}$, i.e., $n=n(\mathbf{x})$.
Consider a wave propagating along a trajectory $\mathbf{x}(s)$ where $s$ is the arc length of the curve. In this parameterization the tangent vector has magnitude 1, which is why the ray equations read as follows: $$\label{eq:equations-of-motion-light}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi}{|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|}\,,\quad n\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}=\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\,.$$ Computing an additional derivative of the latter with respect to $s$, its right-hand side can be expressed in terms of the refractive index as well: $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}\cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\right)\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi=\frac{1}{n}\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi \cdot [\boldsymbol{\nabla}(\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi)]=\frac{1}{2n}\boldsymbol{\nabla}(\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi)^2=\frac{1}{2n}\boldsymbol{\nabla}n^2=\boldsymbol{\nabla}n\,.$$ Trajectories may not necessarily be parameterized by arc length. For an arbitrary parameterization with parameter $t$ we obtain $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}=\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}s}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)^{-1}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{1}{|\mathbf{u}|}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\,.$$ Now the ray equations (\[eq:equations-of-motion-light\]) can be cast into the following final form:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eikonal-equation-1}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(n\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}\right)&=\boldsymbol{\nabla}n\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:equations-of-motion-light-final}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}(\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi)&=|\mathbf{u}|\boldsymbol{\nabla}n\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi=n\frac{\mathbf{u}}{|\mathbf{u}|}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The literature seems to be discordant about which equation should actually be called the eikonal equation. Some sources call the first one of the eikonal equation, whereas others denote it as the vector magnitude of the second one. Note that the latter leads us back to $|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|=n$ (cf. the beginning of this section). In the current paper whenever referring to the eikonal equation, we will be talking about the first one of . For clarity, the vector magnitude of the second one will be called the *wavefront equation*. Equation (\[eq:equations-of-motion-light-final\]) can be understood as the Euler-Lagrange equations resulting from the condition that the following functional becomes stationary: $$\label{eq:action-photon-trajectory}
L[\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u}]=\int_A^B \mathrm{d}s\,n(\mathbf{x})=\int_{T_A}^{T_B} \mathrm{d}t\,V\,,\quad V=V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})=n(\mathbf{x})|\mathbf{u}|\,.$$ The integrand of this functional is the infinitesimal optical path length and the functional itself gives the total optical path length travelled by a ray along its trajectory between two points $A$ and $B$. Here $T_A$ is the departure time of the ray at $A$ and $T_B$ the arrival time at $B$. The optical path length is defined to be the path length equivalent that light has to travel in vacuum to take the same time as for a given path in a medium with refractive index $n(\mathbf{x})$. The quantity $V$ could be interpreted as the corresponding “optical velocity.” The functional of can be understood as the base of the Fermat principle, cf. [@Perlick:2005hz; @Torrome:2012kt].
Wavefront and eikonal equation in modified Maxwell theory
---------------------------------------------------------
The analogue of the wavefront equation in in the context of modified Maxwell theory was partially studied in [@Xiao:2010yx]. The authors of the latter reference chose the coefficients contained in $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}$ and $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}$ as nonvanishing where both the trace of these matrices and the matrices mixing electric and magnetic fields were assumed to be zero. The trace components can be restored without any effort by just replacing their $\beta_E$ by $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}$ and their $\beta_B$ by $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}$. The wavefront equation then follows from the matrix $M_e$ in their Eq. (38): $$M_e^{ij}=\left(1-|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2\right)\delta^{ij}+\partial^i\psi\partial^j\psi+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DE}}^{ij}-\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{HB}}^{kl}\varepsilon^{ink}\varepsilon^{jml}\partial^n\psi\partial^m\psi\,,$$ where $\varepsilon^{ijk}$ is the totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol in three dimensions with $\varepsilon^{123}=1$. This matrix is multiplied with the time derivatives of the fields, which are singular on the wavefront. Therefore their Eq. (33) can only have nontrivial solutions if the determinant of $M_e$ vanishes. This condition directly leads to the wavefront equation within the framework considered. For the isotropic case (cf. ), the anisotropic, nonbirefringent case (cf. ), and the anisotropic, birefringent sector (cf. ) we obtain
\[eq:eikonal-equations-isotropic-and-anisotropic\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eikonal-equations-isotropic}
1&=\mathcal{A}^2|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:eikonal-equations-anisotropic}
1&=(\partial^1\psi)^2+(\partial^2\psi)^2+\mathcal{B}^2(\partial^3\psi)^2\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:eikonal-equations-anisotropic-birefringent-2}
1-\mathcal{G}^2&=|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2+\mathcal{G}\left\{(\partial^1\psi)^2[1-\cos(2\eta)]-(\partial^3\psi)^2[1+\cos(2\eta)]\right\} \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}}-\mathcal{G}^2\left\{(\partial^2\psi)^2+[(\partial^1\psi)^2-(\partial^3\psi)^2]\cos(2\eta)\right\}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:eikonal-equations-anisotropic-birefringent-1}
1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)&=|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2+\mathcal{G}\left\{(\partial^1\psi)^2+(\partial^2\psi)^2\cos(2\eta)-(\partial^3\psi)^2\right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$
These are the analogues of the wavefront equation $|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2=n^2$ in modified Maxwell theory. Following the lines in connection to classical Hamilton functions can be obtained as parts of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation describing a classical ray. For the sectors considered few lines above they read as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
H|_{\circledcirc}&=-\mathcal{A}\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^2}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
H|_{\varobar}&=-\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2+\mathcal{B}^2k_3^2}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\sqrt{1-\mathcal{G}^2}H|_{\varovee}^{(1)}&=-\Big\{\mathbf{k}^2+\mathcal{G}\left\{k_1^2[1-\cos(2\eta)]-k_3^2[1+\cos(2\eta)]\right\}\Big. \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}-\Big(}\Big.-\mathcal{G}^2\left[k_2^2+(k_1^2-k_3^2)\cos(2\eta)\right]\!\Big\}^{1/2}\,, \notag \\
H|_{\varovee}^{(1)}&=-\sqrt{\mathcal{G}_1k_1^2+k_2^2+\mathcal{G}_2k_3^2}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\sqrt{1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)}H|_{\varovee}^{(2)}&=-\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^2+\mathcal{G}\left[k_1^2+k_2^2\cos(2\eta)-k_3^2\right]}\,, \notag \\
H|_{\varovee}^{(2)}&=-\sqrt{\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_1k_1^2+k_2^2+\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_2k_3^2}\,,\end{aligned}$$
with $\mathcal{G}_1$, $\mathcal{G}_2$ of and $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_1$, $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_2$ taken from . These Hamilton functions are directly linked to the modified dispersion relations, cf. the paragraph below for the isotropic case, for the anisotropic (nonbirefringent) sector, and for the anisotropic (birefringent) case. This nicely demonstrates that all computations are consistent with each other.
The wavefront equations (\[eq:eikonal-equations-isotropic-and-anisotropic\]) are not suitable for our calculations, since they involve first derivatives of the wavefront that are unclear how to be treated. Having the eikonal equations involving the refractive indices and velocity components only would be of advantage. As a cross check with the previously obtained results the refractive indices can be derived from . For the isotropic case, using the second of we obtain $|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2=n^2$, which by inserting into directly leads to the isotropic result $n|_{\circledcirc}=1/\mathcal{A}$. In of the anisotropic (nonbirefringent) sector we can introduce $$(\partial^1\psi)^2+(\partial^2\psi)^2=n^2\sin^2\vartheta\,,\quad\partial^3\psi=n\cos\vartheta\,,$$ leading to $n|_{\varobar}=1/\sqrt{\sin^2\vartheta+\mathcal{B}^2\cos^2\vartheta}$. The latter depends on the angle $\vartheta$ between the propagation direction and the preferred direction $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$. For the anisotropic (birefringent) sector we insert $$\partial^1\psi=n\frac{\cos\theta_1-\cos\theta_2}{2\sin\eta}\,,\quad \partial^3\psi=n\frac{\cos\theta_1+\cos\theta_2}{2\cos\eta}\,,\quad \partial^2\psi=\sqrt{n^2-(\partial^1\psi)^2-(\partial^3\psi)^3}\,,$$ both in and to obtain two refractive indices differing at second order in Lorentz violation:
$$\begin{aligned}
n|_{\varovee}^{(1)}&=\sqrt{\frac{1-\mathcal{G}^2}{1+\mathcal{G}\left\{(\mathcal{G}/2)\left[\cos(2\theta_1)+\cos(2\theta_2)\right]-2\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2\right\}}}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
n|_{\varovee}^{(2)}&=\sqrt{\frac{1+\mathcal{G}\cos(2\eta)}{1+\mathcal{G}[\cos(2\eta)-2\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2]}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Based on these refractive indices the integrands of the action functional in can be computed. The results are consistent with Eqs. (\[eq:finsler-structure-isotropic\]), (\[eq:finsler-structure-anisotropic\]):
$$\begin{aligned}
V(\mathbf{u})|_{\circledcirc}&=n|_{\circledcirc}|\mathbf{u}|=\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}=F(\mathbf{u})|_{\circledcirc}^+\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
V(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}&=n|_{\varobar}|\mathbf{u}|=\frac{\sqrt{(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+(u^3)^2}}{\sqrt{\sin^2\vartheta+\mathcal{B}^2\cos^2\vartheta}}=\frac{(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+(u^3)^2}{\sqrt{(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+\mathcal{B}^2(u^3)^2}} \notag \\
&=F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varobar}^+\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
V(\mathbf{u})|_{\varovee}^{(1)}&=n|_{\varovee}^{(1)}|\mathbf{u}|=F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varovee}^{(1)+}\,,\quad V(\mathbf{u})|_{\varovee}^{(2)}=n|_{\varovee}^{(2)}|\mathbf{u}|=F(\mathbf{u})|_{\varovee}^{(2)+}\,,\end{aligned}$$
where for the latter two has to be employed. The refractive indices obtained from the wavefront equations correspond to the refractive indices computed directly from their definitions via the inverse phase velocity: $n\equiv v_{\mathrm{ph}}^{-1}=|\mathbf{k}|/\omega$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:refraction-index-isotropic}
n|_{\circledcirc}&=v_{\mathrm{ph}}|_{\circledcirc}^{-1}=\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{\omega|_{\circledcirc}}=\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:refraction-index-anisotropic}
n|_{\varobar}&=v_{\mathrm{ph}}|_{\varobar}^{-1}=\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{\omega|_{\varobar}}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf{k}^2}{k_{\bot}^2+\mathcal{B}^2k_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\|$}}^2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sin^2\vartheta+\mathcal{B}^2\cos^2\vartheta}}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:refraction-index-anisotropic-birefringent}
n|_{\varovee}^{(1)}&=(v_{\mathrm{ph}}|_{\varovee}^{(1)})^{-1}=\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{\omega_1|_{\varovee}}\,,\quad n|_{\varovee}^{(2)}=(v_{\mathrm{ph}}|_{\varovee}^{(2)})^{-1}=\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{\omega_2|_{\varovee}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
These previously performed studies do not reveal any inconsistencies. The essential conclusion is that it should be warranted to describe the isotropic, anisotropic (nonbirefringent), and anisotropic (birefringent) sectors of modified Maxwell theory (in the geometric-optics approximation) with an adapted version of the eikonal equation, .
Last but not least the parity-odd sector of shall be elaborated on. The wavefront equations for the parity-odd case were not derived in [@Xiao:2010yx], since in the latter reference all controlling coefficients mixing electric and magnetic fields were set to zero. Adapting the procedure used allows to derive them nevertheless. The authors of [@Xiao:2010yx] consider the values of the fields directly on the wavefront, e.g., for the electric field: $\mathbf{E}_0(\mathbf{x})=\mathbf{E}(t,\mathbf{x})|_{t=\psi(\mathbf{x})}$. In what follows, all fields evaluated on the wavefront will be denoted by an additional “0” as an index. The spatial derivative on the wavefront is then given by: $$\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}_0}{\partial x^j}=\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial x^j}+\dot{\mathbf{E}}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x^j}\,.$$ Based on this procedure, from Maxwell’s equations four equations can be derived that involve field components on the wavefront and field derivatives only:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0&=-\dot{\mathbf{B}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi \times \dot{\mathbf{E}}\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{H}_0=\dot{\mathbf{D}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{H}}\,, \\[2ex]
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot \mathbf{D}_0&=\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\cdot \dot{\mathbf{D}}\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot \mathbf{B}_0=\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\cdot \dot{\mathbf{B}}\,, \\[2ex]
\mathbf{D}&=\mathbf{E}+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\mathbf{B}\,,\quad \mathbf{H}=\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{B}\,.\end{aligned}$$
These must be combined to obtain an equation that involves the time derivatives of only a single field, e.g., the electric field and field values on the wavefront that may not necessarily include only a single field. This can be carried out via the following chain of steps:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0&=-\dot{\mathbf{H}}+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi \times \dot{\mathbf{E}}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi \times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0)&=-\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{H}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi \times \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times(\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{E}})\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0)&=\dot{\mathbf{D}}-\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{H}_0+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{E}})\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0)&=\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\dot{\mathbf{B}}-\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{H}_0+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{E}})\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0)&=\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}(\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{E}}-\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0)-\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{H}_0 \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{E}})\,.\end{aligned}$$
The resulting equation then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{E}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi \times \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\dot{\mathbf{E}}+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times \dot{\mathbf{E}})&=\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi\times (\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0)+\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{H}_0 \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}}+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle{DB}}\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times \mathbf{E}_0\,.\end{aligned}$$ The condition for a vanishing determinant of the matrix on the left-hand side for the existence of nontrivial solutions leads to the wavefront equation for the parity-odd case. For consistency we pull the index of $\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi$ down: $$\label{eq:eikonal-equation-parity-odd}
\left(1-2\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi-|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2\right)\left[1-(1+\boldsymbol{\zeta}^2)|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2-2(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi)+(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi)^2\right]=0\,.$$ Inserting the second of in the first factor of results in $$1-2\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi-|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\psi|^2=1-2n\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{u}}-n^2 \overset{!}{=} 0\,.$$ The latter can be solved with respect to the refractive index $n$ to give $$\label{eq:refraction-index-parity-odd-1}
n|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(1)}=-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{u}}+\sqrt{1+(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{u}})^2}=-\mathcal{E}\cos\vartheta+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2\cos^2\vartheta}\,,$$ where only the positive-sign solution delivers a physically meaningful refractive index. Hence the result obtained from the eikonal equation is consistent with , which can be seen upon close inspection: $$V(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(1)}=n|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(1)}|\mathbf{u}|=-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u}+\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2+(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u})^2}=F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(1)+}\,.$$ The same procedure applied to the second factor of leads to: $$1-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)n^2-2n(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{u}})+n^2(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{u}})^2=0\,.$$ Therefore the refractive index reads $$\label{eq:refraction-index-parity-odd-2}
n|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(2)}=\frac{-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{u}}+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}}{1+\mathcal{E}^2-(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\widehat{\mathbf{u}})^2}=\frac{-\mathcal{E}\cos\vartheta+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}}{1+\mathcal{E}^2\sin^2\vartheta}\,,$$ which is consistent with $$V(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(2)}=n|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(2)}|\mathbf{u}|=\frac{-\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u}+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}|\mathbf{u}|}{1+\mathcal{E}^2-(\boldsymbol{\zeta}\cdot\mathbf{u})^2/\mathbf{u}^2}=F(\mathbf{u})|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(2)+}\,.$$ The refractive indices obtained from the wavefront equations for the isotropic and anisotropic cases, Eqs. (\[eq:eikonal-equations-isotropic\]) – (\[eq:eikonal-equations-anisotropic-birefringent-1\]), respectively, are consistent with the usual definition of the refractive index via the inverse phase velocity (cf. Eqs (\[eq:refraction-index-isotropic\]) – (\[eq:refraction-index-anisotropic-birefringent\]). However this does not seem to be the case for the parity-odd sector. Inspecting Eqs. (\[eq:dispersion-relation-parity-odd-1\]), (\[eq:dispersion-relation-parity-odd-2\]) and the latter results for the refractive indices of Eqs. (\[eq:refraction-index-parity-odd-1\]), (\[eq:refraction-index-parity-odd-2\]) reveals the inconsistency:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{\omega_1|_{\otimes}}&=\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}\cos\vartheta+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2\cos^2\vartheta}}\neq n|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(1)}\,, \\[2ex]
\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{\omega_2|_{\otimes}}&=\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}\cos\vartheta+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}}\neq n|_{\otimes}^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}(2)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The definition of the refractive index via the inverse of the phase velocity rests on the existence of a nonzero permeability and permittivity. However for the parity-odd case they both vanish and the electric fields even mix with the magnetic fields, which is why the ordinary definition of the refractive index does not seem to be reasonable. A further origin of the issue may be that Okubo’s method does not produce Finsler structures in a unique manner. We conclude that it may be problematic to treat the parity-odd case of modified Maxwell theory with the eikonal equation. Finding a solution to this clash is an interesting open problem.
Gravitational backgrounds {#sec:gravitational-backgrounds}
=========================
The physics for a classical point-particle equivalent to a massive fermion rests on its Lagrangian. The procedure of deriving those within the framework of the SME works for massive particles only where in the limit of a vanishing particle mass the Lagrangian goes to zero. So far we have demonstrated that the important quantity to describe the physics of electromagnetic waves in the geometric-optics approximation is the refractive index. The reason is that the motion of photons is much more restricted than the motion of a massive particle. After all, for a particle with mass moving in a potential the initial position, direction, and velocity can be chosen freely. On the contrary, for a photon the initial position and direction only are not fixed, whereas its initial speed is determined by the refractive index at its starting point.
In the previous sections it was shown how to establish connections between various cases of the minimal SME photon sector and certain Finsler geometries. The Finsler geometries found were discovered to be closely related to the various refractive indices where only for the parity-odd case of the [*CPT*]{}-even sector such a connection is not manifest. The refractive indices found are independent of the spacetime position such as the controlling coefficients, which corresponds to the analogue of a homogeneous medium in optics. However the refractive index can depend on the three spatial velocity components. In other words, in such cases the refractive index depends on angles enclosed between the propagation direction and preferred directions. This situation is reminiscent of anisotropic media in optics. Hence Finsler structures related to the [*CPT*]{}-even photon sector are three-dimensional in contrast to the Finsler structures obtained from Wick-rotating classical Lagrangians of massive particles. Besides, note that in the photon case no Wick rotation is necessary, since the intrinsic metric involved is already of Euclidean signature.
These results shall serve as a base to study light rays in the geometric-optics approximation in the presence of Lorentz violation. As we saw, for most cases these can be described by the eikonal equation, cf. : $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left[n\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}\right]=\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}n\,,$$ where $n$ is the refractive index of the medium considered. On the right-hand side the gradient is understood to be computed with respect to the position vector $\mathbf{x}$. The photon trajectory is given by $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{x}(s)$ and it is parameterized by the arc length $s$. For an isotropic and homogeneous medium the refractive index is a mere constant. In this case one immediately sees that the resulting ray equation is $$\label{eq:eikonal-equation-homogeneous-medium}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s^2}=\mathbf{0}\,,$$ whose solution is a straight line as expected. For homogeneous, but anisotropic media the refractive index depends on at least one angle, $n=n(\vartheta)$, where further angles are suppressed for brevity. For a straight ray trajectory the angle $\vartheta$ is fixed by the initial direction and it does not change during propagation, i.e., it is not a function of $s$. Furthermore due to homogeneity the refractive index does not change along the trajectory as well, which is why $\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}n(\vartheta)=0$ for points on the trajectory. Therefore in this case we again end up with . For inhomogeneous media with $n=n(\mathbf{x})$ the eikonal equation cannot have straight-line solutions, though.
In what follows the formalism and knowledge attained shall be applied to propagating light rays in curved spacetimes with metric $g_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}(x)$. The trajectory of a ray in a spacetime is described by a four-vector $x^{\mu}=x^{\mu}(s)$ and it propagates with the four-velocity $u^{\mu}\equiv \mathrm{d}x^{\mu}/\mathrm{d}s$. Propagation occurs along geodesics combined with the nullcone condition $g_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}=0$ that has to hold locally at each spacetime point. For practical reasons, which will become clear in the course of the current section, all forthcoming investigations will be performed in a spacetime characterized by a line interval of the form $$\label{eq:line-interval}
\mathrm{d}\tau^2=\frac{1}{A(r,\theta,\phi)}\mathrm{d}t^2-A(r,\theta,\phi)(\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\mathrm{d}\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta\mathrm{d}\phi^2)\,.$$ Here $t$ is the time, $(r,\theta,\phi)$ are spherical coordinates, and $A$ is a time-independent function. Such metrics were proposed in [@Wu:1988] and they are denoted as “generally isotropic” where metrics with $A=A(r)$ are called “spherically symmetric.” The parentheses in the spatial part of give the volume element of a three-dimensional ball and it is multiplied by $A(r,\theta,\phi)$. The choice $A(r,\theta,\phi)=1$ in describes Minkowski spacetime in three-dimensional spherical coordinates. In this case the spatial coordinate surfaces with constant $r$ are two-spheres. For arbitrary $A(r,\theta,\phi)$ these surfaces are still two-spheres topologically, but their local geometry depends on $r$, $\theta$, and $\phi$. Note that the metric describing a weak gravitational field can be brought into the generally isotropic form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:metric-weak-gravitational-field}
(g_{\mu\nu})&=\mathrm{diag}\Big((1+2\Phi),-(1-2\Phi),-(1-2\Phi),-(1-2\Phi)\Big) \notag \\
&=\mathrm{diag}\Big(\frac{1}{1-2\Phi},-(1-2\Phi),-(1-2\Phi),-(1-2\Phi)\Big)+\mathcal{O}(\Phi^2)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Phi=\Phi(r)=-GM/r\ll 1$ is the Newtonian potential.
In the latter paper [@Wu:1988] it was shown that there is a link between the eikonal equation of the geometric-optics approximation and the null geodesic equations of a spacetime based on a line interval of . A suitable combination of the geodesic equations leads to $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left[A(r,\theta,\phi)\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}\right]=\boldsymbol{\nabla}A(r,\theta,\phi)\,,$$ i.e., $A(r,\theta,\phi)$ of can be understood as an inhomogeneous and anisotropic refractive index. Therefore as long as weak gravitational fields are considered, light behaves according to the geometric-optics approximation. The approximation is expected to break down as soon as strong gravitational forces appear such as in the direct vicinity of a black hole. In this case the original geodesic equations have to be studied instead of the eikonal approach. Note that the converse is true as well. If the eikonal equation is known to be valid (also in flat spacetime) this corresponds to a propagating ray in a generally isotropic spacetime of .
Isotropic case {#sec:gravitational-backgrounds-isotropic-case}
--------------
The eikonal approach has a great potential to be applied to the propagation of light rays in a weak gravitational field permeated by a Lorentz-violating background field. It is reasonable to start with the simplest case, which is the isotropic one investigated in . With the constant refractive index $n=1/\mathcal{A}$ (in Minkowski spacetime) given by or the eikonal equation and the corresponding spacetime, , read as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:line-interval-isotropic-case}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left[\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}\right]&=\boldsymbol{\nabla}\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}\right)\,, \\[2ex]
\mathrm{d}\tau^2&=\mathcal{A}\mathrm{d}t^2-\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}(\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\mathrm{d}\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta\mathrm{d}\phi^2)\,.\end{aligned}$$
The coordinate surfaces of the associated spacetime are spheres whose radii are scaled by $1/\sqrt{\mathcal{A}}$. This intermediate result can now be used to introduce a gravitational background. Via the principle of minimal coupling the flat Minkowski metric is replaced by a curved spacetime metric, $\eta_{\mu\nu}\mapsto g_{\mu\nu}(x)$, and the constant refractive index $n$ is promoted to a spacetime-position dependent function: $n\mapsto n(r,\theta,\phi)$. The curved spacetime metric is taken to be for a weak gravitational field. Since the latter is spherically symmetric, it is reasonable to assume spherical symmetry for the position-dependent refractive index, i.e., $n(r)=1/\mathcal{A}(r)$. The corresponding eikonal equation and the line interval then read as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:refractive-index-isotropic-gravitational}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left[n(r)\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}s}\right]&=\boldsymbol{\nabla}n(r)\,,\quad n(r)\equiv \frac{1-2\Phi(r)}{\mathcal{A}(r)}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:spherical-metric-isotropic-modmax}
\mathrm{d}\tau^2&=\frac{1}{n(r)}\mathrm{d}t^2-n(r)(\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\mathrm{d}\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta\mathrm{d}\phi^2)\,.\end{aligned}$$
![Deflection of light near a massive body, e.g., the planet Jupiter. (The picture of Jupiter was taken by the Cassini spacecraft, cf. <http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter>.)[]{data-label="fig:light-deflection"}](deflection-angle.pdf)
Hence the minimal-coupling principle amounts to a refractive index that is the product of a spatial component of the weak gravitational field metric and the spacetime-position dependent refractive index $1/\mathcal{A}(r)$ associated to the isotropic Lorentz-violating framework considered.
The approach introduced has a paramount advantage. The physics of a Lorentz-violating photon in a (weak) gravity field can be studied without field theory and the geodesic equations in a curved spacetime. Instead, a classical method is used replacing photons by light rays and working in the geometric-optics approximation with the eikonal equation. In this context Lorentz symmetry violation is treated as explicit, which is known to clash with the existence of gravitational backgrounds [@Kostelecky:2003fs]. The latter sections \[sec:modified-energy-momentum-conservation\] and \[sec:properties-isotropic-finsler\] will be dedicated to this issue where for now we will delve into phenomenology.
One possible application of the used approach lies in the (modified) deflection of light in the vicinity of a massive body (cf. ), which is an important test of gravitational theories. From a technical point of view the eikonal equation is nonlinear, which makes it challenging to solve analytically in general. However for the isotropic case, i.e., a refractive index only depending on the radial coordinate $r$ the formula of Bouguer follows from the eikonal equation (see, e.g., Sec. 3.2.1 of [@Born:1999]): $$\label{eq:bouguer-formula-nonintegrated}
n(r)r\sin\alpha=C\,.$$ Here $C$ is a constant and $\alpha$ the angle between the tangent vector of the trajectory and the radial vector pointing from the coordinate origin to a particular point on the trajectory. The latter relationship is the equivalent of energy and angular momentum conservation for a massive particle in classical mechanics. Since both the distance $r$ of a particular point from the origin and the angle $\alpha$ associated to this point does not depend on the parameterization of the trajectory, we choose to parameterize it by spherical coordinates. Thereby the problem is restricted to the $x$-$z$-plane with $\theta=\pi/2$. The trajectory then reads $\mathbf{x}=r\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r$ where $r=r(\phi)$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r=\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r(\phi)$ is the unit vector pointing in radial direction. The angle $\alpha$ is given as follows: $$\sin\alpha=\frac{r(\phi)}{\sqrt{r^2(\phi)+\dot{r}^2(\phi)}}\,,\quad \dot{r}\equiv \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\,.$$ Now the formula of Bouguer delivers a differential equation for $\phi(r)$. Its solution is obtained by solving the latter with respect to $\mathrm{d}\phi/\mathrm{d}r$ and by performing a subsequent integration: $$\label{eq:integration-deflection-angle}
\phi(r)=C\int_d^r \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r\sqrt{n(r)^2r^2-C^2}}\,,$$ where $d$ is the distance of minimal proximity and the condition $\phi(d)=0$ has been set. By doing so, solving the eikonal equation has been reduced to computing a one-dimensional integral. Now consider a classical light ray approaching a massive body with impact parameter $d_{\infty}$, which is the distance between the particle propagation direction in the asymptotically flat region and the parallel going through the center of mass of the body (at the coordinate origin). The photon will travel such that its distance to the body steadily decreases until reaching a minimum where it increases again afterwards. At the minimum distance $d$ we have that $\dot{r}=0$ and therefore $\alpha=\pi/2$. The minimum distance corresponds to the impact parameter to a very good approximation: $d\approx d_{\infty}$. This is why immediately tells us that $$C=n(d)d\approx n(d_{\infty})d_{\infty}\,.$$ Without the massive body the change $\Delta\phi$ in the angle would be equal to $\pi$ for a photon coming from an asymptotically flat region, passing near the coordinate origin, and propagating back to infinity. Due to the body there is a deflection, which changes $\Delta\phi$ to an angle that is slightly larger than $\pi$. Performing the integration in from $r=d$ to infinity gives half of this contribution, since it only takes into account the second half of the trajectory. Therefore the deflection angle $\varphi$ is given by $$\label{eq:deflection-angle}
\varphi=\Delta\phi-\pi=2C\int_d^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r\sqrt{n(r)^2r^2-C^2}}-\pi\,.$$ It can be checked that gives $\varphi=0$ for $n(r)=1$ as expected. For a constant refractive index $n$ it holds that $C=nd$. By inspecting it follows immediately that a constant $n$ does not lead to any deflection. This is in contrast to [@Betschart:2008yi] where for certain Lorentz-violating frameworks with [*constant*]{} Lorentz-violating coefficient it was shown that there is a change in the deflection angle caused by Lorentz violation, indeed. However note that in the latter reference a Schwarzschild black hole was considered whose line interval had not been cast into generally isotropic form, cf. . A discussion of this difference leading to more insight into Bouguer’s formula is relegated to , since it is quite technical and probably not of relevance for all readers.
Phenomenology for the isotropic framework
-----------------------------------------
With the technique further developed, we are ready to carry out phenomenological calculations. The goal is to obtain predictions for the change of the light deflection angle caused by particular Lorentz-violating frameworks. These predictions will be compared to experiment to obtain sensitivities on controlling coefficients in the minimal SME photon sector. As the most important example light deflection at the Sun will be discussed first. However light can be deflected at any other massive bodies such as planets.
First of all we intend to recapitulate the standard result. For vanishing Lorentz violation the deflection angle of can be computed analytically. Thereby the integral 2.266 of [@Gradshteyn:2007] is helpful: $$\label{eq:gradshteyn-integral}
\int \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x\sqrt{\alpha+\beta x+\gamma x^2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\alpha}}\arcsin\left(\frac{2\alpha+\beta x}{x\sqrt{\beta^2-4\alpha\gamma}}\right)\,,\quad \alpha<0\,,\quad \beta^2-4\alpha\gamma>0\,.$$ For the Lorentz-invariant case we have $$\alpha=-\frac{d}{R_S}\left(\frac{d}{R_S}+2\right)\,,\quad \beta=2\,,\quad \gamma=1\,,$$ with the Schwarzschild radius $R_S=2GM/c^2$ of the massive body. Here $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ the mass of the body, and $c$ the speed of light. The conditions for $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ stated in are fulfilled and the full analytical result for the deflection angle is given as follows: $$\label{eq:standard-light-deflection}
\varphi=\frac{1+2\xi}{\sqrt{1+4\xi}}\left[\pi+2\arcsin\left(\frac{2\xi}{1+2\xi}\right)\right]-\pi=4\xi+\mathcal{O}(\xi^2)\,,\quad \xi=\frac{R_S}{2d}\,,$$ where the latter is the first-order expansion in the dimensionless parameter $\xi\ll 1$. Now considering a light ray directly passing the surface of the Sun (scraping incidence), $d$ is given by the radius $r_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bigodot}}$ of the Sun. Using the values of and multiplying the previous equation with $180\cdot 60^2/\pi$ leads to the well-known result $\varphi\approx 1.75''$, which lies within few standard deviations from the mean value observed during the total eclipse in 1919 [@Dyson:1919; @Eddington:1923].
[ccc]{} Quantity & Unit & Value\
$G$ & $\mathrm{m^3/(kg\cdot s^2)}$ & $6.67384\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$M_{\astrosun}$ & kg & $1.98910\cdot 10^{30}$\
$M_{\jupiter}$ & kg & $1.89813\cdot 10^{27}$\
$M_{\saturn}$ & kg & $5.68319\cdot 10^{26}$\
$r_{\scriptscriptstyle{\astrosun}}$ & m & $6.95508\cdot 10^8$\
$r_{\scriptscriptstyle{\jupiter}}$ & m & $6.99110\cdot 10^7$\
$r_{\scriptscriptstyle{\saturn}}$ & m & $5.82320\cdot 10^7$\
![Spacetime-position dependent refractive index (and controlling coefficient) as a function of the dimensionless parameter $r/d$ where $d$ corresponds to the Sun radius $r_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bigodot}}$ in this example. (The picture of the Sun was taken by SOHO – EIT Consortium, ESA, NASA, cf. <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/22apr_currentsheet>.)[]{data-label="fig:position-dependent-controlling-coefficient"}](sample-functions-controlling-coefficients.pdf)
Now the refractive index is modified due to Lorentz violation according to . Therefore the isotropic Lorentz-violating coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ is promoted to a spacetime-position dependent function (cf. ). It is assumed to only depend on the radial coordinate $r$ to keep the framework isotropic:$$\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}\mapsto \widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)=\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}\left[1-f(r)\right]\,,$$ with a function $f$ having special properties. The latter shall be constructed such that $1-f\geq 0$ for $r/d\geq 1$. This means that the sign of $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)$ is fixed by the sign of the constant prefactor $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$. Furthermore $\lim_{r\mapsto\infty} \widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)=\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$, whereby in the asymptotically flat region the position-dependent controlling coefficient is identified with the corresponding SME photon coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ in Minkowski spacetime. The refractive index then reads as $$\label{eq:refractive-index-modelling}
n(r)=\sqrt{\frac{1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)}{1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)}}\left(1+\frac{R_S}{r}\right)\,.$$ From the coordinate velocity of light in this framework is given by $$c=\frac{|\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}|}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{1}{n(r)}\,,$$ i.e., for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}>0$ it is reduced in comparison to the Lorentz-invariant case. The position dependence shall reflect the properties of the gravitational background. The curvature radius $R_S$ is the physical scale of the background, i.e., it is reasonable to associate it with $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)$ as well. Note that we are only interested in the behavior of the function outside of the massive body, which means $r\geq d$. Generic functions with these properties are
\[eq:sample-functions\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sample-functions-f}
f(r)&\equiv \left[1+a\left(\frac{r-d}{R_S}\right)^2\right]^{-1}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:sample-functions-g}
g(r)&\equiv \frac{2\arctan\left\{a\left[1-(r-d)^2/R_S^2\right]\right\}+\pi}{2\arctan(a)+\pi}\,,
$$
where $a\leq 1$ is a free, dimensionless parameter. Therefore for these particular sample functions it holds that $f(d)=1$ and $\lim_{r\mapsto\infty} f(r)=0$. Whatever the underlying theory for a possible violation of Lorentz invariance looks like, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of Lorentz violation is influenced by a gravitational background field. Referring to a small-scale structure of spacetime where simple models were shown to produce Lorentz-violating particle dispersion relations [@Klinkhamer:2003ec; @Bernadotte:2006ya] the argument could be along the following lines. A gravitational field has an energy density associated to it, cf. [@Lynden-Bell:1985] for the case of spheres and black holes. Since a spacetime foam is caused by energy fluctuations, an additional contribution of energy density associated to a gravitational field may have some influence on it. This would render the effective controlling coefficients for Lorentz violation spacetime-position dependent. Hence for the isotropic framework considered the refractive index directly at the surface of the Sun may have a dip for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}>0$ or a peak for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}<0$ in its position dependence (cf. ). As long as the underlying description is not available, it is challenging to deliver a more rigorous argumentation. Hence a $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)$ including with the parameter $a$ controlling the width of the dip/peak must be interpreted as a phenomenological description of such effects. Now the modified deflection angle can be calculated in two different ways. The first is to compute the integral according to Bouguer’s formula of . The second is to solve the eikonal equation directly. In the eikonal equation is brought into a form that is suitable for solving it. For a refractive index that has a radial dependence only, results in $$\label{eq:eikonal-equation-isotropic-numerical-basis}
0=(r^2+\dot{r}^2)r\frac{\partial n}{\partial r}+n(r^2+2\dot{r}^2-r\ddot{r})\,.$$ Bouguer’s formula is a first integral of the eikonal equation that follows from angular momentum conservation. Therefore using it allows us to avoid the computation of one integral. Nevertheless as a cross check it is reasonable to carry out the computation with the two techniques. Both the integral of and the eikonal equation are challenging to be solved analytically for a refractive index that is modified by Lorentz violation. Therefore we attempt to treat both cases numerically with `Mathematica`.
To gain some physical understanding, the eikonal equation is solved numerically for hypothetical values of $R_S$ and $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ first. At the distance of minimal proximity $d$ the sample functions of vanish by construction. Therefore $n(d)=1+R_S/d$, which is why $C=n(d)d$ and the impact parameter is given by $$d_{\infty}=\frac{C}{n(r=\infty)}=\sqrt{\frac{1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}}{1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}}}\,(d+R_S)\,.$$ For realistic situations, i.e., light bending at stars the Schwarzschild radius is much smaller than the distance of minimal proximity. Note that for scraping incidence, $d$ corresponds to the radius of the star. Since bounds on the isotropic coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ in flat, asymptotic spacetime are strict, it holds that $d\approx d_{\infty}$ to a good approximation. For the hypothetical values that we choose for illustration purposes this is not necessarily warranted. Taking $d/R_S=5$ and $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}=1/20$ we obtain the results depicted in . The curves show the solutions of the eikonal equation where the refractive index has been modeled according to using the sample function $f(r)$ of for different choices of the parameter $a$. Recall that the latter characterizes the width of the dip/peak in the refractive index directly at the surface of the massive body, which is caused by Lorentz violation. Since for comparison all curves should meet at a single point, the impact parameters $d_{\infty}$ have to be adapted properly, which is why they differ from each other.
The observation is that for increasing $a$ and $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}>0$ the deflection angle is reduced. As long as the light ray is far away from the massive body it experiences a refractive index that increases when the distance to the body decreases. This is the standard behavior of the refractive index whose origin lies in nonvanishing Riemann curvature components. Upon approaching the massive body the light ray suddenly experiences the dip where the refractive index becomes smaller for decreasing distance. The ray then behaves contrary to the standard case and tends to be bent away from the body, which can be clearly seen in . Note that for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}<0$ the dip in the refractive index turns into a peak. Hence the behavior is opposite and the ray is bent towards the body even stronger, cf. .
From a technical point of view to solve the eikonal equation, proper initial conditions have to be considered. Since the ray is assumed to arrive from an asymptotically flat region, the initial angle is $\phi_0=\pi$. In practice an angle lying close to $\pi$ must be chosen where the direction of the ray initially is assumed to point along the positive horizontal axis. We express the solution of the eikonal equation as $r(\phi)=d\xi(\phi)$ with the dimensionless function $\xi(\phi)$. The initial conditions are then fixed to be $\xi(\phi_0)=\Delta$ and $\xi'(\phi_0)=-\cot(\phi_0)\Delta$ where $\phi_0=\pi-\arcsin(d_{\infty}/\Delta)$. Here $\Delta$ is a length scale with the property $\Delta \gg d$, which is tuned to increase the precision of the numerical result. Theoretically $\Delta$ should approach infinity, which is not a possible value to choose in practice, though. Setting the final angle in the numerical integration to $\phi_1\leq 0$ leads to numerical instabilities, which is why $\phi_1$ is taken to be slightly larger than zero. This is supposed to be sufficient for small bending angles that appear in realistic scenarios. It is reasonable to set both the working precision to a large number and the maximum number of steps to infinity.
There are at least two space-based missions available that could test gravity based on light deflection. Two of the most promising ones are GAIA and LATOR. In what follows we will discuss the perspective of these missions in obtaining constraints on Lorentz violation in the (isotropic) photon sector by performing measurements of light deflection at massive bodies. Thereby the theoretical tools developed so far will be of great use.
### Sensitivity of GAIA
GAIA[^2] [@Perryman:2001sp] is a space probe that was launched in December 2013 by ESA. The mission goal is to perform measurements of positions and radial velocities of about 1% of the galactic stellar population, which shall generate a three-dimensional map of our galaxy. This is supposed to give information on the galactic history, dark matter as well as extra-solar planetary systems. GAIA can measure angles with a sensitivity of around , which is why it can test deflection of light at massive bodies to a high precision. However the mission parameters do not allow light to be measured grazing the surface of the Sun. Such measurements will be possible for Jupiter and Saturn only (see Table III in [@Perryman:2001sp]). Now we intend to perform phenomenology of light bending in an isotropic Lorentz-violating framework based on the possibilities of GAIA. Thereby sample functions are taken according to with different values for the parameter $a=1/10^i$ and the range $i=0\dots 15$. Choosing a particular controlling coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$, the deflection angle of light in the vicinity of Jupiter is computed with two methods. The first uses the formula of Bouguer, . The second solves the eikonal equation (\[eq:eikonal-equation-isotropic-numerical-basis\]) numerically in analogy to what was described above. The bending angle is then computed via the scalar product of the initial and final normalized tangent vectors. This gives an excellent cross check for the results, since the two methods are independent from each other.
[cc|c|c]{} & & $f(r)$ & $g(r)$\
$-\log_{10}(a)$ & $-\log_{10}(\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}})$ & $\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}$ \[10arcs\] & $\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}$ \[10arcs\]\
0 & 14 & 1.61 & 1.40\
$1\dots 4$ & 13 & 9.02; 5.07; 2.85; 1.60 & 8.80; 4.97; 2.80; 1.57\
$5\dots 8$ & 12 & 9.02; 5.07; 2.85; 1.60 & 8.84; 4.97; 2.80; 1.57\
$9\dots 12$ & 11 & 9.02; 5.07; 2.84; 1.59 & 8.84; 4.97; 2.79; 1.56\
$13\dots 15$ & 10 & 8.76; 4.67; 2.32 & 8.58; 4.57; 2.26\
The bending angle obtained is then compared to the standard result. This procedure is repeated for a decreasing isotropic coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ until the difference between the modified and the standard result approximately matches the precision that GAIA can measure angles with. This sets the sensitivity of the experiment with respect to $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ in a curved background. However it is challenging to compute the integral or to solve the eikonal equation with a high precision. We use the difference of the results obtained from the two methods as a measure for how meaningful they are. For a conservative estimate of the sensitivity one should keep results only if this theoretical uncertainty is much smaller than the difference between the modified and the standard bending angle.
First of all for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}>0$ the difference between the standard bending angle $\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}^{*}$ and the modified bending angle is positive, which shows that the bending angle is reduced by a positive Lorentz-violating coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ (see the third column of ). For $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}<0$ the behavior is vice versa and the absolute numbers mainly deviate in the third digit, which is why they are omitted in the table. We stated all differences $\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}$ that are larger than and lie in the vicinity of the experimental precision of GAIA, i.e., . Such modifications can be expected to be detectable by this mission. From the results it becomes clear that the sensitivity of the isotropic coefficient reduces when the width of the dip, which is controlled by the parameter $a$, decreases. If the width lies in the order of magnitude of Jupiter’s radius the sensitivity for $|\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}|$ is $10^{-14}$. In case the width lies 15 orders of magnitude below that the sensitivity of $|\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}|$ is still $10^{-10}$. Hence the sensitivity does not decrease as quickly as the parameter $a$. The numbers are meaningful, since the difference of the results obtained with Bouguer’s formula and by solving the eikonal equation directly is around at the maximum. The latter is interpreted as the theoretical uncertainty and it is much smaller than $|\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\jupiter}}|$. Obtaining the modified deflection angles for Saturn works completely analogously. The sensitivity on $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ lies in the same order of magnitude. The only difference is that even smaller $a$ could be probed based on a modeling according to . The reason is that $$\frac{d_{\tiny\saturn}}{R_{S,\tiny\saturn}}\approx 2.78\frac{d_{\tiny\jupiter}}{R_{S,\tiny\jupiter}}\,,$$ whereby the additional dimensionless factor increases the contribution of $a$.
### Sensitivity of LATOR
LATOR (Laser Astrometric Test of Relativity) [@Turyshev:2004ga; @Turyshev:2009zz] is a mission that is being planned by a collaboration of NASA and ESA. It is a Michelson-Morley-type experiment that shall perform curvature measurements in our solar system to determine the Eddington post-Newtonian parameter $\gamma$ with a precision of 1 part in $10^8$. It is considered to be a test mission for General Relativity and it is supposed to detect the frame-dragging effect and to determine the solar quadrupole moment. The primary objective will be to measure the gravitational deflection of light by the Sun to an accuracy of . Such an astounding precision shall be made possible by an improved laser ranging and a long-baseline optical interferometry system.
[cc|c|c]{} & & $f(r)$ & $g(r)$\
$-\log_{10}(a)$ & $-\log_{10}(\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}})$ & $\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}$ \[$10^{-2}$arcs\] & $\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}$ \[$10^{-2}$arcs\]\
0 & 16 & 1.57 & —\
$(0)1\dots 4$ & 15 & 8.84; 4.97; 2.80; 1.57 & 13.6; 8.58; 4.84; 2.72; 1.53\
$5\dots 8$ & 14 & 8.84; 4.97; 2.79; 1.56 & 8.61; 4.84; 2.72; 1.52\
$9\dots 11$ & 13 & 8.57; 4.56; 2.26 & 8.35; 4.43; 2.18\
$12\dots 13$ & 12 & 9.99; 3.91 & 9.49; 3.64\
$14\dots 15$ & 11 & 13.9; 4.64 & 12.7; 4.21\
We carry out phenomenology as we did before by choosing different parameters $a$ for the sample functions of . The calculations are completely analogous to before where the only difference is that they are carried out for the Sun using the appropriate parameters of . The essential numerical results are stated in . The bending angle behaves similarly to before, i.e., it is reduced for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}>0$ and it increases for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}<0$. The differences $\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}$ are listed that lie in the vicinity of the experimental precision expected for LATOR, i.e., . If the width of the dip/peak in the refractive index of the Lorentz-violating vacuum lies in the order of magnitude of Sun’s radius the sensitivity for the isotropic coefficient $|\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}|$ is $10^{-16}$. The lowest sensitivity in case of a very narrow dip/peak is $10^{-11}$. Comparing the results determined from Bouguer’s formula to the results from the numerical solution of the eikonal equation reveals differences of ca. . Therefore the theoretical uncertainty is still much smaller than $|\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}^{*}-\varphi_{\tiny{\astrosun}}|$. Note that for the model function $g(r)$ the modification of the deflection angle for $|\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}|=10^{-16}$ is smaller than $1.50\times 10^{-2}$arcs. Therefore assuming this model function, the sensitivity of LATOR will not be sufficient to detect a $|\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}|$ lying in the order of magnitude of $10^{-16}$.
### Discussion
According to the current (2015) version of the data tables [@Kostelecky:2008ts] the strictest lower bounds on $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ lie in the order of magnitude of $-10^{-16}$ where the best upper bounds are around $10^{-20}$. The isotropic coefficient of modified Maxwell theory is challenging to be constrained in laboratory experiments, which is why these bounds are related to ultra-high energy cosmic rays. With the precision of LATOR there would be a space-based experiment performed under controlled conditions that could have a sensitivity comparable to the best current constraints on a negative $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$. This is astonishing taking into account that the precision of a man-made experiment may match the sensitivity reached by the most energetic particles propagating through interstellar space for distances of many lightyears. It illustrates the versatility of the technique presented to constrain Lorentz violation in the photon sector by precise measurements of light bending at massive bodies. Note that the sensitivity does not largely depend on the model function used. This independence could be checked for further model functions, which can be regarded as an interesting future project.
Anisotropic (nonbirefringent) case {#anisotropic-nonbirefringent-case}
----------------------------------
The anisotropic case of modified Maxwell theory exhibiting a single modified dispersion relation was discussed in . This particular case is characterized by a preferred spacelike direction (chosen to point along the positive $z$-axis) and one controlling coefficient. The refractive index was found in and it was expressed in terms of the angle $\vartheta$ enclosed between the propagation direction and the preferred axis. The possible trajectory of a light ray is parameterized by $\mathbf{r}(\phi)=r(\phi)\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi}$ such as for the isotropic case. The angle $\vartheta$ in the refractive index is then given by the scalar product of the tangent vector $\mathbf{t}$ and the preferred direction $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ where it is sufficient to work in two spatial dimensions: $$\label{eq:anisotropic-angle}
\cos\vartheta=\frac{\mathbf{t}\cdot \boldsymbol{\zeta}}{|\mathbf{t}|}=\frac{r(\phi)\cos\phi+\dot{r}(\phi)\sin\phi}{\sqrt{r(\phi)^2+\dot{r}(\phi)^2}}\,.$$ Note that for the anisotropic case angular momentum is not conserved and Bouguer’s formula loses its meaning. Hence there does not seem to be an alternative to solving the eikonal equation directly, which is carried out numerically for hypothetical values of $R_S$ and the controlling coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}$. The results are shown in . In contrast to the isotropic case, cf. , where the trajectory is not modified for a spacetime position independent $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ this is not the case here. For the anisotropic sector the shape of the trajectory gets distorted where the final impact parameter decreases for $\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}>0$. Physically this means that the ray loses angular momentum. An interesting future research project would be to perform a similar kind of phenomenological analysis as we did for the isotropic case.
![Solution of the eikonal equation in the $x$-$y$-plane (in dimensions of $d$) with $d/R_S=5$. The blue (plain) curve shows the solution for the Lorentz-invariant case, whereas the red (dashed) curve depicts the solution for the anisotropic case with $\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}=0.65$. The massive body resides in the coordinate center.[]{data-label="fig:solution-eikonal-both-standard-and-anisotropic"}](solution-eikonal-angle-dependent-refractive-index.pdf)
Modified energy-momentum conservation {#sec:modified-energy-momentum-conservation}
=====================================
The phenomenology in the previous section was carried out in an explicitly Lorentz-violating framework, which is known to cause tensions in a gravitational background [@Kostelecky:2003fs]. The purpose of the current section is to investigate where exactly these problems occur in our classical description and how they can be interpreted from the point of view of an inhomogeneous medium. Therefore the energy-momentum tensor and its conservation law will be derived for the isotropic case. The (Belinfante-Rosenfeld) energy-momentum tensor follows from varying the corresponding Lagrangian with respect to the metric. The Finsler structure $F(\mathbf{u})|_{\circledcirc}^+$ of is the equivalent to a Lagrangian, since it appears as the integrand of the path length functional that is stationary for the trajectory travelled by the light ray. Instating an auxiliary metric tensor $\psi_{\mu\nu}$ leads to the following result: $$\label{eq:lagrangian-classical-light-ray-isotropic}
F=n|\mathbf{u}|=\sqrt{\frac{1+\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}\,\psi_{\mu\nu}\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}}{1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}\,\psi_{\rho\sigma}\xi^{\rho}\xi^{\sigma}}}\sqrt{-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j}\,.$$ Note that in Minkowski spacetime it holds that $\eta_{\mu\nu}\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}=\xi^2=1$ and $-\eta_{ij}u^iu^j=\mathbf{u}^2$ where the minus sign in the latter term is due to the signature of the metric chosen. Variation has to be carried out for all independent degrees of freedom. A useful formula is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(A_{\mu}A^{\mu})&=\delta(\psi_{\mu\nu}A^{\mu}A^{\nu})=\psi_{\mu\nu}\delta A^{\mu}A^{\nu}+\psi_{\mu\nu}A^{\mu}\delta A^{\nu}+\delta \psi_{\mu\nu} A^{\mu}A^{\nu} \notag \\
&=2A_{\nu}\delta A^{\nu}+\delta \psi_{\mu\nu}A^{\mu}A^{\nu}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which states the variation of a scalar product of fields. Employing this rule, the variation of $F$ can then be computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta F&=(\delta n)\sqrt{-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j}+n\;\!\delta\left(\sqrt{-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j}\right) \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&=\frac{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}}{n(1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}})^2}\delta\left(\psi_{\mu\nu}\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}\right)\sqrt{-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j}+\frac{n}{2\sqrt{-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j}}\delta\left(-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j\right) \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&=\frac{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}}{n(1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}})^2}\sqrt{-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j}\left(2\xi_{\nu}\delta\xi^{\nu}+\delta \psi_{\mu\nu}\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}\right) \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\phantom{{}={}}-\frac{n}{2\sqrt{-\psi_{ij}u^iu^j}}\left(2u_j\delta u^j+\delta \psi_{ij}u^iu^j\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now everything is available to obtain the energy-momentum tensor from $\delta F$ by considering all terms comprising a variation of the metric. An additional prefactor containing the metric has to be taken into account in the definition. However we are interested in the covariant conservation law of $T^{\mu\nu}$ for Minkowski spacetime, i.e., for a spacetime-position dependent refractive index without an additional gravitational field. In this case $\psi_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}$ whereby $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu}&\equiv\left.\frac{2}{\sqrt{|\psi|}}\frac{\delta (\sqrt{|\psi|}F)}{\delta \psi_{\mu\nu}}\right|_{\psi_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}}=\frac{2\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}}{n(1-\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}})^2}\sqrt{u_iu^i}\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}-\frac{n}{\sqrt{u_iu^i}}\widetilde{u}^{\mu}\widetilde{u}^{\nu} \notag \\
&=n\sqrt{u_iu^i}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(n^2-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}-\frac{\widetilde{u}^{\mu}\widetilde{u}^{\nu}}{u_iu^i}\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\psi\equiv\det(\psi_{\mu\nu})$ and $(\widetilde{u}^{\mu})\equiv (0,\mathbf{u})^T$, i.e., $\widetilde{u}^{\mu}$ involves the spatial velocity and its zeroth component vanishes. Upon inspection of the latter result we see that the 00-component of $T^{\mu\nu}$ is made up by the preferred timelike spacetime direction $\xi^{\mu}$ and it vanishes for $n=1$, i.e., in a Lorentz-invariant vacuum. The spatial part solely comprises products of three-velocity components and the mixed components vanish. Now the partial derivative of the energy-momentum tensor in Minkowski spacetime leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:conservation-energy-momentum}
\partial_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu}&=(\partial_{\mu}n)\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(n^2-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}-\frac{\widetilde{u}^{\mu}\widetilde{u}^{\nu}}{\mathbf{u}^2}\right]+n\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}\partial_{\mu}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(n^2-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\right]\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu} \notag \\
&=\frac{T^{\mu\nu}}{n}\partial_{\mu}n+\left(n^2+\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}\,\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}(\partial_{\mu}n) \notag \\
&=\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(3n^2+\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}-\frac{\widetilde{u}^{\mu}\widetilde{u}^{\nu}}{\mathbf{u}^2}\right](\partial_{\mu}n)\,.\end{aligned}$$ An interesting observation is that the timelike contribution can be expressed in terms of the metric $\widetilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ appearing in :
$$\begin{aligned}
(\widetilde{g}^2)^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\mu}&=3n^2+\frac{1}{n^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:four-dimensional-isotropic-metric}
\widetilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(r)&\equiv \mathrm{diag}\left(\frac{1}{n(r)},-n(r),-n(r),-n(r)\right)_{\mu\nu}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Note that $\widetilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is not associated to a gravity field but only to a nonconstant refractive index. The result obtained in describes the conservation of energy and momentum of a light ray. Its properties are in order. First, it vanishes for a constant refractive index, i.e., energy and momentum of the ray are conserved in a homogeneous medium, in the Lorentz-invariant vacuum, and a Lorentz-violating vacuum with a constant controlling coefficient. Second, in an inhomogeneous medium or in a Lorentz-violating vacuum with spacetime-dependent controlling coefficient the energy-momentum tensor is not conserved, since the partial derivative of the refractive index does not vanish in this case. As long as the refractive index is not time-dependent, $\partial_0n=0$, which is why $\partial_{\mu}T^{\mu 0}=0$. Since the case under consideration is isotropic, the controlling coefficient and the refractive index, respectively, can only depend on the radial coordinate: $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}=\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}(r)$, $n=n(r)$. Hence $\partial_{\mu}n$ has a nonvanishing component along the radial basis vector only, i.e., $\partial_rn\neq 0$ and $\partial_{\theta}n=\partial_{\phi}n=0$. Decomposing the spatial velocity into a radial part $u^r$ and transverse components $u^{\theta}$, $u^{\phi}$, $$\mathbf{u}=u^r\mathbf{e}_r+u^{\theta}\mathbf{e}_{\theta}+u^{\phi}\mathbf{e}_{\phi}\,,$$ the spatial part of the conservation law reads as $$\label{eq:modified-energy-momentum-conservation-isotropic}
\partial_{\mu}T^{\mu i}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}}(\boldsymbol{\nabla}n\cdot\mathbf{u})u^i=-\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}(\boldsymbol{\nabla}n\cdot\widehat{\mathbf{u}})\widehat{u}^i
=-\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}(\partial_rn)\widehat{u}^r\widehat{u}^i\,,\quad \widehat{\mathbf{u}}=\frac{\mathbf{u}}{|\mathbf{u}|}\,.$$ Several observations can be made upon inspecting the result. For a constant refractive index the right-hand side of the latter equation is zero, which means that the spatial part of the energy-momentum conservation law is valid as well in this case. For $\partial_rn\neq 0$ it even holds when the radial velocity component vanishes: $u^r=0$. This is a special situation that can occur for a light ray in an inhomogeneous, isotropic medium whose refractive index has a particular $r$-dependence and when the ray is emitted tangentially to a circle with its center lying in the coordinate origin (cf. [@Evans:1985] for a beautiful paper on geometric-ray optics and its implications for certain optical systems). The trajectory of the ray is then a circle where the refractive index is constant. The magnitude of the three-momentum vector does not change, but only its direction. So momentum is not exchanged between the light ray and the medium, because any momentum transfer would change the magnitude of the momentum vector. For any other case with nonzero $\partial_rn$ momentum has to be exchanged, which is why $T^{\mu\nu}$ of the ray cannot be conserved. The net term obtained above points in the direction $\widehat{\mathbf{u}}$ of the ray at the point considered. However the total energy-momentum tensor with $T^{\mu\nu}_{\mathrm{med}}$ of the medium included is expected to be conserved, because any momentum change of the light ray will cause a momentum change of the medium itself.
In General Relativity local diffeomorphism invariance is tightly linked to energy-momentum conservation. In [@Kostelecky:2003fs] it was shown that explicit Lorentz violation in gravity leads to a loss of diffeomorphism invariance, which then causes the energy-momentum tensor to be no longer covariantly conserved. Note that in the latter reference the energy-momentum tensor $T_e^{\mu\nu}$ is considered that follows by varying the Lagrangian with respect to the vierbein instead of with respect to the metric tensor. It is different from the Belinfante-Rosenfeld energy-momentum tensor considered here even in case there is no Lorentz violation [@Belinfante:1940]. The covariant derivative of $T_e^{\mu\nu}$ in [@Kostelecky:2003fs] involves the covariant derivative of the Lorentz-violating controlling coefficients, i.e., a term of the structure $J^xD_{\nu}k_x$. Here $k_x$ is a generic controlling coefficient with a particular Lorentz index structure $x$ contracted with an appropriate operator $J^x$. For general curved manifolds there is no spacetime-position dependent function satisfying $D_{\nu}k_x=0$, but only for parallelizable manifolds such as the circle $S^1$ or the two-torus $T^2=S^1\times S^1$. In four dimensions such manifolds are rare, though, and they do not seem to be of particular interest in the context of General Relativity.
Note that the conservation law without gravitational fields is given by $\partial_{\mu}(\Theta_c)^{\mu\nu}=J^x\partial^{\nu}k_x$ with the canonical energy-momentum tensor $(\Theta_c)^{\mu\nu}$ [@Kostelecky:2003fs]. Therefore if the controlling coefficient $k_x$ is dependent on spacetime position the conservation law is modified even in flat spacetime. From a physical perspective this is not surprising, since such a controlling coefficient implies that the vacuum behaves like an effective, inhomogeneous medium. In general the magnitude of the three-momentum of a light ray is not conserved as was argued above. Therefore momentum has to be exchanged between the ray and the medium. When considering explicit Lorentz violation the effective medium is considered to be nondynamical, which is why it can neither absorb nor deliver momentum to the light ray.
Interestingly the situation is different when spontaneous violations of diffeomorphism invariance and local Lorentz symmetry are considered. In these cases the ground state violates these symmetries dynamically by an emergent vacuum expectation value of a vector or tensor field in a potential [@Kostelecky:2003fs; @Kostelecky:1988zi; @Kostelecky:1989jp; @Kostelecky:1989jw; @Bailey:2006fd; @Bluhm:2008yt; @Hernaski:2014jsa; @Bluhm:2014oua]. Such models have in common that they involve massless (Nambu-Goldstone) modes where the latter appear when any global, continuous symmetry is broken spontaneously. When the symmetry is local there can be an additional Higgs-type mechanism absorbing the massless modes to produce massive gauge fields. Since for spontaneous Lorentz violation the dynamics of the Lorentz-violating background field is taken into account, the energy-momentum conservation law is restored in these theories. In the corresponding equation there is no contribution $J^x\partial^{\nu}k_x$.
From the perspective of an inhomogeneous medium translational and rotational symmetry are violated spontaneously by the atomic lattice. The Nambu-Goldstone modes (gapless excitations) linked to the spontaneous violation of these symmetries are the two transverse and the longitudinal types of phonons.[^3] Since the medium is now dynamical, it can absorb momentum from the ray upon producing phonons. Hence the conservation law for the light ray remains valid in this case.
Properties of the isotropic Finsler space {#sec:properties-isotropic-finsler}
=========================================
In the previous section the modified conservation law for the Belinfante-Rosenfeld energy-momentum tensor for a light ray in an isotropic, inhomogeneous medium was considered and discussed. It was found that the energy-momentum tensor is not conserved, since the nontrivial medium is nondynamical corresponding to a background violating Lorentz symmetry explicitly. This issue persists even in Minkowski spacetime, since in inhomogeneous media light rays behave similarly to when they propagate in gravitational backgrounds. The most prominent example for a common effect is light bending.
The conservation law of the energy-momentum tensor for a medium with spherically symmetric refractive index, , involves both the first derivative of the refractive index and the propagation direction of the ray at a given point. Recall that in gravitational theories with explicit Lorentz violation nonconservation of the energy-momentum tensor clashes with the Bianchi identities of Riemannian geometry [@Kostelecky:2003fs]. Although we work with an effective Lorentz-violating theory for light rays based on a nontrivial refractive index, this issue can be encountered here as well.
The purpose of the current section is to figure out whether explicit (isotropic) Lorentz violation can be considered in a weak gravity field in the framework of Finsler geometry such that no inconsistencies arise. As a basis we use the spacetime metric of , which was shown to be closely linked to the isotropic case. The properties of the latter metric shall be studied from a Finslerian point of view where we use the conventions of [@Bao:2000] for all geometrical quantities. The latter are treated based on the indefinite signature of the metric in . As a starting point an appropriate Finsler structure has to be constructed whose derived metric should correspond to . This works for the following choice: $$\label{eq:finsler-structure-isotropic-refractive-index}
F(r,\mathbf{y})=\sqrt{\mathbf{y}^2}\,,\quad \mathbf{y}^2=\frac{1}{n}(y^t)^2-n(y^r)^2-n\left[(y^{\theta})^2+(y^{\phi})^2\sin^2\theta\right]r^2\,,$$ where the refractive index solely has a radial dependence. In what follows we write $n(r)=n$ for brevity, i.e., the argument of the refractive index will be omitted. The vector $\mathbf{y}\in TM$ is expressed in spherical polar coordinates as $\mathbf{y}=y^t\mathbf{e}_t+y^r\mathbf{e}_r+y^{\theta}\mathbf{e}_{\theta}+y^{\phi}\mathbf{e}_{\phi}$ with suitable basis vectors. The spatial part of the Finsler structure is written in terms of spherical polar coordinates. The corresponding Finsler metric is then computed according to the usual definition and it corresponds to the result of (with the spatial part transformed to spherical coordinates):
$$\label{eq:finsler-metric-isotropic}
g_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2F^2}{\partial y^{\mu}\partial y^{\nu}}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\frac{1}{n},-n,-nr^2,-nr^2\sin^2\theta\right)_{\mu\nu}\,.$$
The inverse metric simply reads as $$\label{eq:finsler-metric-isotropic-inverse}
g^{\mu\nu}=\mathrm{diag}\left(n,-\frac{1}{n},-\frac{1}{nr^2},-\frac{1}{nr^2\sin^2\theta}\right)^{\mu\nu}\,.$$
Since the metric does not depend on $\mathbf{y}$, the Cartan connection [@Bao:2000] vanishes: $$\label{eq:cartan-torsion-isotropic}
A_{\mu\nu\varrho}\equiv \frac{F}{2}\frac{\partial g_{\mu\nu}}{\partial y^{\varrho}}=\frac{F}{4}\frac{\partial^3F^2}{\partial y^{\mu}\partial y^{\nu}\partial y^{\varrho}}\,,$$ Therefore according to Deicke’s theorem [@Deicke:1953] the Finsler space considered is Riemannian. Now the base has been set up to study the geometry of the space defined by . The first step is the obtain the coefficients of the affine connection (Christoffel symbols of second kind) that are defined in analogy to the Christoffel symbols in Riemannian geometry: $$\label{eq:christoffel-symbols}
\gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\rho}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\;\!\mu\alpha}\left(\frac{\partial g_{\alpha\nu}}{\partial x^{\rho}}-\frac{\partial g_{\nu\rho}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}+\frac{\partial g_{\rho\alpha}}{\partial x^{\nu}}\right)\,.$$ Note that summation over equal indices is understood based on Einstein’s convention. The nonzero contributions read as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^t_{\phantom{t}tr}&=-\frac{n'}{2n}\,,\quad \gamma^r_{\phantom{r}tt}=-\frac{n'}{2n^3}\,,\quad \gamma^r_{\phantom{r}rr}=\frac{n'}{2n}\,,\quad \gamma^r_{\phantom{r}\theta\theta}=-\frac{r(2n+rn')}{2n}\,, \\[2ex]
\gamma^r_{\phantom{r}\phi\phi}&=-\frac{r(2n+rn')}{2n}\sin^2\theta\,,\quad \gamma^{\theta}_{\phantom{\theta}r\theta}=\frac{1}{r}+\frac{n'}{2n}\,,\quad \gamma^{\theta}_{\phantom{\theta}\phi\phi}=-\sin\theta\cos\theta\,, \\[2ex]
\gamma^{\phi}_{\phantom{\phi}r\phi}&=\frac{1}{r}+\frac{n'}{2n}\,,\quad \gamma^{\phi}_{\phantom{\phi}\theta\phi}=\cot\theta\,.\end{aligned}$$
Since torsion is assumed to vanish, the Christoffel symbols are symmetric in the latter two indices. The connection coefficients with at least one index equal to the radial coordinate $r$ involve the first derivative of the refractive index. Furthermore they do not involve the angle $\phi$ as expected for spherically symmetric metrics. As a next step the geodesic spray coefficients are needed: $G^{\mu}\equiv\gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}y^{\nu}y^{\varrho}$. The latter appear in the geodesic equations in Finsler geometry:
$$\begin{aligned}
G^t&=-y^ty^r\frac{n'}{n}\,, \\[2ex]
G^r&=-(y^t)^2\frac{n'}{2n^3}+\frac{1}{2n}\left\{(y^r)^2n'-r(2n+rn')[(y^{\theta})^2+(y^{\phi})^2\sin^2\theta]\right\}\,, \\[2ex]
G^{\theta}&=y^ry^{\theta}\left(\frac{2}{r}+\frac{n'}{n}\right)-(y^{\phi})^2\sin\theta\cos\theta\,,\quad G^{\phi}=y^{\phi}\left[2y^{\theta}\cot\theta+y^r\left(\frac{2}{r}+\frac{n'}{n}\right)\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$
The geodesic spray coefficients can be used to define the nonlinear connection [@Bao:2000] on $TM\setminus \{0\}$: $$N^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial G^{\mu}}{\partial y^{\nu}}\,.$$ The reasons for introducing these connection coefficients is as follows. On the one hand the basis vectors $\partial/\partial x^{\nu}$ and $\partial/\partial y^{\nu}$ are unsuitable to be chosen as a local basis of $TTM$, since the $\partial/\partial x^{\nu}$ transform in a complicated way. On the other hand if $\{\mathrm{d}x^{\mu},\mathrm{d}y^{\mu}\}$ is chosen as a local basis of the cotangent bundle $T^{*}TM$ the transformation properties of $\mathrm{d}y^{\mu}$ are involved. To have the desired transformation properties for the basis of the tangent and the cotangent bundle of $TM\setminus \{0\}$ the following basis vectors can be introduced using the nonlinear connection:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\frac{\delta}{\delta x^{\nu}},F\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\nu}}\right\}\,,&\quad \frac{\delta}{\delta x^{\nu}}\equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\nu}}-N^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\mu}}\,, \\[2ex]
\left\{\mathrm{d}x^{\mu},\frac{\delta y^{\mu}}{F}\right\}\,,&\quad \delta y^{\mu}\equiv \mathrm{d}y^{\mu}+N^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\mathrm{d}x^{\nu}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For the particular case studied here the nonlinear connection coefficients can be comprised in a $(3\times 3)$ matrix that reads as $$(N^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})=\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}
-y^rn'/n & -y^tn'/n & 0 & 0 \\
-y^tn'/n^3 & y^rn'/n & -y^{\theta}r(2n+rn')/n & -y^{\phi}r\sin^2\theta(2n+rn')/n \\
0 & y^{\theta}(2/r+n'/n) & y^r(2/r+n'/n) & -y^{\phi}\sin(2\theta) \\
0 & y^{\phi}(2/r+n'/n) & 2y^{\phi}\cot\theta & y^r(2/r+n'/n)+2y^{\theta}\cot\theta \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ To compute directional derivatives of tensor fields on Finsler manifolds, a further connection has to be found to define a covariant derivative. It was shown that the pulled-back bundle $\pi^{*}TM$ has a linear connection associated to it, which is called the Chern connection $\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}$. Explicitly it can be obtained from the Finsler metric using the nonlinear connection $N^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}&=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\alpha}\left(\frac{\delta g_{\alpha\nu}}{\delta x^{\varrho}}-\frac{\delta g_{\nu\varrho}}{\delta x^{\alpha}}+\frac{\delta g_{\varrho\alpha}}{\delta x^{\nu}}\right) \notag \\
&=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\alpha}\left(\frac{\partial g_{\alpha\nu}}{\partial x^{\varrho}}-N^{\beta}_{\phantom{\beta}\varrho}\frac{\partial g_{\alpha\nu}}{\partial y^{\beta}}-\left[\frac{\partial g_{\nu\varrho}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}-N^{\beta}_{\phantom{\beta}\alpha}\frac{\partial g_{\nu\varrho}}{\partial y^{\beta}}\right]+\frac{\partial g_{\varrho\alpha}}{\partial x^{\nu}}-N^{\beta}_{\phantom{\beta}\nu}\frac{\partial g_{\varrho\alpha}}{\partial y^{\beta}}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The Chern connection is unique and formally it has the same index structure as the formal Christoffel symbols. The difference to the latter is that the derivative $\delta/\delta x^{\mu}$ is used instead of the ordinary partial derivative $\partial/\partial x^{\mu}$. However in the particular case studied here, $\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}=\gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}$, since the Finsler metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ does not depend on the components of $\mathbf{y}$. Finally the Chern connection is needed to define a Finslerian version of the Riemann curvature tensor: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:finsler-curvature-tensor}
R_{\nu\phantom{\mu}\varrho\sigma}^{\phantom{\nu}\mu}&=\frac{\delta\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\sigma}}{\delta x^{\varrho}}-\frac{\delta\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}}{\delta x^{\sigma}}+\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha\varrho}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu\sigma}-\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha\sigma}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu\varrho} \notag \\
&=\frac{\partial\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\sigma}}{\partial x^{\varrho}}-N^{\beta}_{\phantom{\beta}\varrho}\frac{\partial\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\sigma}}{\partial y^{\beta}}-\left(\frac{\partial\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}}{\partial x^{\sigma}}-N^{\beta}_{\phantom{\beta}\sigma}\frac{\partial\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}}{\partial y^{\beta}}\right)+\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha\varrho}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu\sigma}-\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha\sigma}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu\varrho}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the Chern connection coefficients correspond to the formal Christoffel symbols and the latter are independent of $y^{\mu}$, the curvature components correspond to the Riemannian ones. They involve an additional derivative of the Christoffel symbols, which is why they comprise second derivatives of the refractive index. Explicitly the independent curvature tensor components are stated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
R_{t\phantom{r}tr}^{\phantom{t}r}&=\frac{nn''-2n'^2}{2n^4}\,,\quad R_{t\phantom{\theta}t\theta}^{\phantom{t}\theta}=\frac{n'(2n+rn')}{4rn^4}=R_{t\phantom{\phi}t\phi}^{\phantom{t}\phi}\,, \\[2ex]
R_{r\phantom{t}tr}^{\phantom{r}t}&=\frac{nn''-2n'^2}{2n^2}\,,\quad R_{\theta\phantom{t}t\theta}^{\phantom{\theta}t}=\frac{rn'(2n+rn')}{4n^2}\,,\quad R_{\theta\phantom{\phi}\theta\phi}^{\phantom{\theta}\phi}=\frac{rn'(4n+rn')}{4n^2}\,, \\[2ex]
R_{\phi\phantom{t}t\phi}^{\phantom{\phi}t}&=\frac{rn'(2n+rn')}{4n^2}\sin^2\theta\,,\quad R_{\phi\phantom{\theta}\theta\phi}^{\phantom{\phi}\theta}=-\frac{rn'(4n+rn')}{4n^2}\sin^2\theta\,.\end{aligned}$$
The components related by symmetries are omitted. Since the Finsler structure of is Riemannian according to Deicke’s theorem, we will first use the Riemannian definitions of the Ricci tensor $\mathcal{Ric}_{\mu\nu}\equiv R_{\mu\phantom{\alpha}\alpha\nu}^{\phantom{\mu}\alpha}$ and the curvature scalar (Ricci scalar) $\mathcal{Ric}$. These are denoted by calligraphic letters and they follow from suitable contractions of the Riemann curvature tensor. The Ricci tensor components with equal indices deliver nonzero contributions only:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Ric}_{tt}&=\frac{1}{2rn^4}\left[rn'^2-n(2n'+rn'')\right]\,,\quad \mathcal{Ric}_{rr}=-\frac{1}{2rn}(2n'+rn'')\,, \\[2ex]
\mathcal{Ric}_{\theta\theta}&=\frac{r}{2n^2}\left[rn'^2-n(2n'+rn'')\right]\,,\quad \mathcal{Ric}_{\phi\phi}=\frac{r}{2n^2}\left[rn'^2-n(2n'+rn'')\right]\sin^2\theta\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:ricci-scalar-conventional}
\mathcal{Ric}&\equiv \mathcal{Ric}^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\mu}=g^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{Ric}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2rn^3}\left[2n(2n'+rn'')-rn'^2\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$
In Riemannian geometry the curvature tensor obeys the first and the second Bianchi identities. Especially the second one,
$$\begin{aligned}
0&\equiv D_{\eta}R_{\lambda\phantom{\mu}\nu\kappa}^{\phantom{\lambda}\mu}+D_{\kappa}R_{\lambda\phantom{\mu}\eta\nu}^{\phantom{\lambda}\mu}+D_{\nu}R_{\lambda\phantom{\mu}\kappa\eta}^{\phantom{\lambda}\mu}\,, \\[2ex]
D_{\lambda}R_{\mu\phantom{\nu}\rho\sigma}^{\phantom{\mu}\nu}&=\partial_{\lambda}R_{\mu\phantom{\nu}\rho\sigma}^{\phantom{\mu}\nu}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\mu\lambda}R_{\alpha\phantom{\nu}\rho\sigma}^{\phantom{\alpha}\nu}+\Gamma^{\nu}_{\phantom{\nu}\alpha\lambda}R_{\mu\phantom{\alpha}\rho\sigma}^{\phantom{\mu}\alpha}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\rho\lambda}R_{\mu\phantom{\nu}\alpha\sigma}^{\phantom{\mu}\nu}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\sigma\lambda}R_{\mu\phantom{\nu}\rho\alpha}^{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\,,\end{aligned}$$
is important in the context of General Relativity, because it leads to the statement that the Einstein tensor $G^{\mu\nu}$ is covariantly constant:
$$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mu}G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}=\partial_{\mu}G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}+\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha\mu}G^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu\mu}G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha}\equiv 0\,,\quad G^{\mu\nu}\equiv \mathcal{Ric}^{\mu\nu}-\frac{\mathcal{Ric}}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\,,\end{aligned}$$
which was checked to be valid for the particular metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ of . This identity is the reason why explicit Lorentz violation is incompatible with Riemannian geometry. Due to the Einstein equations it forces the energy-momentum tensor to be covariantly conserved as well, which does not necessarily hold when there is a spacetime-dependent background. At this point it is reasonable to wonder how Finsler geometry can help us to solve that problem. For the isotropic metric considered the identity $D_{\mu}G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\equiv 0$ is inherited from the Riemannian to the Finslerian framework, since the Finsler metric of does not comprise any dependence on $y^{\mu}$. Assuming that Finsler geometry provides the necessary tools to circumvent the no-go theorem of [@Kostelecky:2003fs] in a general explicitly Lorentz-violating setting, then it should also work for the special isotropic case studied here.
One possible approach (there may be others) might be to consider a suitable equivalent of the Einstein equations in Finsler geometry. Such an equivalent can be based on an alternative definition of the Einstein tensor $G^{\mu\nu}$ constructed from curvature-related tensors in the Finsler framework. These objects will be introduced in what follows. The first is obtained from the curvature tensor by contracting the latter with two vectors $y^{\mu}/F$ according to $$\label{eq:predecessor-flag-curvature}
R^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\varrho}\equiv\frac{y^{\nu}}{F}R_{\nu\phantom{\mu}\varrho\sigma}^{\phantom{\nu}\mu}\frac{y^{\sigma}}{F}\,.$$ Note that this construction does not correspond to the Ricci tensor of Riemannian geometry. In particular it is sometimes referred to as the predecessor of flag curvature, which is a generalization of sectional curvature in Finsler geometry. For the special case here $R^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\varrho}$ are the components of a $(4\times 4)$ matrix. The trace of this matrix is taken to obtain the generalization of the Ricci scalar in Finsler geometry: $\mathit{Ric}\equiv R^{\varrho}_{\phantom{\varrho}\varrho}$. Since the explicit expressions for $R^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\varrho}$ and $\textit{Ric}$ are complicated and not illuminating, they will not be stated explicitly.
The flag curvature in Finsler geometry is computed similarly to the sectional curvature in Riemannian geometry. The latter is defined in a tangent space at a point $x$ of the manifold where two arbitrary, linearly independent directions are needed for its computation. The resulting quantity only depends on the plane considered, but not on the particular choice of the directions. The flag curvature in Finsler geometry carries the same spirit where one direction is chosen to correspond to $\mathbf{y}$ and the other one, say $\mathbf{L}$, is supposed to be orthogonal to $\mathbf{y}$. These vectors are then suitably contracted with the curvature tensor of . Note that $\mathbf{y}$ and the vector orthogonal to it can be considered to span a flag where $\mathbf{y}$ is assumed to point along the flag pole. This explains the name for the curvature. For an $n$-dimensional Finsler manifold $R$ is the sum of $n-1$ flag curvatures. It only depends on $r$ and $\mathbf{y}$, but not on the direction $\mathbf{L}$ chosen orthogonal to $\mathbf{y}$.
Although $R_{\mu\varrho}$ of is not understood to be the generalization of the Ricci tensor in Finsler geometry, it is still possible to define the latter. The definition (cf. Eq. (7.6.4) in [@Bao:2000]) involves both the Finsler structure $F$ and the Finslerian version of the Ricci scalar $\textit{Ric}$: $$\label{eq:ricci-tensor-from-predecessor}
\mathit{Ric}_{\mu\nu}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2(F^2\textit{Ric})}{\partial y^{\mu}\partial y^{\nu}}\,.$$ For Finsler metrics that are Riemannian, i.e., for the isotropic metric considered in it also holds that $\mathit{Ric}_{\mu\nu}=R_{\mu\phantom{\alpha}\alpha\nu}^{\phantom{\mu}\alpha}$. Hence in our case the Finslerian definition of the Ricci tensor corresponds to the Riemannian expression, computing an appropriate trace of the curvature tensor. The expression of can be used to obtain the Ricci scalar in Finsler geometry by contracting the Ricci tensor with two vectors $y^{\mu}/F$ (cf. (7.6.5) in [@Bao:2000]): $$\label{eq:ricci-scalar-finsler}
\mathit{Ric}\equiv \mathit{Ric}_{\mu\nu}\frac{y^{\mu}}{F}\frac{y^{\nu}}{F}\,.$$ It can be shown in general that the latter corresponds to $R^{\varrho}_{\phantom{\varrho}\varrho}$ that is obtained from tracing . This object is distinguished from the Ricci scalar $\mathcal{Ric}$ in a Riemannian setting, which follows from tracing the Ricci curvature tensor $\mathcal{Ric}_{\mu\nu}$, cf. . Note that the quantity of is the direct Finslerian equivalent of the Ricci scalar. Since the Finsler metric considered is Riemannian, $\mathcal{Ric}$ only involves dependences on $r$, whereas $\textit{Ric}$ depends on $y^{\mu}$ as well. In general and especially here $\mathcal{Ric}\neq \textit{Ric}$.
At this stage there are several possibilities of defining the Einstein tensor $G_{\mu\nu}$ in a Finsler framework using different combinations of $\mathcal{Ric}_{\mu\nu}$, $\mathcal{Ric}$, $R_{\mu\nu}$, $\mathit{Ric}_{\mu\nu}$, and $\mathit{Ric}$. The following have been tried:
\[eq:propositions-einstein-tensor\] $$\begin{aligned}
(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(1)}&\equiv \mathcal{Ric}^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\delta^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\textit{Ric}\,, \\[2ex]
(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(2)}&\equiv R^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\delta^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\textit{Ric}\,, \\[2ex]
(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(3)}&\equiv R^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\delta^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\mathcal{Ric}\,.\end{aligned}$$
A reasonable test of whether one of these choices is suitable, requires computing their covariant derivatives, i.e., $D_{\mu}(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(i)}$ for $i=1\dots 3$. The wishful result would be a nonvanishing covariant derivative bearing resemblance to the modified covariant conservation law of the energy-momentum tensor in . This makes sense when we assume that the modified Einstein tensor (in a Finslerian framework) is linked to the energy-momentum tensor in an explicitly Lorentz-violating theory. The corresponding covariant derivative to be used involves both the nonminimal connection $N^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}$ and the Chern connection $\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}$ being equal to the Christoffel symbols $\gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}$ in this case: $$\label{eq:covariant-derivative-finsler-einstein-tensor}
D_{\mu}(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(i)}=\frac{\partial(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(i)}}{\partial x^{\mu}}-N^{\beta}_{\phantom{\beta}\mu}\frac{(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(i)}}{\partial y^{\beta}}+\Gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha\mu}(G^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu})^{(i)}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\nu\mu}(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha})^{(i)}\,.$$ Starting from the Finsler metric of there have been up to three derivatives with respect to the coordinates involved, which is why in the third derivative of the refractive index appears in general. The more of the higher derivatives of a Taylor expansion of $n(r)$ are taken into account, the smaller are the structures in changes of $n(r)$ to be resolved. Therefore relying on the geometric-optics approximation it is reasonable to consider only the first-order change of $n(r)$ incorporated in its first derivative and to neglect the higher-order derivatives, which describe small-scale changes of $n(r)$. Within this approximation it makes sense to set $n(r)=1$, since modifications lead to higher-order contributions.
Furthermore the Finsler structure that the isotropic case was identified with is three-dimensional, cf. , and it involves spatial velocity components only. Hence $y^t$ can be considered as auxiliary and will be set to zero at the end. With this physical input the covariant derivative of each Einstein tensor proposed in can be computed. The final result for the third possibility looks rather promising: $$D_{\mu}(G^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu})^{(3)}|_{y^t=0}=\frac{1}{(y^r)^2+r^2[(y^{\theta})^2+(y^{\phi})^2\sin^2\theta]}\frac{n'}{r^2}\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
(y^r)^2 \\
y^ry^{\theta}r^2 \\
y^ry^{\phi}r^2\sin^2\theta \\
\end{pmatrix}_{\nu}+\dots\,,$$ where terms of $\mathcal{O}(n'',n''',n'^2,n'^3)$ have been neglected. Using the inverse metric $g^{\mu\nu}$ of the second index can be raised. Besides we identify the spatial components of $\mathbf{y}$ with the spatial components of the physical velocity, i.e., $y^r=u^r$, $y^{\theta}=u^{\theta}$, and $y^{\phi}=u^{\phi}$ where the spatial flat metric in spherical polar coordinates is given by $(r_{ij})=\mathrm{diag}(1,r^2,r^2\sin^2\theta)$. This leads to the final result
$$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mu}(G^{\mu\nu})^{(3)}|_{y^t=0}&=-\frac{n'}{\mathbf{u}^2r^2}\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
(u^r)^2 \\
u^ru^{\theta} \\
u^ru^{\phi} \\
\end{pmatrix}^{\nu}+\dots\,, \\[2ex]
D_{\mu}(G^{\mu i})^{(3)}|_{y^t=0}&=-\frac{n'}{r^2}\widehat{u}^r\widehat{u}^i+\dots\,,\end{aligned}$$
with the normalized three-velocity vector $\widehat{\mathbf{u}}=\mathbf{u}/|\mathbf{u}|$. Comparing the obtained result to reveals that the structure of both expressions is very similar. The difference is a global prefactor of the form $r^2\sqrt{\mathbf{u}^2}$. The dimensionful factor of $r^2$ is not surprising. Both the Riemann curvature tensor and the (modified) Einstein tensor involve two derivatives, which is why their mass dimensions is $-2$. However the energy-momentum tensor is based on the “Lagrangian” of a classical light ray, , which is a dimensionless quantity. The discrepancy in mass dimensions is compensated by the only dimensionful length scale available, which is $r$. It seems that an alternative definition of the Einstein tensor in the framework of Finsler geometry can compensate for the modified energy-momentum conservation law when explicit Lorentz violation is considered. This result is interesting and deserves further study, e.g., whether it holds for anisotropic theories as well.
Conclusions and outlook {#sec:conclusion}
=======================
In this work classical-ray analogues to the photon sector of the minimal Standard-Model Extension were discussed. It was shown that a nonvanishing photon mass allows for deriving classical point-particle Lagrangians in analogy to the fermion sector. However the standard method used for the fermion sector does not work any more in case the photon mass vanishes. The reason is that a light ray does not have as many degrees of freedom as a massive particle.
Instead, for the photon sector an alternative technique had to be employed which allowed to derive a Lagrangian-type function for a classical ray directly from the modified photon dispersion relation. This was carried out for several interesting cases of the minimal, [*CPT*]{}-even photon sector, which is characterized by dimensionless controlling coefficients. Subsequently it was shown that the results obtained are consistent with the eikonal equation approach that describes the geometric-optics limit of an electromagnetic wave. Mathematically the Lagrangian-type functions can be interpreted as Finsler structures. In contrast to the fermion sector they only involve the spatial velocity components and they are closely linked to an effective refractive index of the Lorentz-violating vacuum.
It has been known long since that there is a connection between the geodesic equations for a light ray in a gravitational background and the eikonal equations. This link is warranted for weak gravitational fields at least, e.g., in the solar system. It was crucial to set up a phenomenological description of light rays subject to Lorentz violation in a weak gravitational field. This description made it possible to obtain sensitivities on the isotropic controlling coefficient $\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}$ that could be probed by the space missions GAIA and LATOR employing measurements of light deflection at massive bodies. The upshot is that the planned mission LATOR may have a sensitivity on $|\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{tr}}|$ in the order of magnitude of $10^{-16}$ where the running mission GAIA can reach $10^{-14}$. The difference in sensitivity originates from the different precision of measuring angles for both missions.
The final part of the paper was dedicated to investigating the properties of the (isotropic) curved spacetime, which the phenomenological studies were based on, from a Finslerian point of view. It was demonstrated that in the classical limit (neglecting higher spacetime derivatives of the refractive index) an Einstein tensor can be defined that is not subject to the usual Bianchi identities in Riemannian geometry. Therefore its covariant derivative is nonzero and it has a form that is related to the modified conservation law of the energy-momentum tensor based on the classical Lagrangian-type function studied in this context. Hence it seems that Finsler geometry provides new geometrical degrees of freedom that can serve as a kind of “buffer” to allow for a momentum transfer whenever the momentum of the light ray changes. These geometrical degrees of freedom take the role of the Nambu-Goldstone modes appearing when spontaneous Lorentz violation is considered.
To summarize, the current article provides a technique in treating Lorentz-violating photons in a curved background in a geometric-optics approximation. As an outlook it will be interesting to apply the setup to anisotropic frameworks, first to obtain sensitivities on related controlling coefficients and second to study the properties of the underlying Finsler geometry.
Acknowledgments
===============
It is a pleasure to thank V. A. Kostelecký for suggesting this line of research and for having fruitful discussions. This work was performed with financial support from the *Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina* within Grant No. LPDS 2012-17.
Classical Lagrangians for massive Lorentz-violating photons {#sec:lagrangians-massive-photons}
===========================================================
The first part of the appendix shall briefly demonstrate how to derive the classical Lagrange functions in from the set of equations (\[eq:dispersion-relation-general\]), (\[eq:group-velocity-correspondence\]), and (\[eq:lagrange-function\]). The demonstration will be performed for the nonbirefringent, anisotropic case of the [*CPT*]{}-even sector and for a particular choice of the [*CPT*]{}-odd framework. The calculation is easier for the [*CPT*]{}-even theory, which is why it will be studied first.
[*CPT*]{}-even minimal photon sector {#sec:lagrangians-cpt-even-massive-photons}
------------------------------------
The base is where for convenience we set $(3/2)\widetilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{11}\equiv\kappa$. For the remaining [*CPT*]{}-even cases the procedure works analogously. First of all the modified dispersion relation for a massive photon subject to this particular Lorentz-violating framework reads $$(1+\kappa)\left(k_0^2-k_1^2-k_2^2\right)-(1-\kappa)k_3^2=m_{\upgamma}^2\,.$$ To obtain the group velocity components it is often reasonable not to solve the dispersion relation to obtain $k_0$ directly, but to differentiate it implicitly with respect to the spatial momentum components:
$$\begin{aligned}
2(1+\kappa)k_0\frac{\partial k_0}{\partial k_1}-2(1+\kappa)k_1=0 &\Leftrightarrow \frac{\partial k_0}{\partial k_1}=\frac{k_1}{k_0}\,, \\[2ex]
2(1+\kappa)k_0\frac{\partial k_0}{\partial k_2}-2(1+\kappa)k_2=0 &\Leftrightarrow \frac{\partial k_0}{\partial k_2}=\frac{k_2}{k_0}\,, \\[2ex]
2(1+\kappa)k_0\frac{\partial k_0}{\partial k_3}-2(1-\kappa)k_3=0 &\Leftrightarrow \frac{\partial k_0}{\partial k_3}=\frac{1-\kappa}{1+\kappa}\frac{k_3}{k_0}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For the particular case studied, leads to the following three equations: $$\frac{k_1}{k_0}=-\frac{u^1}{u^0}\,,\quad \frac{k_2}{k_0}=-\frac{u^2}{u^0}\,,\quad \frac{1-\kappa}{1+\kappa}\frac{k_3}{k_0}=-\frac{u^3}{u^0}\,.$$ Evidently only the third one is modified by Lorentz violation mirroring the spatial anisotropy. These relations can be solved directly to express the spatial momentum components via $k_0$: $$\label{eq:spatial-momentum-components-via-k0}
k_1=-\frac{k_0u^1}{u^0}\,,\quad k_2=-\frac{k_0u^2}{u^0}\,,\quad k_3=-\frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}\frac{k_0u^3}{u^0}\,.$$ We can now use and express the spatial momentum components by taking into account the previously obtained results of : $$L=-(k_0u^0+k_1u^1+k_2u^2+k_3u^3)=\frac{k_0}{u^0}\left[-(u^0)^2+(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+\frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}(u^3)^2\right]\,.$$ The latter is solved with respect to $k_0$ giving an expression comprising the (unknown) Lagrange function and the four-velocity components: $$\label{eq:k0-via-velocity-components}
k_0=-L\frac{(1-\kappa)u^0}{(1-\kappa)\left[(u^0)^2-(u^1)^2-(u^2)^2\right]-(1+\kappa)(u^3)^2}\,.$$ Now all four-momentum components in the dispersion relation can be eliminated via and a subsequent insertion of :
$$\begin{aligned}
0&=\frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}\frac{k_0^2}{(u^0)^2}\left\{(1-\kappa)\left[(u^0)^2-(u^1)^2-(u^2)^2\right]-(1+\kappa)(u^3)^2\right\}-m_{\upgamma}^2\,, \\[2ex]
0&=L^2\frac{(1-\kappa)(1+\kappa)}{(1-\kappa)\left[(u^0)^2-(u^1)^2-(u^2)^2\right]-(1+\kappa)(u^3)^2}-m_{\upgamma}^2\,.\end{aligned}$$
The final equation comprises a polynomial of the Lagrangian whose coefficients depend on four-velocity components only. The polynomial must be solved to give $L$: $$L^{\pm}=\pm m_{\upgamma}\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}\left[(u^0)^2-(u^1)^2-(u^2)^2\right]-\frac{1}{1-\kappa}(u^3)^2}\,.$$ The result corresponds to . The procedure shown is typically applied to derive classical Lagrangians. Four of the five equations are employed to eliminate all four-momentum components and to obtain a polynomial equation in $L$ that only comprises the four-velocity. The latter is then solved with respect to $L$ finally.
[*CPT*]{}-odd minimal photon sector {#sec:lagrangians-cpt-odd-massive-photons}
-----------------------------------
Due to observer Lorentz invariance without a loss of generality $(k_{AF})^{\kappa}=(0,0,0,1)^{\kappa}$ will be chosen for the spacelike case. The modified dispersion relation involves an isotropic contribution and a second term that does not comprise the momentum component parallel to the preferred spacetime direction: $$\label{eq:dispersion-relation-cpt-odd}
(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2)^2-4m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2(k_0^2-k_1^2-k_2^2)=0\,.$$ The group velocity components are obtained by implicit differentiation of with respect to the spatial momentum components:
$$\begin{aligned}
0&=4(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2)\left[k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_1}-k_1\right]-8m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2\left(k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_1}-k_1\right) \notag \\
&=4(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2-2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2)\left[k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_1}-k_1\right]\,, \\[2ex]
0&=4(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2-2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2)\left[k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_2}-k_2\right]\,, \\[2ex]
0&=4(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2)\left[k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_3}-k_3\right]-8m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_3} \notag \\
&=4(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2-2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2)k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_3}-4(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2)k_3\,.\end{aligned}$$
Since the preferred spacetime direction points along the third axis of the coordinate system, the first and second group velocity components remain standard where only the third one is modified:$$\frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_1}=\frac{k_1}{k_0}\,,\quad \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_2}=\frac{k_2}{k_0}\,,\quad \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{\mathrm{d}k_3}=\frac{k_3(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2)}{k_0(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2-2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2)}\,.$$ Therefore results in $$\label{eq:group-velocity-correspondence-cpt-odd}
\frac{k_1}{k_0}=-\frac{u^1}{u^0}\,,\quad \frac{k_2}{k_0}=-\frac{u^2}{u^0}\,,\quad \frac{k_3(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2)}{k_0(k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2-2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2)}=-\frac{u^3}{u^0}\,.$$ The first two of these relationships allow for writing $k_1$ and $k_2$ in terms of $k_0$. However the third equation would lead to a cumbersome third-order polynomial to be solved, which is not a reasonable step to take. It is better to insert the first two of into and to solve the latter with respect to $k_3$. Then it is possible to express $k_3$ via $k_0$ only: $$k_3=\frac{1}{u^0u^3}\left\{k_0\left[(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2-(u^0)^2\right]-Lu^0\right\}\,.$$ Now we can express all spatial momentum components via $k_0$. Hence we can eliminate all of them in to obtain an equation that only involves $k_0$. This can be solved to write $k_0$ in terms of four-velocity components and the Lagrangian where one of the solutions reads
\[eq:k0-solution-cpt-odd\] $$\begin{aligned}
k_0&=-u^0\frac{L\sqrt{u_{\bot}^2}+m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}(u^3)^2+|u^3|\sqrt{L^2+2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}\sqrt{u_{\bot}^2}L+m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2(u^3)^2}}{u^2\sqrt{u_{\bot}^2}}\,, \\[2ex]
(u_{\bot}^{\mu})&=(u^0,u^1,u^2,0)^T\,.\end{aligned}$$
Here $u^0>0$ has been assumed for simplicity. The last step is to eliminate all four-momentum components in the third of to obtain a polynomial equation for $L$: $$L^2+2m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}\sqrt{u_{\bot}^2}L+m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}^2(u^3)^2=0\,,$$ which leads to the Lagrange functions $$L^{\pm}=m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}\left[\pm\sqrt{u^2}-\sqrt{u_{\bot}^2}\right]\,.$$ Reinstating the preferred spacetime direction, it is possible to write the latter in the form of . Using the other solution of $k_0$ similar to the Lagrangians with the opposite signs are obtained. A computation for $u^0<0$ leads to analogous results. Due to observer Lorentz invariance the form of the Lagrangian stays the same for general spacelike $k_{AF}$.
Light deflection in Schwarzschild spacetimes {#sec:light-deflection-schwarzschild}
============================================
In [@Betschart:2008yi] it was found that a constant refractive index $n\neq 1$ due to Lorentz violation leads to a change in light deflection. This result is in contrast to what we obtain from Bouguer’s formula in . A rough explanation is that Bouguer’s formula relies on the eikonal equation, which is equivalent to the null geodesic equations only for a weak gravitational field. However the latter reference is based on a Schwarzschild metric, $$\mathrm{d}\tau^2=\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)\mathrm{d}t^2-\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}\mathrm{d}r^2-r^2(\mathrm{d}\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\mathrm{d}\phi^2)\,,$$ which in this form is not generally isotropic. To get a more profound understanding, consider the geodesic equations for a photon in a generally isotropic spacetime of with $A=A(r)$. The Christoffel symbols are computed in Riemmanian geometry according to and the geodesic equations read $$\frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda}+\gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\varrho}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\nu}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\varrho}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda}=0\,,\quad (x^{\mu})=(t,r,\theta,\phi)^T\,.$$ In what follows, differentiation with respect to the curve parameter $\lambda$ and with respect to $r$, respectively, will be denoted by a dot and a prime. The geodesic equations can then be cast into the following form:
\[eq:geodesic-equations-spherically-symmetric-spacetime\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:equation-t}
0&=\ddot{t}-\frac{A'}{A}\dot{r}\dot{t}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:equation-r}
0&=\ddot{r}+\frac{A'}{2A}\dot{r}^2-\frac{A'}{2A^3}\dot{t}^2-\left(1+\frac{A'}{2A}r\right)r\dot{\theta}^2-\left(1+\frac{A'}{2A}r\right)r\sin^2(\theta)\dot{\phi}^2\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:equation-theta}
0&=\ddot{\theta}+\left(\frac{2}{r}+\frac{A'}{A}\right)\dot{r}\dot{\theta}-\sin(\theta)\cos(\theta)\dot{\phi}^2=0\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:equation-phi}
0&=\ddot{\phi}+\left(\frac{2}{r}+\frac{A'}{A}\right)\dot{r}\dot{\phi}+2\cot(\theta)\dot{\theta}\dot{\phi}=0\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\label{eq:equation-null}
0&=\frac{1}{A}\dot{t}^2-A\dot{r}^2-Ar^2\left[\dot{\theta}^2+\sin^2(\theta)\dot{\phi}^2\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$
where the fifth of those is the condition for a null-trajectory. They correspond to the equations stated in [@Wu:1988] in case that $A$ is a function of the radial coordinate $r$ only. Now the right-hand side of can be written as the derivative of a conserved quantity that is denoted as $K_0$ in [@Wu:1988]:$$\label{eq:conserved-quantity-1}
0=A\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda}\left(\frac{\dot{t}}{A}\right) \Rightarrow K_0=\frac{\dot{t}}{A}\,,\quad \dot{t}=K_0A\,.$$ With the choice of $\theta=\pi/2$ is fulfilled automatically. Using the previous results, can be expressed as the time-derivative of another conserved quantity $K_1$: $$\label{eq:angular-momentum-conservation}
0=\frac{1}{Ar^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda}(Ar^2\dot{\phi}) \Rightarrow K_1=Ar^2\dot{\phi}\,,\quad \dot{\phi}=\frac{K_1}{Ar^2}\,.$$ Looking at we see that both $K_0$ and $K_1$ correspond to the conserved quantities that are obtained via the Killing vectors, cf. . From now on the trajectory shall be parameterized with respect to proper time: $\lambda=\tau$. Since $K_0$ is then linked to infinitesimal time translations, it is reasonable to identify it with the total photon energy $E$. Furthermore $K_1$ is connected to infinitesimal changes in the angle $\phi$, which is why it corresponds to the angular momentum $L$. When these conserved quantities are compared to Eqs. (5.7a,b) in [@Betschart:2008yi] we see that the energy is the same, but the angular momentum differs by an additional factor of $A$. Finally can be written as follows: $$\label{eq:conserved-quantity-3}
0=\frac{1}{2A\dot{r}}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau}\left(A\dot{r}^2-E^2A+\frac{L^2}{r^2A}\right) \Rightarrow K_2=A\dot{r}^2-E^2A+\frac{L^2}{r^2A}\,.$$ Therefore the latter comprises even another conserved quantity $K_2$. Setting $K_2=0$ is in accordance with the null-trajectory condition of . Taking into account that $\dot{r}=(\mathrm{d}r/\mathrm{d}\phi)\dot{\phi}$ where $\dot{\phi}$ is again expressed by the conserved angular momentum, it is possible to solve with respect to $\mathrm{d}\phi/\mathrm{d}r$: $$\label{eq:change-in-angle}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi}{\mathrm{d}r}=\frac{L}{r\sqrt{E^2A(r)^2r^2-L^2}}\,,\quad \phi(r)=L\int_{r_0}^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r\sqrt{E^2A(r)^2r^2-L^2}}\,.$$ Comparing to we see that $C=L/E$, i.e., the constant appearing in Bouguer’s formula can be understood as the ratio of angular momentum and total energy.
Now there are some differences between the final result of and the corresponding Eq. (5.9) in [@Betschart:2008yi]. In the latter paper a black-hole gravitational background is considered in Schwarzschild coordinates. This line interval does not have the form of a generally isotropic metric given in . In fact, there are isotropic coordinates allowing us to write the Schwarzschild solution in the form (see, e.g., page 93 of [@Eddington:1923]):
$$\begin{aligned}
\varrho&=\frac{1}{2}\left(r-GM+\sqrt{r(r-2GM)}\right)\,, \\[2ex]
\mathrm{d}\tau^2&=\left(\frac{1-GM/(2\varrho)}{1+GM/(2\varrho)}\right)^2\,\mathrm{d}t^2-\left(1+\frac{GM}{2\varrho}\right)^4\left[\mathrm{d}\varrho^2+\varrho^2\,\mathrm{d}\theta^2+\varrho^2\sin^2\theta\,\mathrm{d}\phi^2\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$
Using this set of coordinates the equation encoding angular momentum conservation and the change in the angle $\phi$ with respect to the new radial coordinate $\rho$ read as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:angular-momentum-conservation-isotropic}
L&=g_{\rho\rho}\rho^2\dot{\phi}\,, \\[2ex]
\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi}{\mathrm{d}\rho}&=\frac{L}{\rho}\frac{\sqrt{g_{\rho\rho}g_{tt}}}{\sqrt{E^2g_{\rho\rho}^2\rho^2-L^2g_{\rho\rho}g_{tt}}}=\frac{L}{\rho}\frac{1}{\sqrt{E^2g_{\rho\rho}^2\rho^2-L^2}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{GM}{2\rho}\right)^2\,.
$$
The first corresponds to and the second to neglecting second-order gravity effects. Multiplying the modified line interval of their Eq. (4.12) by the constant $\sqrt{1+\epsilon}$ leads to $$\mathrm{d}\widetilde{\tau}^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon}}\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)\mathrm{d}t^2-\sqrt{1+\epsilon}\left[\frac{1}{1-2GM/r}\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\,\mathrm{d}\Omega^2\right]\,.$$ Since photons move on null-trajectories, $\mathrm{d}\widetilde{\tau}^2=0$ anyhow, which is why a multiplication of the line element by a constant should not change the physics. In this case the Lorentz-violating contribution governed by a position-independent $\epsilon$ drops out of $\mathrm{d}\phi/\mathrm{d}\rho$ when taking into account . Therefore in the isotropic coordinates the particular Lorentz-violating contribution of their case 3 produces second-order gravity effects associated to Lorentz violation. Far away from the back-hole event horizon there are no novel physical effects and this corresponds to the outcome of the eikonal approach.
Killing vectors of a spherically symmetric spacetime {#sec:killing-vectors-generally-isotropic}
----------------------------------------------------
In the current paragraph the Killing vectors for a spherically symmetric spacetime, cf. with $A(r,\theta,\phi)=A(r)$, will be listed. The Killing vectors $\xi_{\mu}$ describe infinitesimal isometries for a spacetime and they are linked to underlying symmetries and conserved quantities. In general they are obtained from a set of partial differential equations called the Killing equations: $$D_{\alpha}\xi_{\beta}+D_{\beta}\xi_{\alpha}=0\,,\quad D_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}=\partial_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}-\gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\lambda}\xi_{\mu}\,,$$ with the covariant derivative $D_{\alpha}$ and the Christoffel symbols $\gamma^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\lambda}$. The latter can be directly extracted from . For the spherically symmetric spacetime it is possible to solve the Killing equations analytically. To do so, it is reasonable to make a certain *Ansatz*, e.g., one with vanishing spatial components of $\xi_{\mu}$. This simplifies the set of equations dramatically where several are immediately fulfilled automatically. They are then solved successively to obtain four Killing vectors. Since the metric is isotropic, it is reasonable to make an *Ansatz* for $\xi_{\mu}$ that only involves a nonvanishing timelike component that does not depend on time itself: $$(\xi_{\mu})=\begin{pmatrix}
\xi_0(r,\theta,\phi) \\
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ In this case the following three differential equations must to be solved: $$\xi_0\frac{A'}{A}+\frac{\partial\xi_0}{\partial r}=0\,,\quad \frac{\partial\xi_0}{\partial\theta}=0\,,\quad \frac{\partial\xi_0}{\partial\phi}=0\,.$$ The remaining ones are fulfilled automatically. The latter two tell us immediately that $\xi_0$ neither depends on $\theta$ nor $\phi$. Therefore the first differential equation is an ordinary one that can be solved directly by integration: $$\frac{\xi_0'}{\xi_0}=-\frac{A'}{A} \Rightarrow \ln|\xi_0|=-\ln|c_0A| \Rightarrow \xi_0(r)=\frac{\widetilde{c}_0}{A(r)}\,,\quad c_0,\,\widetilde{c}_0\in \mathbb{R}\,.$$ A similar approach leads to the remaining Killing vectors. In total one obtains
$$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{\mu}^{(1)}&=\begin{pmatrix}
1/A \\
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \xi_{\mu}^{(2)}=r^2A\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
\sin\phi \\
\sin\theta\cos\theta\cos\phi \\
\end{pmatrix}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\[2ex]
\xi_{\mu}^{(3)}&=r^2A\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
\cos\phi \\
-\sin\theta\cos\theta\sin\phi \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \xi_{\mu}^{(4)}=r^2A\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\sin^2\theta \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Suitable contractions of the Killing vectors with $(\dot{x}^{\mu})=(\dot{t},\dot{r},\dot{\theta},\dot{\phi})^T$ (and additional linear combinations) lead to conserved quantities. The first conserved quantity follows from a contraction with the first Killing vector:
\[eq:conserved-quantities-killing\] $$\label{eq:conserved-quantities-killing-1}
\xi_{\mu}^{(1)}\dot{x}^{\mu}=\frac{\dot{t}}{A}=\mathrm{const.}$$ The latter corresponds to the result obtained in and it is related to energy conservation. The second conserved quantity involves the remaining Killing vectors where it is understood to be evaluated at $\theta=\pi/2$: $$\label{eq:conserved-quantities-killing-2}
\sqrt{\sum_{i=2}^4 \left.(\xi_{\mu}^{(i)}\dot{x}^{\mu})^2\right|_{\theta=\pi/2}}=Ar^2\dot{\phi}=\mathrm{const.}$$
This conserved quantity is the same as what was obtained in and it means angular momentum conservation. Hence the Killing vectors $\xi^{(i)}$ for $i=2\dots 4$ are related to rotational symmetry of the spherically symmetric spacetime.
Eikonal equation for inhomogeneous and anisotropic media {#sec:eikonal-equation-inhomogeneous-anisotropic}
========================================================
The current section serves with providing some general results on the physics of the eikonal equation, which are used in extensively. In general, the eikonal equation provides a set of three coupled nonlinear differential equations. In what follows a refractive index bearing a dependence on the radial distance $r$ and an angle $\phi$ is assumed (cf., e.g., ). The photon trajectory shall be parameterized by the angle $\phi$, i.e., $\mathbf{r}(\phi)=r(\phi)\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r(\phi)$. Its first and second derivative read
$$\label{eq:photon-trajectory-derivatives}
\mathbf{r}'=\dot{r}\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r+r\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi}\,,\quad \mathbf{r}''=(\ddot{r}-r)\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r+2\dot{r}\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi}\,.$$
The arc length depends on $\phi$ and we obtain a set of useful relationships: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eikonal-equation-identities}
s(\phi)&=\int^{\phi} \mathrm{d}\phi'\,|\mathbf{r}'|=\int^{\phi} \mathrm{d}\phi'\,\sqrt{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\,,\quad \frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}=\sqrt{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-2}&=\frac{1}{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\,,\quad \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-1}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2+\dot{r}^2}}\right)=-\frac{(r+\ddot{r})\dot{r}}{(r^2+\dot{r}^2)^{3/2}}\,, \\[2ex]
\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}s}&=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Now the derivative on the left-hand side of the eikonal equation can be computed. Instead of differentiating with respect to the arc length we have to calculate derivatives with respect to $\phi$, which leads to three terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left[n\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-1}\right]&=\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}s}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-1}+n\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-2}+\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-1}n\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi} \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&=\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-2}+n\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-2} \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\phantom{{}={}}+\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-1}\right]\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\right)^{-1}n\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now employing the derivatives of and the identities given in the eikonal equation can be expressed in terms of the radial coordinate $r$, the angle $\phi$, and the basis vectors: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r\frac{\partial n}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial n}{\partial\phi}\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi}&=\frac{1}{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}\phi}(\dot{r}\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r+r\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi})+n\left[(\ddot{r}-r)\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r+2\dot{r}\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi}\right]\right\} \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}}-n(\dot{r}\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r+r\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi})\frac{(r+\ddot{r})\dot{r}}{(r^2+\dot{r}^2)^2}\end{aligned}$$ Sorting terms associated to $\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\phi}$, respectively, results in a system of two differential equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial r}&=\frac{1}{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}\phi}\dot{r}+n(\ddot{r}-r)\right]-n\frac{(r+\ddot{r})\dot{r}^2}{(r^2+\dot{r}^2)^2}\,, \\[2ex]
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial n}{\partial\phi}&=\frac{1}{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}\phi}r+2n\dot{r}\right]-n\frac{(r+\ddot{r})r\dot{r}}{(r^2+\dot{r}^2)^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Multiplying the second with $\dot{r}/r$ and subtracting it from the first eliminates various terms, which simplifies the equation drastically:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial r}-\frac{\dot{r}}{r^2}\frac{\partial n}{\partial\phi}&=\frac{n}{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\left(\ddot{r}-\frac{2\dot{r}^2}{r}-r\right)\,, \\[2ex]
\label{eq:eikonal-equation-main-result}
0&=(r^2+\dot{r}^2)\left[r\frac{\partial n}{\partial r}-\frac{\dot{r}}{r}\frac{\partial n}{\partial\phi}\right]+n(r^2+2\dot{r}^2-r\ddot{r})\,.\end{aligned}$$
This is the final result that we are interested in and that shall be used for practical purposes. However multiplying the latter with $r\dot{r}/(r^2+\dot{r}^2)^{3/2}$, it can be written in a form that allows for a deeper physical understanding: $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\phi}(nr\sin\alpha)-\sqrt{r^2+\dot{r}^2}\frac{\partial n}{\partial\phi}=0\,,\quad \sin\alpha=\frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2+\dot{r}^2}}\,.$$ If the refractive index only depends on the radial coordinate the second term on the left-hand side vanishes, which then leads us directly to the formula of Bouguer. Physically this result means angular momentum conservation. For a refractive index that additionally depends on the angle $\phi$ angular momentum is not a conserved quantity any more. Instead, there is a driving term that modifies the angular momentum. The change is bigger the larger the velocity is and the stronger the refractive index changes with the angle.
[99]{} D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecký, “Lorentz violating extension of the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 116002 (1998), hep-ph/9809521. V. A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Electrodynamics with Lorentz-violating operators of arbitrary dimension,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 015020 (2009), arXiv:0905.0031 \[hep-ph\]. V. A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Neutrinos with Lorentz-violating operators of arbitrary dimension,” Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 096005 (2012), arXiv:1112.6395 \[hep-ph\]. V. A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Fermions with Lorentz-violating operators of arbitrary dimension,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 096006 (2013), arXiv:1308.4973 \[hep-ph\]. V. A. Kostelecký and N. Russell, “Data Tables for Lorentz and *CPT* Violation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**83**]{}, 11 (2011), arXiv:0801.0287 \[hep-ph\]. O. W. Greenberg, “CPT violation implies violation of Lorentz invariance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 231602 (2002), hep-ph/0201258. V. A. Kostelecký and S. Samuel, “Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{}, 683 (1989). V. A. Kostelecký and R. Potting, “*CPT* and strings,” Nucl. Phys. B [**359**]{}, 545 (1991). V. A. Kostelecký and R. Potting, “*CPT*, strings, and meson factories,” Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 3923 (1995), hep-ph/9501341. R. Gambini and J. Pullin, “Nonstandard optics from quantum space-time,” Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 124021 (1999), gr-qc/9809038. M. Bojowald, H. A. Morales–Técotl, and H. Sahlmann, “Loop quantum gravity phenomenology and the issue of Lorentz invariance,” Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 084012 (2005), gr-qc/0411101. G. Amelino-Camelia and S. Majid, “Waves on noncommutative spacetime and gamma-ray bursts,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**15**]{}, 4301 (2000), hep-th/9907110. S. M. Carroll, J. A. Harvey, V. A. Kostelecký, C. D. Lane, and T. Okamoto, “Noncommutative field theory and Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 141601 (2001), hep-th/0105082. F. R. Klinkhamer and C. Rupp, “Spacetime foam, *CPT* anomaly, and photon propagation,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 045020 (2004), hep-th/0312032. S. Bernadotte and F. R. Klinkhamer, “Bounds on length scales of classical spacetime foam models,” Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 024028 (2007), hep-ph/0610216. S. Hossenfelder, “Theory and phenomenology of space-time defects,” Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2014**]{}, 950672 (2014), arXiv:1401.0276 \[hep-ph\]. F. R. Klinkhamer, “Z-string global gauge anomaly and Lorentz non-invariance,” Nucl. Phys. B [**535**]{}, 233 (1998), hep-th/9805095. F. R. Klinkhamer, “A *CPT* anomaly,” Nucl. Phys. B [**578**]{}, 277 (2000), hep-th/9912169. V. A. Kostelecký and R. Lehnert, “Stability, causality, and Lorentz and [*CPT*]{} violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 065008 (2001), hep-th/0012060. C. Adam and F. R. Klinkhamer, “Causality and *CPT* violation from an Abelian Chern-Simons-like term,” Nucl. Phys. B [**607**]{}, 247 (2001), hep-ph/0101087. R. Casana, M. M. Ferreira, A. R. Gomes, and P. R. D. Pinheiro, “Gauge propagator and physical consistency of the *CPT*-even part of the standard model extension,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 125040 (2009), arXiv:0909.0544 \[hep-th\]. R. Casana, M. M. Ferreira, A. R. Gomes, and F. E. P. dos Santos, “Feynman propagator for the nonbirefringent *CPT*-even electrodynamics of the standard model extension,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 125006 (2010), arXiv:1010.2776 \[hep-th\]. F. R. Klinkhamer and M. Schreck, “Consistency of isotropic modified Maxwell theory: Microcausality and unitarity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**848**]{}, 90 (2011), arXiv:1011.4258 \[hep-th\], F. R. Klinkhamer and M. Schreck, “Models for low-energy Lorentz violation in the photon sector: Addendum to ‘Consistency of isotropic modified Maxwell theory’,” Nucl. Phys. B [**856**]{}, 666 (2012), arXiv:1110.4101 \[hep-th\]. M. Schreck, “Analysis of the consistency of parity-odd nonbirefringent modified Maxwell theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 065038 (2012), arXiv:1111.4182 \[hep-th\]. M. Cambiaso, R. Lehnert, and R. Potting, “Massive photons and Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 085023 (2012), arXiv:1201.3045 \[hep-th\]. D. Colladay, P. McDonald, and R. Potting, “Gupta-Bleuler photon quantization in the standard model extension,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 085014 (2014), arXiv:1401.1173 \[hep-ph\]. M. Maniatis and C. M. Reyes, “Unitarity in a Lorentz symmetry breaking model with higher-order operators,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 056009 (2014), arXiv:1401.3752 \[hep-ph\]. M. Schreck, “Quantum field theory based on birefringent modified Maxwell theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 085013 (2014), arXiv:1311.0032 \[hep-th\]. M. Schreck, “Quantum field theoretic properties of Lorentz-violating operators of nonrenormalizable dimension in the photon sector,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 105019 (2014), arXiv:1312.4916 \[hep-th\]. M. Cambiaso, R. Lehnert, and R. Potting, “Asymptotic states and renormalization in Lorentz-violating quantum field theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 065003 (2014), arXiv:1401.7317 \[hep-th\]. M. Schreck, “Quantum field theoretic properties of Lorentz-violating operators of nonrenormalizable dimension in the fermion sector,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 085025 (2014), arXiv:1403.6766 \[hep-th\]. S. Albayrak and I. Turan, “[*CPT*]{}-odd photon in vacuum-orthogonal model,” arXiv:1505.07584 \[hep-ph\]. V. A. Kostelecký, C. D. Lane, and A. G. M. Pickering, “One-loop renormalization of Lorentz-violating electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 056006 (2002), hep-th/0111123. D. Colladay and P. McDonald, “One-loop renormalization of pure Yang-Mills theory with Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 105002 (2007), hep-ph/0609084. D. Colladay and P. McDonald, “One-Loop renormalization of QCD with Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 085006 (2008), arXiv:0712.2055 \[hep-ph\]. D. Colladay and P. McDonald, “One-Loop renormalization of the electroweak sector with Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 125019 (2009), arXiv:0904.1219 \[hep-ph\]. T. R. S. Santos and R. F. Sobreiro, “Remarks on the renormalization properties of Lorentz and CPT violating quantum electrodynamics,” arXiv:1502.06881 \[hep-th\]. T. R. S. Santos and R. F. Sobreiro, “Renormalizability of Yang-Mills theory with Lorentz violation and gluon mass generation,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 025008 (2015), arXiv:1404.4846 \[hep-th\]. V. A. Kostelecký, “Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 105009 (2004), hep-th/0312310. Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kostelecký, “Signals for Lorentz violation in post-Newtonian gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 045001 (2006), gr-qc/0603030. V. A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, and J. D. Tasson, “Constraints on torsion from bounds on Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 111102 (2008), arXiv:0712.4393 \[gr-qc\]. V. A. Kostelecký and J. D. Tasson, “Prospects for large relativity violations in matter-gravity couplings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 010402 (2009), arXiv:0810.1459 \[gr-qc\]. Q. G. Bailey, “Time-delay and Doppler tests of the Lorentz symmetry of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 044004 (2009), arXiv:0904.0278 \[gr-qc\]. V. A. Kostelecký and J. D. Tasson, “Matter-gravity couplings and Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 016013 (2011), arXiv:1006.4106 \[gr-qc\]. J. D. Tasson, “Gravitational physics with antimatter,” Hyperfine Interact. [**193**]{}, 291 (2009), arXiv:1010.2811 \[hep-ph\]. J. D. Tasson, “Lorentz violation, gravitomagnetism, and intrinsic spin,” Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 124021 (2012), arXiv:1211.4850 \[hep-ph\]. J. D. Tasson, “Antimatter, the SME, and gravity,” Hyperfine Interact. [**213**]{}, 137 (2012), arXiv:1212.1636 \[hep-ph\]. Y. Bonder, “Lorentz violation in a uniform Newtonian gravitational field,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 105011 (2013), arXiv:1309.7972 \[hep-ph\]. Y. Bonder, “Lorentz violation in the gravity sector: The $t$ puzzle,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 125002 (2015), arXiv:1504.03636 \[gr-qc\]. Q. G. Bailey, V. A. Kostelecký, and R. Xu, “Short-range gravity and Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 022006 (2015), arXiv:1410.6162 \[gr-qc\]. J. C. Long and V. A. Kostelecký, “Search for Lorentz violation in short-range gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 092003 (2015), arXiv:1412.8362 \[hep-ex\]. V. A. Kostelecký and S. Samuel, “Phenomenological gravitational constraints on strings and higher-dimensional theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 224 (1989). V. A. Kostelecký and S. Samuel, “Gravitational phenomenology in higher-dimensional theories and strings,” Phys. Rev. D [**40**]{}, 1886 (1989). R. Bluhm, N. L. Gagne, R. Potting, and A. Vrublevskis, “Constraints and stability in vector theories with spontaneous Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 125007 (2008) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**79**]{}, 029902 (2009)\], arXiv:0802.4071 \[hep-th\]. C. Hernaski, “Quantization and stability of bumblebee electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 124036 (2014), arXiv:1411.5321 \[hep-th\]. R. Bluhm, “Explicit versus spontaneous diffeomorphism breaking in gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 065034 (2015), arXiv:1401.4515 \[gr-qc\]. P. Finsler, [*Über Kurven und Flächen in allgemeinen Räumen*]{}, in German (Gebr. Leemann & Co., Zürich, 1918).
É. Cartan, Sur les espaces de Finsler, in French, C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) [**196**]{}, 582 (1933).
D. Bao, S.-S. Chern, and Z. Shen, [*An Introduction to Riemann-Finsler Geometry*]{} (Springer, New York, 2000).
P. L. Antonelli, R. S. Ingarden, and M. Matsumoto, [*The Theory of Sprays and Finsler Spaces with Applications in Physics and Biology*]{} (Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, 1993).
V. A. Kostelecký and N. Russell, “Classical kinematics for Lorentz violation,” Phys. Lett. B [**693**]{}, 443 (2010), arXiv:1008.5062 \[hep-ph\]. V. A. Kostelecký, “Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz-violating kinematics,” Phys. Lett. B [**701**]{}, 137 (2011), arXiv:1104.5488 \[hep-th\]. V. A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, and R. Tso, “Bipartite Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz violation,” Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{}, 470 (2012), arXiv:1209.0750 \[hep-th\]. D. Colladay and P. McDonald, “Classical Lagrangians for momentum dependent Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 044042 (2012), arXiv:1201.3931 \[hep-ph\]. N. Russell, “Finsler-like structures from Lorentz-breaking classical particles,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 045008 (2015), arXiv:1501.02490 \[hep-th\]. M. Schreck, “Classical kinematics and Finsler structures for nonminimal Lorentz-violating fermions,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, 187 (2015), arXiv:1405.5518 \[hep-th\]. M. Schreck, “Classical kinematics for isotropic, minimal Lorentz-violating fermion operators,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 105001 (2015), arXiv:1409.1539 \[hep-th\]. J. E. G. Silva and C. A. S. Almeida, “Kinematics and dynamics in a bipartite-Finsler spacetime,” Phys. Lett. B [**731**]{}, 74 (2014), arXiv:1312.7369 \[hep-th\]. J. Foster and R. Lehnert, “Classical-physics applications for Finsler $b$ space,” Phys. Lett. B [**746**]{}, 164 (2015), arXiv:1504.07935 \[physics.class-ph\]. D. Colladay and P. McDonald, “Singular Lorentz-violating Lagrangians and associated Finsler structures,” arXiv:1507.01018 \[hep-ph\]. H. Hironaka, “Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero: I,” Ann. of Math. [**79**]{}, 109, “Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero: II,” Ann. of Math. [**79**]{}, 205 (1964).
V. A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 056005 (2002), hep-ph/0205211. Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kostelecký, “Lorentz-violating electrostatics and magnetostatics,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 076006 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407252. S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, “Limits on a Lorentz- and parity-violating modification of electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 1231 (1990). Z. Shen, “Landsberg curvature, $S$-curvature and Riemann curvature,” in [*A Sampler of Riemann-Finsler Geometry*]{}, edited by D. Bao, R. L. Bryant, S.-S. Chern, and Z. Shen, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. [**50**]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge $\cdot$ New York $\cdot$ Port Melbourne $\cdot$ Madrid $\cdot$ Cape Town, 2004).
A. Deicke, “Über die Finsler-Räume mit $A_i=0$,” in German, Arch. Math. [**4**]{}, 45 (1953).
M. Matsumoto and S. Hōjō, “A conclusive theorem on C-reducible Finsler spaces,” Tensor (N.S.) [**32**]{}, 225 (1978).
N. McGinnis, “Finsler structures in the photon sector of the Standard Model Extension,” Bachelor thesis, unpublished (2014).
B. Altschul, “Vacuum Čerenkov radiation in Lorentz-violating theories without *CPT* violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 041603 (2007), hep-th/0609030. V. Fock, [*The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation*]{}, translated from Russian by N. Kemmer (Pergamon Press, New York $\cdot$ London $\cdot$ Paris $\cdot$ Los Angeles, 1959).
O. Constantinescu and M. Crasmareanu, Examples of conics arising in two-dimensional Finsler and Lagrange geometries, An. St. Uni. Mat. [**17**]{}, 45 (2009).
G. Randers, “On an asymmetrical metric in the four-space of General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. [**59**]{}, 195 (1941).
V. Perlick, “Fermat principle in Finsler spacetimes,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**38**]{}, 365 (2006), gr-qc/0508029. R. G. Torromé, P. Piccione, and H. Vitório, “On Fermat’s principle for causal curves in time oriented Finsler spacetimes,” J. Math. Phys. [**53**]{}, 123511 (2012), arXiv:1202.3869 \[math.DG\]. Z. Xiao, L. Shao, and B. Q. Ma, “Eikonal equation of the Lorentz-violating Maxwell theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**70**]{}, 1153 (2010) arXiv:1011.5074 \[hep-th\]. X.-J. Wu and C.-M. Xu, “Null geodesic equation equivalent to the geometric optics equation,” Commun. in Theor. Phys. [**9**]{}, 119 (1988).
G. Betschart, E. Kant, and F. R. Klinkhamer, “Lorentz violation and black-hole thermodynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B [**815**]{}, 198 (2009), arXiv:0811.0943 \[hep-th\]. M. Born and E. Wolf, *Electromagnetic theory of propagation interference and diffraction of light*, 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005).
I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, *Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*, 7nd ed. (Academic Press, Burlington $\cdot$ San Diego $\cdot$ London, 2007).
D. Lynden-Bell and J. Katz, “Gravitational field energy density for spheres and black holes,” Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. [**213**]{}, 21 (1985). [@Klinkhamer:2003ec]
F. W. Dyson, A. S. Eddington, and C. Davidson, “A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of May 29, 1919,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A [**220**]{}, 291 (1920).
A. S. Eddington, [*The Mathematical Theory of Relativity*]{} (Cambridge University Press, London, 1923).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables*]{} (National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1964).
M. A. C. Perryman, K. S. de Boer, G. Gilmore, E. Høg, M. G. Lattanzi, L. Lindegren, X. Luri, F. Mignard, O. Pace, and P. T. de Zeeuw, “GAIA: Composition, formation and evolution of the galaxy,” Astron. Astrophys. [**369**]{}, 339 (2001), astro-ph/0101235. S. G. Turyshev, M. Shao, and K. L. Nordtvedt, Jr., “Experimental design for the LATOR mission,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**13**]{}, 2035 (2004), gr-qc/0410044. S. G. Turyshev, M. Shao, K. L. Nordtvedt, Jr., H. Dittus, C. Lämmerzahl, S. Theil, C. Salomon, and S. Reynaud [*et al.*]{}, “Advancing fundamental physics with the Laser Astrometric Test of Relativity,” Exper. Astron. [**27**]{}, 27 (2009). J. Evans and M. Rosenquist, “‘$F=ma$’ optics,” Am. J. Phys. [**54**]{}, 876 (1986).
F. J. Belinfante, “On the current and the density of the electric charge, the energy, the linear momentum and the angular momentum of arbitrary fields,” Physica [**7**]{}, 449 (1940).
H. Watanabe and H. Murayama, “Redundancies in Nambu-Goldstone bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 181601 (2013), arXiv:1302.4800 \[cond-mat.other\].
[^1]: Note that the global prefactor of MCS-theory is different in the latter reference.
[^2]: The acronym originally meant “Global Astrometric Interferometer for Astrophysics.” Although the foreseen measurement technique was changed upon construction of the apparatus, the acronym was kept.
[^3]: The number of spontaneously broken translational and rotational generators is six. However as they are not independent from each other, the total number of Nambu-Goldstone bosons is reduced by these constraints to be three. Relations between broken symmetries and Nambu-Goldstone bosons in certain nonrelativistic systems such as crystals, ferromagnets, and superfluids are nicely described in [@Watanabe:2013iia].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
epsf \#1
23.5cm 1ex
-40pt = .5ex i
\#1 Ø\#1[O(\#1)]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1 \#1\#2 \#1 \#1\#2 \#1 \#1\#2 \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1 \#1 \#1[(\[\#1\])]{} \#1[(\#1)]{} \#1\#2[\_[\#1]{}\^[\#2]{}]{} N[$\frac{1}{N}$ expansion]{} \#1[(\#1)\_]{} \#1\#2[\_[i=1]{}\^N|\_i(\#2)\_[\#1]{}\_i(\#2)]{} \#1[{\#1}\_[PB]{}]{} \#1
[**October ’93**]{}\
[**LOOP EQUATION AND AREA LAW IN TURBULENCE**]{}
[**A.A. Migdal**]{}
[*Physics Department, Princeton University,\
Jadwin Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544-1000.\
E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
Introduction
============
Incompressible fluid dynamics underlies the vast majority of natural phenomena. It is described by famous Navier-Stokes equation $$\dot{v}_{\alpha} = \nu \partial_{\beta}^2 v_{\alpha} - v_{\beta}
\partial_{\beta} v_{\alpha} - \partial_{\alpha} p \\;\;
\partial_{\alpha}v_{\alpha} = 0 \label{eq1}$$ which is nonlinear, and therefore hard to solve. This nonlinearity makes life more interesting, though, as it leads to turbulence. Solving this equation with appropriate initial and boundary conditions we expect to obtain the chaotic behavior of velocity field.
The simplest boundary conditions correspond to infinite space with vanishing velocity at infinity. We are looking for the translation invariant probability distribution for velocity field, with infinite range of the wavelengths. In order to compensate for the energy dissipation, we add the usual random force to the equations, with the short wavelength support, corresponding to large scale energy pumping.
One may attempt to describe this probability distribution by the Hopf generating functional (the angular bracket denote time averaging, or ensemble averaging over realizations of the random forces) $$Z[J] = \left \langle \exp \left( \int d^3 r
J_{\alpha}(r)v_{\alpha}(r)\right)
\right \rangle \label{eq2}$$ which is known to satisfy linear functional differential equation $$\dot{Z} = H\left[J,\frac{\delta}{\delta J} \right] Z
\label{eq3}$$ similar to the Schrödinger equation for Quantum Field Theory, and equally hard to solve. Nobody managed to go beyond the Taylor expansion in source $ J $ , which corresponds to the obvious chain of equations for the equal time correlation functions of velocity field in various points in space. The same equations could be obtained directly from Navier-Stokes equations, so the Hopf equation looks useless.
In this work[^1] we argue, that one could significantly simplify the Hopf functional without loosing information about correlation functions. This simplified functional depends upon the set of 3 periodic functions of one variable $$C : r_{\alpha} = C_{\alpha}(\theta)\\;\; 0< \theta< 2\pi$$ which set describes the closed loop in coordinate space. The correlation functions reduce to certain functional derivatives of our loop functional with respect to $ C(\theta)$ at vanishing loop $ C \rightarrow 0 $.
The properties of the loop functional at large loop $ C $ also have physical significance. Like the Wilson loops in Gauge Theory, they describe the statistics of large scale structures of vorticity field, which is analogous to the gauge field strength.
In Appendix A we recover the expansion in inverse powers of viscosity by direct iterations of the loop equation.
In Appendix B we study the matrix formulation of the equation, which may serve as a basis of the random matrix description of turbulence.
In Appendix C we study the reduced dynamics, corresponding to the functional Fourier transform of the loop functional. We argue, that instead of 3D equations one can use the 1D equations for the Fourier loop $P_{\alp}(\theta,t)$.
In Appendix D we discuss the relation between the initial data for velocity field and the $P$ field, and we find particular realisation for these initial data in terms of the gaussian random variables.
In Appendix E we introduce the generating functional for the scalar products $ P_{\alp}(\theta)P_{\alp}(\theta') $. The advantage of this functional over the original $\Psi[C]$ functional is the smoother continuum limit.
In Appendix F we discuss the possible numerical implementations of the reduced loop dynamics.
In Appendix G we show uniqueness of the tensor area law within certain class of functionals.
In Appendix H we present the modern view at the old problem of the minimal surface.
In Appendix I we show that the triple Kolmogorov correlation function corresponds to a vanishing correlation of vorticity with two velocity fields.
The Loop Calculus
=================
We suggest to use in turbulence the following version of the Hopf functional $$\Psi \left[C \right] = \left \langle \exp
\left(
\frac{\i }{\nu} \oint dC_{\alpha}(\theta)
v_{\alpha}\left(C(\theta)\right) \right) \right \rangle \label{eq4}$$ which we call the loop functional or the loop field. It is implied that all angular variable $\theta$ run from $ 0 $ to $ 2\pi$and that all the functions of this variable are $ 2\pi$ periodic.[^2] The viscosity $
\nu $ was inserted in denominator in exponential, as the only parameter of proper dimension. As we shall see below, it plays the role, similar to the Planck’s constant in Quantum mechanics, the turbulencecorresponding to the WKB limit $ \nu \rightarrow 0 $. [^3]
As for the imaginary unit $\i$, there are two reasons to insert it in the exponential. First, it makes the motion compact: the phase factor goes around the unit circle, when the velocity field fluctuates. So, at large times one may expect the ergodicity, with well defined average functional bounded by $1$ by absolute value. Second, with this factor of $\i$, the irreversibility of the problem is manifest. The time reversal corresponds to the complex conjugation of $\Psi$, so that imaginary part of the asymptotic value of $\Psi$ at $t \ra \8$ measures the effects of dissipation.
The loop orientation reversal $ C(\theta) \ra C(2\pi - \theta) $ also leads to the complex conjugation, so it is equivalent to the time reversal. This symmetry implies, that any correlator of odd/even number of velocities should be integrated odd/even number of times over the loop, and it must enter with an imaginary/real factor. Later, we shall use this property in the area law.
We shall often use the field theory notations for the loop integrals, = ( \_C dr\_v\_ ) \[eq4’\] This loop integral can be reduced to the surface integral of vorticity field \_ = \_v\_-\_v\_ by the Stokes theorem $$\Gamma_C[v] \equiv \oint_C dr_{\alpha}v_{\alpha}= \int_{S} d
\sigma_{\mu\nu} \omega_{\mu\nu} \\;\; \partial S = C$$
This is the well-known velocity circulation, which measures the net strength of the vortex lines, passing through the loop $ C $. Would we fix initial loop $ C $ and let it move with the flow, the loop field would be conserved by the Euler equation, so that only the viscosity effects would be responsible for its time evolution. However, this is not what we are trying to do. We take the Euler rather than Lagrange dynamics, so that the loop is fixed in space, and hence $\Psi$ is time dependent already in the Euler equations. The difference between Euler and equations is the time irreversibility, which leads to complex average $\Psi$ in dynamics.
It is implied that this field $\Psi\left[C\right]$ is invariant under translations of the loop $ C(\theta) \rightarrow C(\theta)+ const $. The asymptotic behavior at large time with proper random forcing reaches certain fixed point, governed by the translation- and scale invariant equations, which we derive in this paper.
The general Hopf functional (\[eq2\]) reduces for the loop field for the following imaginary singular source $$J_{\alpha}(r) = \frac{\i }{ \nu} \oint_C dr'_{\alpha} \delta^3
\left(r'-r \right) \label{eq8}$$
The $\Psi$ functional involves connected correlation functions of the powers of circulation at equal times. = This expansion goes in powers of effective Reynolds number, so it diverges in turbulent region. There, the opposite WKB approximation will be used.
Let us come back to the general case of the arbitrary Reynolds number. What could be the use of such restricted Hopf functional? At first glance it seems that we lost most of information, described by the Hopf functional, as the general Hopf source $J$ depends upon 3 variables $ x,y,z $ whereas the loop $C$ depends of only one parameter $ \theta $. Still, this information can be recovered by taking the loops of the singular shape, such as two infinitesimal loops $R_1, R_2 $, connected by a couple of wires
The loop field in this case reduces to $$\Psi \left[C \right] \rightarrow \left \langle \exp
\left(
\frac{\i}{ 2\nu} \Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{R_1}\omega_{\mu\nu}(r_1)
+\frac{\i}{ 2\nu} \Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{R_2 } \omega_{\mu\nu}(r_2)
\right) \right \rangle$$ where $$\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^R = \oint_R d r_{\nu}r_{\mu}$$ is the tensor area inside the loop $R$. Taking functional derivatives with respect to the shape of $R_1$ and $R_2$ prior to shrinking them to points, we can bring down the product of vorticities at $r_1$ and $r_2$. Namely, the variations yield \_\^R= \_R(d r\_r\_+ r\_d r\_ ) = \_R ( d r\_r\_ -d r\_r\_ ) where integration by parts was used in the second term.
One may introduce the area derivative $\fbyf{}{\sigma_{\mu\nu}(r)}$, which brings down the vorticity at the given point $ r $ at the loop. $$-\nu^2 \frac{\delta^2 \Psi \left[C \right]}
{\delta \sigma_{\mu\nu}(r_1)\delta \sigma_{\lambda \rho}(r_2)}
\ra \left \langle \omega_{\mu\nu}(r_1)
\omega_{\lambda \rho}(r_2) \right \rangle$$
The careful definition of these area derivatives are or paramount importance to us. The corresponding loop calculus was developed in[@Mig83] in the context of the gauge theory. Here we rephrase and further refine the definitions and relations established in that work.
The basic element of the loop calculus is what we suggest to call the spike derivative, namely the operator which adds the infinitesimal $
\Lambda $ shaped spike to the loop $$D_{\alpha}(\theta,\epsilon) = \int_{\theta}^{\theta+2\epsilon}d \phi
\left(
1-\frac{\left|\theta +\epsilon - \phi\right|}{\epsilon }
\right)
\frac{\delta}{\delta C_{\alpha}(\phi)}$$ The finite spike operator $$\Lambda(r,\theta,\epsilon) =
\exp \left( r_{\alpha} D_{\alpha}(\theta,\epsilon) \right)$$ adds the spike of the height $r$. This is the straight line from $
C(\theta) $ to $ C(\theta + \epsilon) + r$, followed by another straight line from $ C(\theta+\epsilon)+r $ to $ C(\theta+2
\epsilon)$,
Note, that the loop remains closed, and the slopes remain finite, only the second derivatives diverge. The continuity and closure of the loop eliminates the potential part of velocity; as we shall see below, this is necessary to obtain the loop equation.
In the limit $ \epsilon \rightarrow 0 $ these spikes are invisible, at least for the smooth vorticity field, as one can see from the Stokes theorem (the area inside the spike goes to zero as $ \epsilon $). However, taking certain derivatives prior to the limit $ \epsilon
\rightarrow 0 $ we can obtain the finite contribution.
Let us consider the operator $$\Pi \left(r,r',\theta ,\epsilon \right) =
\Lambda \left(r, \theta,\frac{1}{2} \epsilon \right) \Lambda
\left(r',\theta,\epsilon \right)$$ By construction it inserts the smaller spike on top of a bigger one, in such a way, that a polygon appears
Taking the derivatives with respect to the vertices of this polygon $ r, r' $ , setting $r=r'=0$ and antisymmetrising, we find the tensor operator $$\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\theta,\epsilon) =
-\i \nu D_{\alpha}\left(\theta,\frac{1}{2} \epsilon \right)
D_{\beta}\left(\theta,\epsilon \right) - \{\alpha \leftrightarrow\beta\}
\label{OM}$$ which brings down the vorticity, when applied to the loop field $$\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\theta,\epsilon) \Psi \left[C \right]
\stackrel{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow}
\omega_{\alpha\beta}\left(C(\theta)\right)\Psi \left[C \right] \label{eqom}$$
The quick way to check these formulas is to use formal functional derivatives $$\frac{\delta \Psi \left[C \right]}{\delta C_{\alpha}(\theta)} =
C'_{\beta}(\theta) \fbyf{\Psi \left[C
\right]}{\sigma_{\alp\bet}\left(C(\theta)\right)}$$ Taking one more functional derivative derivative we find the term with vorticity times first derivative of the $ \delta $ function, coming from the variation of $ C'(\theta) $ = ’(-’) + C’\_() C’\_(’) This term is the only one, which survives the limit $ \epsilon
\rightarrow 0 $ in our relation (\[eqom\]).
So, the area derivative can be defined from the antisymmetric tensor part of the second functional derivative as the coefficient in front of $
\delta'(\theta-\theta') $ . Still, it has all the properties of the first functional derivative, as it can also be defined from the above first variation. The advantage of dealing with spikes is the control over the limit $\eps
\ra 0$ , which might be quite singular in applications.
So far we managed to insert the vorticity at the loop $ C $ by variations of the loop field. Later we shall need the vorticity off the loop, in arbitrary point in space. This can be achieved by the following combination of the spike operators $$\Lambda \left(r,\theta,\epsilon \right) \Pi
\left(r_1,r_2,\theta+\epsilon,\delta \right) \\;\; \delta \ll \epsilon$$ This operator inserts the $ \Pi $ shaped little loop at the top of the bigger spike, in other words, this little loop is translated by a distance $r$ by the big spike.
Taking derivatives, we find the operator of finite translation of the vorticity $$\Lambda \left(r,\theta,\epsilon \right)
\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\theta+ \epsilon ,\delta)$$ and the corresponding infinitesimal translation operator $$D_{\mu}(\theta,\epsilon)\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\theta+ \epsilon ,\delta)$$ which inserts $ \partial_{\mu} \omega_{\alpha \beta} \left( C(\theta)
\right) $ when applied to the loop field.
Coming back to the correlation function, we are going now to construct the operator, which would insert two vorticities separated by a distance. Let us note that the global $ \Lambda $ spike $$\Lambda \left(r,0,\pi \right) = \exp
\left(
r_{\alpha}\int_{0}^{2\pi}d
\phi \left(1- \frac{ \left|\phi-\pi \right|}{\pi} \right)
\frac{\delta}{\delta C_{\alpha}(\phi)}\right)$$ when applied to a shrunk loop $ C(\phi) = 0 $ does nothing but the backtracking from $0$ to $r$
This means that the operator $$\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(0 ,\delta)\Omega_{\lambda \rho}(\pi ,\delta)
\Lambda \left(r,0,\pi \right)$$ when applied to the loop field for a shrunk loop yields the vorticity correlation function $$\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(0 ,\delta)\Omega_{\lambda \rho}(\pi ,\delta)
\Lambda \left(r,0,\pi \right) \Psi [0] = \left \langle \omega_{\alpha
\beta}(0) \omega_{\lambda \rho}(r) \right \rangle$$
The higher correlation functions of vorticities could be constructed in a similar fashion, using the spike operators. As for the velocity, one should solve the Poisson equation $$\partial_{\mu}^2 v_{\alpha}(r) = \partial_{\beta} \omega_{\beta \alpha}(r)$$ with the proper boundary conditions , say, $ v=0 $ at infinity. Formally, $$v_{\alpha}(r) =
\frac{1}{\partial_{\mu}^{2}}\partial_{\beta} \omega_{\beta \alpha}(r)$$
This suggests the following formal definition of the velocity operator $$V_{\alpha}(\theta,\epsilon,\delta) = \frac{1}{D_{\mu}^2(\theta,\epsilon)}
D_{\beta}(\theta,\epsilon) \Omega_{\beta \alpha}(\theta,\delta)\\;\;
\delta \ll \epsilon
\label{VOM}$$ $$V_{\alpha}(\theta,\epsilon,\delta)\Psi[C] \stackrel{\delta,\epsilon
\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} v_{\alpha} \left(C(\theta) \right) \Psi[C]$$
Another version of this formula is the following integral $$V_{\alpha}(\theta,\epsilon,\delta)= \int d^3 \rho
\frac{\rho_{\beta}}{4 \pi |\rho|^3}\Lambda \left(\rho,\theta,\epsilon
\right)
\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\theta+ \epsilon ,\delta)$$ where the $ \Lambda $ operator shifts the $ \Omega $ by a distance $
\rho $ off the original loop at the point $ r = C(\theta + \epsilon)
$
Loop Equation
=============
Let us now derive exact equation for the loop functional. Taking the time derivative of the original definition, and using the Navier-Stokes equation we get in front of exponential $$\oint_C d r_{\alpha} \frac{\i}{ \nu}
\left(
\nu \partial_{\beta}^2 v_{\alpha} - v_{\beta}
\partial_{\beta} v_{\alpha} - \partial_{\alpha} p \right)$$ The term with the pressure gradient yields zero after integration over the closed loop, and the velocity gradients in the first two terms could be expressed in terms of vorticity up to irrelevant gradient terms, so that we find $$\oint_C d r_{\alpha} \frac{\i}{ \nu}
\left(
\nu \partial_{\beta} \omega_{\beta \alpha} - v_{\beta}
\omega_{\beta \alpha}
\right) \label{Orig}$$
Replacing the vorticity and velocity by the operators discussed in the previous Section we find the following loop equation (in explicit notations) -i\[C\] = d C\_() ( D\_(,) \_(,) + d\^3 (,,) \_(+ ,)\_(,) ) \[PsiC\]
The more compact form of this equation, using the notations of [@Mig83], reads i\[C\] = [H]{}\_C\_C \^2\_[C]{} dr\_ ( i\_ + d\^3 r’ ) \[OLD\] Now we observe that viscosity $ \nu $ appears in front of time and spatial derivatives, like the Planck constant $\hbar$ in Quantum mechanics. Our loop hamiltonian ${\cal H}_C$ is not hermitean, due to dissipation. It contains the second loop derivatives, so it represents a (nonlocal!) kinetic term in loop space.
So far, we considered so called decaying turbulence, without external energy source. The energy E = d\^3 r \^2 would eventually all dissipate, so that the fluid would stop. In this case the loop wave function $\Psi$ would asymptotically approach $1$ 1
In order to reach the steady state, we add to the right side of the equation the usual gaussian random forces $f_{\alp}(r,t)$ with the space dependent correlation function = \_(t-t’)F(r-r’) concentrated at at small wavelengths, i.e. slowly varying with $r-r'$.
Using the identity = d\^3 r’ F(r-r’) which is valid for arbitrary functional $\Phi$ we find the following imaginary potential term in the loop hamiltonian \_C iU\[C\]= \_[C]{} dr\_\_[C]{} dr’\_ F(r-r’)
Note, that orientation reversal together with complex conjugation changes the sign of the loop hamiltonian, as it should. The potential part involves two loop integrations times imaginary constant. The first term in the kinetic part has one loop integration, one loop derivative times imaginary constant. The second kinetic term has one loop integration, two loop derivatives and real constant. The left side of the loop equation has no loop integrations, no loop derivatives, but has a factor of $\i$.
The relation between the potential and kinetic parts of the loop hamiltonian depends of viscosity, or, better to say, it depends upon the Reynolds number, which is the ratio of the typical circulation to viscosity. In the viscous limit, when the Reynolds number is small, the loop wave function is close to $1$. The perturbation expansion in $
\inv{\nu}$ goes in powers of the potential, in the same way, as in Quantum mechanics. The second (nonlocal) term in kinetic part of the hamiltonian also serves as a small perturbation (it corresponds to nonlinear term in the equation). The first term of this perturbation expansion is just 1 - |\_C d e\^[ik r]{}|\^2 with $\tilde{F}(k)$ being the Fourier transform of $F(r)$. This term is real, as it corresponds to the two-velocity correlation. The next term comes from the triple correlation of velocity, and this term is purely imaginary, so that the dissipation shows up.
This expansion can be derived by direct iterations in the loop space as in [@Mig83], inverting the operator in the local part of the kinetic term in the hamiltonian. This expansion is discussed in Appendix A. The results agree with the straightforward iterations of the equations in powers of the random force, starting from zero velocity.
So, we have the familiar situation, like in QCD, where the perturbation theory breaks because of the infrared divergencies. For arbitrarily small force, in a large system, the region of small $k$ would yield large contribution to the terms of the perturbation expansion. Therefore, one should take the opposite WKB limit $\nu \ra 0$.
In this limit, the wave function should behave as the usual WKB wave function, i.e. as an exponential The effective loop Action $S[C]$ satisfies the loop space Hamilton-Jacobi equation \[C\] =-iU\[C\] + \_[C]{} dr\_ d\^3 r’ \[SC\] The imaginary part of $S[C]$ comes from imaginary potential $U[C]$, which distinguishes our theory from the reversible Quantum mechanics. The sign of $\Im S$ must be positive definite, since $ |\Psi| <1$. As for the real part of $S[C]$, it changes the sign under the loop orientation reversal $C(\theta) \ra C(2\pi-\theta) $.
At finite viscosity there would be an additional term -\_[C]{} dr\_\_ -i\_[C]{} dr\_ d\^3 r’ on the right of . As for the term -\_[C]{} dr\_ i(\_S\[C\]) which formally arises in the loop equation, this term vanishes, since $\partial_{\beta}S[C]=0$. This operator inserts backtracking at some point at the loop without first applying the loop derivative at this point. As it was discussed in the previous Section, such backtracking does not change the loop functional. This issue was discussed at length in , where the Leibnitz rule for the operator $ \dal
\fbyf{}{\sigma_{\bet\gam}} $ was established = f’(g\[C\]) In other words, this operator acts as a first order derivative on the loop functional with finite area derivative (so called Stokes type functional). Then, the above term does not appear.
The Action functional $ S[C] $ describes the distribution of the large scale vorticity structures, and hence it should not depend of viscosity. In terms of the above connected correlation functions of the circulation this corresponds to the limit, when the effective Reynolds number $\frac{\Gamma_C[v]}{\nu}$ goes to infinity, but the sum of the divergent series tends to the finite limit. According to the standard picture of turbulence, the large scale vorticity structures depend upon the energy pumping, rather than the energy dissipation.
It is understood that both time $ t $ and the loop size[^4] $ |C| $ should be greater then the viscous scales $$t \gg t_0 = \nu^{\frac{1}{2}}{\cal E}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \\;\;
|C| \gg r_0 = \nu^{\frac{3}{4}} {\cal E}^{-\frac{1}{4}}$$ where $ {\cal E } $ is the energy dissipation rate.
It is defined from the energy balance equation 0 = \_t= + which can be transformed to = 3 F(0) The left side represents the energy, dissipated at small scale due to viscosity, and the right side - the energy pumped in from the large scales due to the random forces. Their common value is $\et$.
We see, that constant $F(r-r')$, i.e., $\tilde{F}(k)\propto \delta(k)$ is sufficient to provide the necessary energy pumping. However, such forcing does not produce vorticity, which we readily see in our equation. The contribution from this constant part to the potential in our loop equation drops out (this is a closed loop integral of total derivative). This is important, because this term would have the wrong order of magnitude in the turbulent limit - it would grow as the Reynolds number.
Dropping this term, we arrive at remarkably simple and universal functional equation \[C\] = \_[C]{} dr\_ d\^3 r’ \[KIN\] The stationary solution of this equation describes the steady distribution of the circulation in the strong turbulence. Note, that the stationary solutions come in pairs $ \pm S$. The sign should be chosen so, that $ \Im S > 0 $, to provide the inequality $ |\Psi| <1$.
Scaling law
===========
The ‘Hamilton-Jacobi’ equation without the potential term (\[KIN\]) allows the family of the scaling solutions $$S[C] = t^{2 \kappa -1}\phi \left[\frac{C}{t^{\kappa}} \right]$$ with arbitrary index $ \kappa $. The scaling function satisfies the equation $$(2 \kappa -1 ) \phi[C] - \kappa \oint_{C} dr_{\alpha}
\frac{\delta \phi[C]}{\delta \sigma_{\beta \alpha}(r)}r_{\beta} =
\oint_{C} dr_{\alpha}
\int d^3 r'\frac{r'_{\gamma}-r_{\gam}}{4 \pi |r-r'|^3}
\frac{\delta \phi[C]}{\delta \sigma_{\beta \alpha}(r)}
\frac{\delta \phi[C]}{\delta \sigma_{\beta \gamma}(r')}$$ The left side here was computed, using the chain rule differentiation of functional.
Asymptotically, at large time, we expect the fixed point, which is the homogeneous functional $$S_{\infty}[C] = |C|^{2- \frac{1}{\kappa}} f \left[\frac{C}{|C|} \right]$$ zeroing the right side of our ‘kinetic’ functional equation $$0=\oint_{C} dr_{\alpha}
\int d^3 r'\frac{r'_{\gamma}-r_{\gam}}{4 \pi |r-r'|^3}
\frac{\delta S_{\infty}[C]}{\delta \sigma_{\beta \alpha}(r)}
\frac{\delta S_{\infty}[C]}{\delta \sigma_{\beta \gamma}(r')}$$
The Kolmogorov scaling [@Kolm41] would correspond to $$\kappa = \frac{3}{2}$$ in which case one can express the $ S $ functional in terms of $ {
\cal E } $ $$S[C] = {\cal E} t^2 \phi \left[\frac{C}{\sqrt{{\cal E}t^3}} \right]$$
One can easily rephrase the Kolmogorov arguments in the loop space. The relation between the energy dissipation rate and the velocity correlator reads $${\cal E } = \left \langle v_{\alpha}(r_0) v_{\beta}(0) \partial_{\beta}
v_{\alpha}(0) \right \rangle$$ where the point splitting at the viscous scale $r_0$ is introduced. Such splitting is necessary to avoid the viscosity effects; without the splitting the average would formally reduce to the total derivative and vanish.
Instead of the point splitting one may introduce the finite loop of the viscous scale $ |C| \sim r_0 $, and compute this correlator in presence of such loop. This reduces to the WKB estimates $$\omega_{\alpha \beta}(r) \rightarrow
\frac{\delta S[C]}{\delta \sigma_{\alpha \beta}(r)} \\;\;
v_{\alpha}(r) = \int d^3 r'\frac{r'_{\gamma}-r_{\gam}}{4 \pi |r-r'|^3}
\omega_{\alpha \gamma}(r')$$
Using the generic scaling law for $ S $ we find $$\omega \sim r_0^{- \frac{1}{\kappa}}\\;\;
v \sim r_0^{1- \frac{1}{ \kappa}}\\;\;
{\cal E} \sim r_0^{2 - \frac{3}{\kappa}}$$
We see, that the energy dissipation rate would stay finite in the limit of the vanishing viscous scale only for the Kolmogorov value of the index. This argument looks rather cheap, but I think it is basically correct. The constant value of the energy dissipation rate in the limit of vanishing viscosity arises as the quantum anomaly in the field theory, through the finite limit of the point splitting in the correspondent energy current.[^5]
There is another version of this argument, which I like better. The dynamics of Euler fluid in infinite system would not exist, for the non-Kolmogorov scaling. The extra powers of loop size would have to enter with the size $L$ of the whole system, like $\left(\frac{|C|}{L}\right)^{\eps} $. So, in the regime with finite energy pumping rate $\et$ the infinite Euler system can exist only for the Kolmogorov index. This must be the essence of the original Kolmogorov reasoning .
The problem is that nobody proved that such limit exists, though. Within the usual framework, based on the velocity correlation functions, one has to prove, that the infrared divergencies, caused by the sweep, all cancel for the observables. Within our framework these problems disappear, as we shall see later.
As for the correlation functions in inertial range, unfortunately those cannot be computed in the WKB approximation, since they involve the contour shrinking to a double line, with vanishing area inside. Still, most of the physics can be understood in loop terms, without these correlation functions. The large scale behavior of the loop functional reflects the statistics of the large vorticity structures, encircled by the loop.
Loop Equation for the Circulation PDF
=====================================
The loop field could serve as the generating function for the PDF $P_C(\Gamma)
$ for the circulation. The Fourier integral P\_C() = \_[-]{}\^ can be analyzed in the same way as the loop field before. The only difference is that the factors of $ g $ appear in front of various terms. These factors can be replaced by g i acting on $P_C(\Gamma) $.
As a result we find \_C() = -\_[C]{} dr\_ d\^3 r’ + \_[C]{} dr\_\_ - U\[C\] \[PDF\] All the imaginary units disappear, as they should. As for the viscosity and forcing, these terms can be neglected in inertial range in the same way as before. The only new thing is that one has to assume that $ \Gamma \gg \nu $ in inertial range in addition to above assumptions about the size of the loop.
In absence of these terms there are no dimensional parameters so that the following scaling laws hold (with the same index $ \kappa $ as before) P\_C() = t\^[2 -1]{} FThe factor $ t^{2 \kappa-1} $ came from the normalization of probability density. Note, that this is more general law than before. Here we do not have to use the WKB approximation for the PDF. In other words, the whole PDF rather than just its decay at large $ \Gamma $ satisfies the scaling law.
The steady distribution would have the form of P\_C() where the scaling functional $ \Phi $ satisfies the homogeneous equation \_[C]{} dr\_ d\^3 r’ =0 with the normalization condition 1=\_[-]{}\^
In principle, there could be different scaling functions for positive and negative $ \Gamma $, rather than just absolute value $ |\Gamma| $ prescription. This would correspond to above mentioned violation of the time reversal symmetry. However, as we mentioned above, there is no exact relation which would eliminate the symmetric solution.
The Kolmogorov triple correlation function vanishes for vorticities (see Appendix I), so that there is no restriction on the asymmetric part of the circulation PDF. Nevertheless, the Kolmogorov scaling $ \kappa = \frac{3}{2} $ seems to me the most likely possibility, by the reasons discussed in the previous section.
The homogeneous loop equation requires some boundary conditions at large loops, to provide a meaningful solution. The asymptotic decrease of PDF P\_C() \~, Q would lead to the same WKB equation as before \_[C]{} dr\_ d\^3 r’ =0 We are studying this equation in the next section.
Tensor Area law
===============
The Wilson loop in QCD decreases as exponential of the minimal area, encircled by the loop, leading to the quark confinement. What is the similar asymptotic law in turbulence? The physical mechanisms leading to the area law in QCD are absent here. Moreover, there is no guarantee, that $\Psi[C]$ always decreases with the size of the loop.
This makes it possible to look for the simple Anzatz, which was not acceptable in QCD, namely S\[C\] = s(\_\^C) where \_\^C= \_C r\_ d r\_ is the tensor area encircled by the loop $C$. The difference between this area and the scalar area is the positivity property. The scalar area vanishes only for the loop which can be contracted to a point by removal of all the backtracking. As for the tensor area, it vanishes, for example, for the $8$ shaped loop, with opposite orientation of petals.
Thus, there are some large contours with vanishing tensor area, for which there would be no decrease of the $\Psi$ functional. In QCD the Wilson loops must always decrease at large distances, due to the finite mass gap. Here, the large scale correlations are known to exist, and play the central role in the turbulent flow. So, I see no convincing arguments to reject the tensor area Anzatz.
This Anzatz in QCD not only was unphysical, it failed to reproduce the correct short-distance singularities in the loop equation. In turbulence, there are no such singularities. Instead, there are the large-distance singularities, which all should cancel in the loop equation.
It turns out, that for this Anzatz the (turbulent limit of the) loop equation is satisfied automatically, without any further restrictions. Let us verify this important property. The first area derivative yields \_\^C(r)= = 2 The factor of $2$ comes from the second term in the variation = \_\_-\_\_ Note, that the right side does not depend on $r$. Moreover, you can shift $r$ aside from the base loop $C$, with proper wires inserted. The area derivative would not change, as the contribution of wires drops.
This implies, that the corresponding vorticity $\omega_{\mu\nu}^C(r) $ is space independent, it only depends upon the loop itself. The velocity can be reconstructed from vorticity up to irrelevant constant sterms \^C(r) = \_\^C This can be formally obtained from the above integral representation \^C(r) =d\^3 r’\_\^C \[INTG\] as a residue from the infinite sphere $ R = |r'| \ra \8$. One may insert the regularizing factor $ |r'|^{-\epsilon}$ in $\omega$, compute the convolution integral in Fourier space and check that in the limit $
\epsilon \ra 0^+$ the above linear term arises. So, one can use the above form of the loop equation, with the analytic regularization prescription.
Now, the $v\,\omega$ term in the loop equation reads \_C d r\_ \^C(r)\_\^C \_\^C\_\^C\_\^C This tensor trace vanishes, because the first tensor is antisymmetric, and the product of the last two antisymmetric tensors is symmetric with respect to $\alp\gam$.
So, the positive and negative terms cancel each other in our loop equation, like the “income” and “outcome” terms in the usual kinetic equation. We see, that there is an equilibrium in our loop space kinetics.
From the point of view of the notorious infrared divergencies in turbulence, the above calculation explicitly demonstrates how they cancel. By naive dimensional counting these terms were linearly divergent. The space isotropy lowered this to logarithmic divergency in , which reduced to finite terms at closer inspection. Then, the explicit form of these terms was such, that they all cancelled.
This cancellation originates from the angular momentum conservation in fluid mechanics. The large loop $C$ creates the macroscopic eddy with constant vorticity $\omega_{\alp\bet}^C$ and linear velocity $ v^C(r)
\propto r$. This is a well known static solution of the equation. The eddy is conserved due to the angular momentum conservation.The only nontrivial thing is the functional dependence of the eddy vorticity upon the shape and size of the loop $C$. This is a function of the tensor area $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^C$, rather than a general functional of the loop.
Combining this Anzatz with the space isotropy and the Kolmogorov scaling law, we arrive at the tensor area law \[AREA\] The universal constant $B$ here must be real, in virtue of the loop orientation symmetry. When the orientation is reversed $C(\theta) \ra
C(2\pi-\theta)$, the loop integral changes sign, but its square, which enters here, stays invariant. Therefore, the constant in front must be real. The time reversal tells the same, since [*both*]{} viscosity $\nu$ and the energy dissipation rate $\et$ are time-odd. Therefore, the ratio $\frac{\et}{\nu^3}$ is time-even, hence it must enter $\Psi[C]$ with the real coefficient. Clearly, this coefficient $B$ must be positive, since $
\left|\Psi[C] \right|<1$.
Note, however, that we did not prove this law. The absence of decay for large twisted loops with zero tensor area is suspicious. Also, the physics seems to be different from what we expect in turbulence. The uniform vorticity, even a random one, as in this solution, contrasts the observed intermittent distribution. Besides, there clearly must be corrections to the asymptotic law, whereas the tensor area law is [*exact*]{}. This is far too simple. We discussed this unphysical solution mostly as a test of the loop technology.
Scalar Area law
===============
Let us now study the scalar area law, which is a valid Anzatz for the asymptotic decay of the circulation PDF. The set of equations for the minimal surface is summarized in Appendix A. All we need here is the following representation A d \_(x) d \_(y) where $ L_{\Gamma} =|\Gamma|^{\tq} \et^{-\oq} $. The distance $ (x-y)^2$ is measured in 3-space and integration goes along the minimal surface. It is implied that its size is much larger than $ L_{\Gamma} $.
In this limit the integration over, say, $ y $ can be performed along the local tangent plane at $ x $ in small vicinity $ y-x \sim L_{\Gamma} $ , after which the factors of $ L_{\Gamma} $ cancel. We are left then with the ordinary scalar area integral A d\_(x) d \_(y) \^2(x-y) d\^2x
In the previous, regularized form the area represents so called Stokes functional, which can be substituted into the loop equation. The area derivative of the area reads = d \_(y) In the local limit this reduces to the tangent tensor d \_(y) \^2(x-y) = t\_(x) It is implied that the point $x$ approaches the contour from inside the surface, so that the tangent tensor is well defined t\_(x) = t\_n\_ - t\_ n\_ Here $ t_{\mu}$ is the local tangent vector of the loop, and $ n_{\nu} $ is the inside normal to the loop along the surface.
The second area derivative of the regularized area in this limit is just the exponential = Should we look for the higher terms of the asymptotic expansion at large area we would have to take into account the shape of the minimal surface, but in the thermodynamical limit we could neglect the curvature of the loop and use the planar disk.
Let us use the general WKB form of PDF P\_C() = We shall skip the arguments of effective action $ Q $. We find on the left side of the loop equation \_t Q \_ Q - \_t \_ Q On the right side we find the following integrand ((\_[A]{}Q)\^2-\^2\_[A]{}Q) - \_[A]{}Q
The last term drops after the $r' $ integration in virtue of symmetry. The leading terms in the WKB approximation on both sides are those with the first derivatives. We find \_t Q \_Q = (\_[A]{}Q)\^2 d\^3 r’
In the last integral we substitute above explicit form of the area derivatives and perform the $ d^3r' $ integration first. In the thermodynamical limit only the small vicinity $ r'-y \sim L_{\Gamma} $ contributes, and we find d\^3 r’ L\_\^2 d \_(y)
This integral logarithmically diverges. We compute it with the logarithmic accuracy with the following result d \_(y) The meaning of this integral is the average velocity in the WKB approximation. This velocity is tangent to the loop, up to the next correction terms at large area.
Now, the emerging loop integral vanishes due to symmetry t\_ t\_ =0 as the line element $ d \ral $ is directed along the tangent vector $
t_{\alpha} $, and the tangent tensor $ t_{\alpha\beta} $ is antisymmetric. Similar mechanism was used in the tensor area solution, only there the cancellations emerged at the global level, after the closed loop integration. Here the right side of the loop equation vanishes locally, at every point of the loop. Anyway, we see, that the scalar area indeed represents the steady solution of the loop equation in the leading WKB approximation.
It might be instructive to compare this solution with another known exact solution of the Euler dynamics, namely the Gibbs solution P\[v\] = For the loop functional it reads = The integral diverges, and it corresponds to the perimeter law r’\_ \^3(r-r’) r\_0\^[-2]{} \_C |dr| where $ r_0 $ is a small distance cutoff. For the PDF it yields P()
When the Gibbs solution is substituted into the loop equation, we observe the same thing. Average velocity is tangent to the loop, which leads to vanishing integrand in the loop equation. The difference is that in our case this is true only asymptotically, there are next corrections.
The shape of the function $ Q $ is not fixed by this equation in the leading WKB approximation. In a scale invariant theory it is natural to expect the power law Q(, ) (\^[2]{} A\^[1-2]{})\^ \[MuLaw\] There is one more arbitrary index $ \mu$ involved. Even for the Kolmogorov law $ \kappa = \frac{3}{2} $ the $ \Gamma $ dependence remains unknown.
Discussion
==========
So, we found two asymptotic solutions of the loop equation in the turbulent limit, not counting the Gibbs solution. It remains to be seen, which one (if any) is realized in turbulent flows. The tensor area solution is mathematically cleaner, but its physical meaning contradicts the intermittency paradigm. It corresponds to the uniform vorticity with random magnitude and random direction, rather that the regions of high vorticity interlaced with regions of low vorticity, observed in the turbulent flows.
The recent numerical experiments[@Umeki] favor the scalar area rather than the tensor one. Also, the Kolmogorov scaling was observed in these experiments. The Reynolds number was only $ \sim 100 $ which was too small to make any conclusions. We have to wait for the experiments ( real or numerical ) with the Reynolds numbers few orders of magnitude larger.
The scalar area is less trivial than the tensor one. The minimal area as a functional of the loop cannot be represented as any explicit contour integral of the Stokes type, therefore it corresponds to infinite number of higher correlation functions present. Moreover, there could be several minimal surfaces for the same loop, as the equations for the minimal surface are nonlinear. Clearly, the one with the least area should be taken.
The natural generalization of this solution is the string Anzatz where the sum over all surfaces bounded by the loop is taken P\_C() = \_[S: S=C]{} At large loop the minimal $ Q $ terms will remain. The extremum condition Q = A =0 will be satisfied for the minimal surface.
However, the sum over random surfaces is not well defined. The recent studies indicate that the typical closed surfaces degenerate to branched polymers. For the surface bounded by a fixed loop this cannot happen, of course. Still nobody knows how to compute such sums. The loop equation in principle allows to systematically compute the corrections to the area law as the WKB expansion.
The WKB solution is incomplete so far. The leading term in the loop equation is annihilated by arbitrary function of the area (scalar or tensor). The similar ambiguity was present in the Gibbs solution, where arbitrary function of the Hamiltonian satisfied the Liouville equation for the velocity PDF. In that case the ambiguity was removed by extra requirement of thermodynamic limit: only the exponential of the hamiltonian would agree with the factorization of the PDF for two remote parts of the system.
What could be a similar requirement here? The area of the minimal surface represents the effective volume of the system at large loop. The circulation can be written as a surface integral of vorticity, which makes the circulation an extensive variable at this surface. The average vorticity | = represents an intensive quantity. The thermodynamic limit would then correspond to Q = A q(|)
Comparing this with the previous formula for $ Q $ we conclude that $ \mu=1$. In this case Q =A |\^[2]{} In principle, there could be two different laws for positive and negative $
\Gamma $, due to violation of the time reversal invariance Q q\_ A |||\^[2]{}
Another line of argument might start with an assumption of decorrelated average vorticity $ \omega_i $ at various parts $ S_i $ of the area $ A_0 $ of the minimal surface. The net circulation, adding up from the large number $ n
\sim \frac{A}{A_0} \gg 1 $ of independent random terms $ \omega_i A_0 $ would be a gaussian variable as a consequence of the law of large numbers. We would have then Q \~ = This would agree with the previous estimate at = , A\_0\_i\^2\~A\^[1- ]{} so that Q \^2 A\^[-2]{} The natural assumption here would be that the vorticity variance $ \omega_i$ does not scale with the area $ A $, so that A\_0 \~A\^[1- ]{}
The Gaussian behavior (with $ \kappa = \frac{3}{2} $ ) was observed in numerical experiments , but the Reynolds number was too low to make conclusions at this point. There could be a scaling function Q = q(\^[2]{} A\^[-2]{}) which starts linearly and then grows as a power, say, $ q(x) = (1+ a
\,x)^{\kappa} $. I suggest that this function should be studied in real and numerical experiments. This would teach us something new about turbulence.
Acknowledgments
===============
I am grateful to V. Borue, I. Goldhirsh, D. McLaughlin, A. Polyakov and V. Yakhot for stimulating discussions .
Loop Expansion
==============
Let us outline the method of direct iterations of the loop equation. The full description of the method can be found in [@Mig83]. The basic idea is to use the following representation of the loop functional = 1+\_[n=2]{}\^ {\_C dr\_1\^[\_1]{} …\_C dr\_n\^[\_n]{}}\_ W\^n\_[\_1…\_n]{}(r\_1,…r\_n) \[STOKES\]
This representation is valid for every translation invariant functional with finite area derivatives (so called Stokes type functional). The coefficient functions $W$ can be related to these area derivatives. The normalization $\Psi[0]=1 $ for the shrunk loop is implied.
In general case the integration points $r_1,\dots r_n$ in are cyclicly ordered around the loop $C$. The coefficient functions can be assumed cyclicly symmetric without loss of generality. However, in case of fluid dynamics, we are dealing with so called abelian Stokes functional. These functionals are characterized by completely symmetric coefficient functions, in which case the ordering of points can be removed, at expense of the extra symmetry factor in denominator = 1+\_[n=2]{}\^ \_C dr\_1\^[\_1]{} …\_C dr\_n\^[\_n]{} W\^n\_[\_1…\_n]{}(r\_1,…r\_n) \[ABEL\] The incompressibility conditions \_[\_k]{}W\^n\_[\_1…\_n]{}(r\_1,…r\_n)=0 \[divv\] does not impose any further restrictions, because of the gauge invariance of the loop functionals. This invariance (nothing to do with the symmetry of dynamical equations!) follows from the fact, that the closed loop integral of any total derivative vanishes. So, the coefficient functions are defined modulo such derivative terms. In effect this means, that one may relax the incompressibility constraints , without changing the loop functional.
To avoid confusion, let us note, that the physical incompressibility constrains are not neglected. They are, in fact, present in the loop equation, where we used the integral representation for the velocity in terms of vorticity. Still, the longitudinal parts of $W$ drop in the loop integrals.
The loop calculus for the abelian Stokes functional is especially simple. The area derivative corresponds to removal of one loop integration, and differentiation of the corresponding coefficient function = \_[n=1]{}\^ \_C dr\_1\^[\_1]{} …\_C dr\_n\^[\_n]{} \_\^W\^[n+1]{}\_[,\_1…\_n]{}(r,r\_1,…r\_n) \[ABEL’\] where \_\^ \_\_-\_\_ In the nonabelian case, there would also be the contact terms, with $W$ at coinciding points, coming from the cyclic ordering . In abelian case these terms are absent, since $W$ is completely symmetric.
As a next step, let us compute the local kinetic term \_C d r\_ \_ Using above formula for the loop derivative, we find = \_[n=1]{}\^ \_C dr\^\_C dr\_1\^[\_1]{} …\_C dr\_n\^[\_n]{} \^2W\^[n+1]{}\_[,\_1…\_n]{}(r,r\_1,…r\_n) \[L\] The net result is the second derivative of $W$ with respect to one variable. Note, that the second term in $\hat{V}_{\mu\nu}^{\alp}$ dropped, as the total derivative in the closed loop integral.
As for the nonlocal kinetic term, it involves the second area derivative off the loop, at the point $r'$, integrated over $r'$ with the corresponding Green’s function. Each area derivative involves the same operator $\hat{V}$, acting on the coefficient function. Again, the abelian Stokes functional simplifies the general framework of the loop calculus. The contribution of the wires cancels here, and the ordering does not matter, so that = \_[n=0]{}\^ \_C dr\_1\^[\_1]{} …\_C dr\_n\^[\_n]{} \_\^\_[’’]{}\^[’]{}W\^[n+2]{}\_[,’,\_1…\_n]{}(r,r’,r\_1,…r\_n)
Using these relations, we can write the steady state loop equation as follows
Here the light dotted lines symbolize the arguments $\alp_k, r_k$ of $W$, the big circle denotes the loop $C$, the tiny circles stand for the loop derivatives, and the pair of lines with the arrow denote the Green’s function. The sum over the tensor indexes and the loop integrations over $r_k$ are implied.
The first term is the local kinetic term, the second one is the nonlocal kinetic term, and the right side is the potential term in the loop equation. The heavy dotted line in this term stands for the correlation function $F$ of the random forces. Note that this term is an abelian Stokes functional as well.
The iterations go in the potential term, starting with $\Psi[C]=1$. In the next approximation, only the two loop correction $W^2_{\alp_1\alp_2}(r_1,r_2)$ is present. Comparing the terms, we note, that nonlocal kinetic term reduces to the total derivatives due to the space symmetry (in the usual terms it would be $ \VEV{v\omega}$ at coinciding arguments), so we are left with the local one.
This yields the equation \^3 \^2 W\^2\_(r-r’) = F(r-r’)\_ modulo derivative terms. The solution is trivial in Fourier space W\^2\_(r-r’) = - \_ Note, that we did not use the transverse tensor P\_(k) = \_- Though such tensor is present in the physical velocity correlation, here we may use $\del_{\alp\bet}$ instead, as the longitudinal terms drop in the loop integral. This is analogous to the Feynman gauge in QED. The correct correlator corresponds to the Landau gauge.
The potential term generates the four point correlation $ F \,W^2$. which agrees with the disconnected term in the $W^4$ on the left side W\^4\_[\_1\_2\_3\_4]{}(r\_1,r\_2,r\_3,r\_4) W\^2\_[\_1\_2]{}(r\_1-r\_2)W\^2\_[\_3\_4]{}(r\_3-r\_4) + W\^2\_[\_1\_3]{}(r\_1-r\_3)W\^2\_[\_2\_4]{}(r\_2-r\_4) + W\^2\_[\_1\_4]{}(r\_1-r\_4)W\^2\_[\_2\_3]{}(r\_2-r\_3) In the same order of the loop expansion, the three point function will show up. The corresponding terms in kinetic part must cancel among themselves, as the potential term does not contribute. The local kinetic term yields the loop integrals of $ \d^2 W^3 $, whereas the nonlocal one yields $\hat{V}W^2 \,\hat{V'}W^2$, integrated over $d^3 r'$ with the Greens’s function $ \frac{(r-r')}{4\pi |r-r'|^3}$. The equation has the structure
Now it is clear, that the solution of this equation for $W^3$ would be the same three point correlator, which one could obtain (much easier!) by direct iterations of the equation.
The purpose of this painful exercise was not to give one more method of developing the expansion in powers of the random force. We rather verified that the loop equations are capable of producing the same results, as the ordinary chain of the equations for the correlation functions.
In above arguments, it was important, that the loop functional belonged to the class of the abelian Stokes functionals. Let us check that our tensor area Anzatz \^C\_=\_C d belongs to the same class. Taking the square we find (\^C\_)\^2 = \_C d \_C d r’\_ r’\_ = - \_C d \_C d r’\_ (r-r’)\^2 where the last transformation follows from the fact, that only the cross term in $ (r-r')^2$ yields nonzero after double loop integration.
Any expansion in terms of the square of the tensor area reduces, therefore to the superposition of multiple loop integral of the product of $(r_i-r_j)^2 $, which is an example of the abelian Stokes functional. In the limit of large area, this could reduce to the fractional power. An example could be, say = One could explicitly verify all the properties of the abelian Stokes functional. This example is not realistic, though, as it does not have the odd terms of expansion. In the real world such terms are present at the viscous scales. According to our solution, this asymmetry disappears in inertial range of loops (which does not apply to velocity correlators at inertial range, as those correspond to shrunk loops).
Matrix Model
============
The Navier-Stokes equation represents a very special case of nonlinear PDE. There is a well known galilean invariance $$v_{\alpha}(r,t) \rightarrow v_{\alpha}(r-u t,t) + u_{\alpha}$$ which relates the magnitude of velocity field with the scales of time and space. [^6] Let us make this relation more explicit.
First, let us introduce the vorticity field $$\omega_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu} v_{\nu} -\partial_{\nu} v_{\mu}$$ and rewrite the Navier-Stokes equation as follows $$\dot{v}_{\alpha} = \nu \partial_{\beta} \omega_{\beta \alpha} -
v_{\beta}\omega_{\beta \alpha} - \partial_{\alpha} w \\;\;
w = p + \frac{v^2}{2}$$
This $ w $ is the well known enthalpy density, to be found from the incompressibility condition $ div v = 0 $, i.e. $$\partial^2 w = \partial_{\alpha}v_{\beta}\omega_{\beta \alpha}$$
As a next step, let us introduce “covariant derivative” operator $$D_{\alpha} = \nu \partial_{\alpha} - \frac{1}{2}v_{\alpha}$$ and observe that $$2 \left[D_{\alpha} D_{\beta} \right] = \nu \omega_{\beta \alpha}$$ $$2 D_{\beta}\left[ D_{\alpha}D_{\beta} \right] + {\it h.c.}=
\nu \partial_{\beta} \omega_{\beta \alpha} -
v_{\beta}\omega_{\beta \alpha}$$ where $ {\it h.c.}$ stands for hermitean conjugate.
These identities allow us to write down the following dynamical equation for the covariant derivative operator $$\dot{D}_{\alpha} = D_{\beta}\left[ D_{\alpha}D_{\beta} \right]
- D_{\alpha} W + {\it h.c.}$$
As for the incompressibility condition, it can be written as follows $$\left[D_{\alpha} D^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \right] =0$$ The enthalpy operator $ W = \frac{w}{\nu}$ is to be determined from this condition , or, equivalently $$\left[D_{\alpha} \left[D_{\alpha} W \right] \right] =
\left[D_{\alpha}, D_{\beta}\left[ D_{\alpha}D_{\beta} \right]\right]$$
We see, that the viscosity disappeared from these equations. This paradox is resolved by extra degeneracy of this dynamics: the antihermitean part of the $ D $ operator is conserved. Its value at initial time is proportional to viscosity.
The operator equations are invariant with respect to the time independent unitary transformations $$D_{\alpha} \rightarrow S^{\dagger}D_{\alpha}S\\;\; S^{\dagger}S = 1$$ and, in addition, to the time dependent unitary transformations with $$S(t) = \exp \left( \frac{1}{2\nu} t u_\beta \left(D_{\beta} -
D_{\beta}^{\dagger} \right) \right)$$ corresponding to the galilean transformations.
One could view the operator $ D_{\alpha} $ as the matrix $$\left\langle i | D_{\alpha} | j \right \rangle =
\int d^3r \psi_i^{\star}(r) \nu \d_{\alp} \psi_j(r)-
\frac{1}{2} \psi_i^{\star}(r)v_{\alpha}(r) \psi_j(r)$$ where the functions $ \psi_j(r) $ are the Fourier of Tchebyshev functions depending upon the geometry of the problem.
The finite mode approximation would correspond to truncation of this infinite size matrix to finite size $ N $. This is not quite the same as leaving $ N $ terms in the mode expansion of velocity field. The number of independent parameters here is $ O(N^2) $ rather then $
O(N)$. It is not clear whether the unitary symmetry is worth paying such a high price in numerical simulations!
The matrix model of Navier-Stokes equation has some theoretical beauty and raises hopes of simple asymptotic probability distribution. The ensemble of random hermitean matrices was recently applied to the problem of Quantum Gravity [@QG], which led to a genuine breakthrough in the field.
Unfortunately, the model of several coupled random matrices, which is the case here, is much more complicated then the one matrix model studied in Quantum Gravity. The dynamics of the eigenvalues is coupled to the dynamics of the “angular” variables, i.e. the unitary matrices $ S $ in above relations. We could not directly apply the technique of orthogonal polynomials, which was so successful in the one matrix problem.
Another technique, which proved to be successful in QCD and Quantum Gravity is the loop equations. This method, which we are discussing at length in this paper, works in field theory problems with hidden geometric meaning. The turbulence proves to be an ideal case, much simpler then QCD or Quantum Gravity.
The Reduced Dynamics
====================
Let us now try to reproduce the dynamics of the loop field by a simpler Anzatz $$\Psi[C] = \left \langle \exp
\left(
\frac{\i}{\nu}\oint d C_{\alpha}(\theta) P_{\alpha}(\theta)
\right) \right \rangle \label{Reduced}$$ The difference with original definition (\[eq4\]) is that our new function $ P_{\alpha}(\theta) $ depends directly on $ \theta $ rather then through the function $ v_{\alpha}(r) $ taken at $ r_{\alpha} =
C_{\alpha}(\theta) $. This is the $ d \rightarrow 1 $ dimensional reduction we mentioned before. From the point of view of the loop functional there is no need to deal with field $ v(r) $ , one could take a shortcut.
Clearly, the reduced dynamics must be fitted to the Navier-Stokes dynamics of original field. With the loop calculus, developed above, we have all the necessary tools to build this reduced dynamics.
Let us assume some unknown dynamics for the $P $ field $$\dot{P}_{\alpha}(\theta) = F_{\alpha}\left(\theta,[P] \right)$$ and compare the time derivatives of original and reduced Anzatz. We find in (\[Reduced\]) instead of (\[Orig\]) $$\frac{\i}{\nu}\oint d C_{\alpha}(\theta)
F_{\alpha}\left(\theta,[P]\right)$$
Now we observe, that $P'$ could be replaced by the functional derivative, acting on the exponential in (\[Reduced\]) as follows $$\frac{\delta}{\delta C_{\alpha}(\theta)}
\leftrightarrow -\i\nu P'_{\alpha}(\theta)$$ This means, that one could take the operators of the Section 2, expressing velocity and vorticity in terms of the spike operator, and replace the functional derivative as above. This yields the following formula for the spike derivative $$D_{\alpha}(\theta,\epsilon) = -\i\nu \int_{\theta}^{\theta+2
\epsilon} d \phi
\left(
1- \frac{\left|\theta + \epsilon - \phi \right|}{\epsilon}
\right) P'_{\alpha}(\phi) = -\i\nu
\int_{-1}^{1}d \mu
\mbox{ sgn}(\mu)
P_{\alpha} \left(\theta + \epsilon (1+ \mu) \right)
\label{DP}$$ This is the weighted discontinuity of the function $ P(\theta) $, which in the naive limit $ \epsilon \rightarrow 0 $ would become the true discontinuity. However, the function $ P(\theta) $ has in general the stronger singularities, then discontinuity, so that this limit cannot be taken yet.
Anyway, we arrive at the dynamical equation for the $P$ field $$\dot{P}_{\alpha} = \nu D_{\beta} \Omega_{\beta \alpha} - V_{\beta}
\Omega_{\beta \alpha} \label{Pdot}$$ where the operators $ V , D, \Omega $ of the Section 2 should be regarded as the ordinary numbers, with definition (\[DP\]) of $D$ in terms of $P$.
All the functional derivatives are gone! We needed them only to prove equivalence of reduced dynamics to the Navier-Stokes dynamics.
The function $ P_{\alpha}(\theta) $ would become complex now, as the right side of the reduced dynamical equation is complex for real $ P_{\alpha}(\theta) $.
Let us discuss this puzzling issue in more detail. The origin of imaginary units was the factor of $ \imath $ in exponential of the definition of the loop field. We had to insert this factor to make the loop field decreasing at large loops as a result of oscillations of the phase factors. Later this factor propagated to the definition of the $ P $ field.
Our spike derivative $ D $ is purely imaginary for real $ P $, and so is our $ \Omega $ operator. This makes the velocity operator $ V $ real. Therefore the $ D \Omega $ term in the reduced equation (\[Pdot\]) is real for real $ P $ whereas the $ V \Omega $ term is purely imaginary.
This does not contradict the moments equations, as we saw before. The terms with even/odd number of velocity fields in the loop functional are real/imaginary, but the moments are real, as they should be. The complex dynamics of $ P $ simply doubles the number of independent variables.
There is one serious problem, though. Inverting the spike operator $
D_{\alpha} $ we implicitly assumed, that it was antihermitean, and could be regularized by adding infinitesimal negative constant to $
D_{\alpha}^2 $ in denominator. This, indeed, works perturbatively, in each term of expansion in time, or that in size of the loop, as we checked. However, beyond this expansion there would be a problem of singularities, which arise when $ D_{\alpha}^2(\theta) $ vanishes at some $ \theta $.
In general, this would occur for complex $ \theta $, when the imaginary and real part of $ D_{\alpha}^2(\theta) $ simultaneously vanish. One could introduce the complex variable $$e^{\imath \theta}=z\\;\;
e^{-\imath \theta}= \frac{1}{z}\\;\;
\oint d \theta = \oint
\frac{dz}{\imath z}$$ where the contour of $z $ integration encircles the origin around the unit circle. Later, in course of time evolution, these contours must be deformed, to avoid complex roots of $ D_{\alpha}^2(\theta) $.
Initial Data
============
Let us study the relation between the initial data for the original and reduced dynamics. Let us assume, that initial field is distributed according to some translation invariant probability distribution, so that initial value of the loop field does not depend on the constant part of $C(\theta)$.
One can expand translation invariant loop field in functional Fourier transform $$\Psi[C] = \int DQ\delta^3 \left(\oint d \phi Q(\phi) \right)
W[Q] \exp
\left(
\imath \oint d \theta C_{\alpha}(\theta) Q_{\alpha}(\theta)
\right)$$ which can be inverted as follows $$\delta^3 \left( \oint d \phi Q(\phi)\right) W[Q] =
\int DC\Psi[C]\exp
\left(
-\imath \oint d \theta C_{\alpha}(\theta) Q_{\alpha}(\theta)
\right)$$
Let us take a closer look at these formal transformations. The functional measure for these integrations is defined according to the scalar product $$(A,B) = \oint \frac{d \theta}{2 \pi} A(\theta) B(\theta)$$ which diagonalizes in the Fourier representation $$A(\theta) = \sum_{-\infty}^{+\infty} A_n e^{\imath n \theta}
\\;\;A_{-n} = A_n^{\star}$$ $$(A,B) = \sum_{-\infty}^{+\infty} A_n B_{-n} =
A_0 B_0 + \sum_{1}^{\infty} a'_n b'_n + a''_n b''_n\\;\;
a'_n = \sqrt{2} \Re A_n,a''_n = \sqrt{2} \Im A_n$$
The corresponding measure is given by an infinite product of the Euclidean measures for the imaginary and real parts of each Fourier component $$DQ = d^3 Q_0 \prod_{1}^{\infty} d^3 q'_n d^3 q''_n$$ The orthogonality of Fourier transformation could now be explicitly checked, as $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int DC \exp \left( \imath \int d \theta C_{\alpha}(\theta)
\left(
A_{\alpha}(\theta) - B_{\alpha}(\theta)
\right) \right)
}\\ \nonumber
&=& \int d^3 C_0 \prod_{1}^{\infty} d^3 c'_n d^3 c''_n \exp
\left( 2 \pi \imath
\left(
C_0 \left(A_0-B_0 \right) +
\sum_{1}^{\infty} c'_n\left(a'_n - b'_n \right)+
c''_n\left(a''_n - b''_n \right)
\right)
\right)\\ \nonumber
&=&\delta^3\left(A_0-B_0 \right)
\prod_{1}^{\infty} \delta^3\left(a'_n - b'_n \right)
\delta^3\left(a''_n - b''_n \right)\end{aligned}$$
Let us now check the parametric invariance $$\theta \rightarrow f(\theta)\\;\; f(2\pi) -f(0)
= 2\pi \\;\; f'(\theta) >0$$ The functions $ C(\theta) $ and $ P(\theta) $ have zero dimension in a sense, that only their argument transforms $$C(\theta) \rightarrow C \left( f(\theta) \right) \\;\;
P(\theta) \rightarrow P\left( f(\theta) \right)$$ The functions $ Q(\theta) $ and $ P'(\theta) $ in above transformation have dimension one $$P'(\theta) \rightarrow f'(\theta) P'\left( f(\theta) \right)\\;\;
Q(\theta) \rightarrow f'(\theta) Q \left( f(\theta) \right)$$ so that the constraint on $ Q $ remains invariant $$\oint d \theta Q(\theta) = \oint df(\theta) Q\left( f(\theta)
\right)$$
The invariance of the measure is easy to check for infinitesimal reparametrization $$f(\theta) = \theta + \epsilon(\theta)\\;\; \epsilon(2\pi) = \epsilon(0)$$ which changes $C$ and $(C,C)$ as follows $$\delta C(\theta) = \epsilon(\theta) C'(\theta) \\;\;
\delta (C,C) = \oint \frac{d \theta}{2\pi}
\epsilon(\theta) 2 C_{\alpha}(\theta) C'_{\alpha}(\theta) =
-\oint \frac{d \theta}{2\pi}\epsilon'(\theta)C_{\alpha}^2(\theta)$$ The corresponding Jacobian reduces to $$1 - \oint d \theta \epsilon'(\theta) =1$$ in virtue of periodicity.
This proves the parametric invariance of the functional Fourier transformations. Using these transformations we could find the probability distribution for the initial data of $$P_{\alpha}(\theta) = - \nu\int_{0}^{\theta} d \phi Q_{\alpha}(\phi)$$
The simplest but still meaningful distribution of initial velocity field is the Gaussian one, with energy concentrated in the macroscopic motions. The corresponding loop field reads $$\Psi_0[C] = \exp
\left(
-\frac{1}{2} \oint dC_{\alpha}(\theta)
\oint dC_{\alpha}(\theta') f\left(C(\theta)-C(\theta')\right)
\right)$$ where $ f(r-r') $ is the velocity correlation function $$\left \langle v_{\alpha}(r) v_{\beta}(r') \right \rangle =
\left(\delta_{\alpha \beta}- \partial_{\alpha} \partial_{\beta}
\partial_{\mu}^{-2} \right) f(r-r')$$ The potential part drops out in the closed loop integral.
The correlation function varies at macroscopic scale, which means that we could expand it in Taylor series $$f(r-r') \rightarrow f_0 - f_1 (r-r')^2 + \dots \label{Taylor}$$ The first term $ f_0 $ is proportional to initial energy density, $$\frac{1}{2} \left \langle v_{\alpha}^2 \right \rangle =\frac{d-1}{2}
f_0$$ and the second one is proportional to initial energy dissipation rate $${\cal E}_{0} = -\nu \left \langle v_{\alpha} \partial_{\beta}^2
v_{\alpha} \right \rangle = 2 d(d-1) \nu f_1$$ where $ d=3 $ is dimension of space.
The constant term in (\[Taylor\]) as well as $ r^2 + r'^2 $ terms drop from the closed loop integral, so we are left with the cross term $ r r' $ $$\Psi_0[C] \rightarrow \exp
\left(
- f_1 \oint dC_{\alpha}(\theta)
\oint dC_{\alpha}(\theta') C_{\beta}(\theta)C_{\beta}(\theta')
\right)$$ This is almost Gaussian distribution: it reduces to Gaussian one by extra integration $$\Psi_0[C] \rightarrow {\rm const }\int d^3 \omega \exp
\left(
-\omega_{\alpha \beta}^2
\right)
\exp
\left(
2\imath \sqrt{f_1}
\omega_{\mu\nu} \oint dC_{\mu}(\theta) C_{\nu}(\theta)
\right)$$ The integration here goes over all $ \frac{d(d-1)}{2} =3 $ independent $ \alpha < \beta $ components of the antisymmetric tensor $ \omega_{\alpha \beta} $. Note, that this is ordinary integration, not the functional one. The physical meaning of this $ \omega $ is the random constant vorticity at initial moment.
At fixed $ \omega $ the Gaussian functional integration over $ C $ $$\int DC \exp
\left(
\imath \oint d \theta
\left(\frac{1}{\nu}
C_{\beta}(\theta) P'_{\beta}(\theta)
+2 \sqrt{f_1}
\omega_{\alpha \beta} C'_{\alpha}(\theta)C_{\beta}(\theta)
\right)
\right)$$ can be performed explicitly, it reduces to solution of the saddle point equation $$P'_{\beta}(\theta) = 4\nu\sqrt{f_1}\omega_{\beta \alpha}
C'_{\alpha}(\theta)$$ which is trivial for constant $ \omega $ $$C_{\alpha}(\theta) =
\frac{1}{4\nu\sqrt{f_1}} \omega^{-1}_{\alpha \beta} P_{\beta}(\theta)$$ The inverse matrix is not\* unique in odd dimensions, since $ \mbox{Det }
\omega_{\alpha\beta} = 0 $. However, the resulting pdf for $ P $ is unique. This is the Gaussian probability distribution with the correlator $$\left \langle P_{\alpha}(\theta) P_{\beta}(\theta') \right \rangle =
2\imath \nu\sqrt{f_1} \omega_{\alpha \beta} {\rm sign}(\theta'-\theta)
\label{Corr}$$
Note, that antisymmetry of $ \omega $ compensates that of the sign function, so that this correlation function is symmetric, as it should be. However, it is antihermitean, which corresponds to purely imaginary eigenvalues. The corresponding realization of the $ P$ functions is complex!
Let us study this phenomenon for the Fourier components. Differentiating the last equation with respect to $ \theta $ and Fourier transforming we find $$\left \langle P_{\alpha,n} P_{\beta,m} \right \rangle
= \frac{4\nu}{m} \delta_{-n m} \sqrt{f_1}\omega_{\alpha \beta}$$
This cannot be realized at complex conjugate Fourier components $
P_{\alpha,-n} = P_{\alpha,n}^{\star} $ but we could take $\bar{P}_{\alpha,n} \equiv P_{\alpha,-n} $ and $ P_{\alpha,n} $ as real random variables, with correlation function $$\left \langle \bar{P}_{\alpha,n}P_{\beta,m} \right \rangle
= \frac{4\nu}{m}\delta_{n m}\sqrt{f_1} \omega_{\alpha \beta} \\;\; n>0$$ The trivial realization is $$\bar{P}_{\alpha,n} =\frac{4\nu}{n} \sqrt{f_1}\omega_{\alpha \beta}
P_{\beta,n}$$ with $P_{\beta,n} $ being Gaussian random numbers with unit dispersion.
As for the constant part $ P_{\alpha,0} $ of $ P_{\alpha}(\theta) $ , it is not defined, but it drops from equations in virtue of translational invariance.
W-functional
============
The difficulties of turbulence are hidden in the loop equation, but they show up, if you try to solve it numerically. The main problem is that one cannot get rid of the cutoffs $ \epsilon, \delta \rightarrow 0 $ in the definitions of the spike derivatives. These cutoffs are designed to pick up the singular contributions in the angular integrals, but with finite number of modes, such as Fourier harmonics there would be no singularities. We did not find any way to truncate degrees of freedom in the $ P $ equation, without violating the parametric invariance. It very well may be, that this invariance would be restored in the limit of large number of modes, but it looks that there are too much ambiguity in the finite mode approximation.
After some attempts, we found the simpler version of the loop functional, which can be studied analytically in the turbulent region. This is the generating functional for the scalar products $
P_{\alpha}(\theta_1)P_{\alpha}(\theta_2) $ $$W[S] = \left \langle \exp
\left(
- \oint d \theta_1 \oint d \theta_2
S(\theta_1,\theta_2)P_{\alpha}(\theta_1)P_{\alpha}(\theta_2)
\right) \right \rangle
\label{W1}$$ where, as before, the averaging goes over initial data for the $P $ field.
The time derivative of this W-functional $$\dot{W} = -2 \left \langle \oint d \theta_1 \oint d \theta_2
S(\theta_1,\theta_2)P_{\alpha}(\theta_1)\dot{P}_{\alpha}(\theta_2)
\exp
\left(
- \oint d \theta_1 \oint d \theta_2
S(\theta_1,\theta_2)P_{\alpha}(\theta_1)P_{\alpha}(\theta_2)
\right) \right \rangle \label{W2}$$ can be expressed in terms of functional derivatives of $W$ by replacing $$P_{\alpha}(\phi_1)P_{\alpha}(\phi_2) \rightarrow
\frac{\delta}{\delta S(\phi_1,\phi_2)} \label{W3}$$ for every scalar product of $P$ fields, which arise after expansion of the spike derivatives (\[DP\]), (\[OM\]), (\[VOM\]) in the scalar product $$P_{\alpha}(\theta_1)\dot{P}_{\alpha}(\theta_2) =
\nu P_{\alpha}(\theta_1) D_{\beta}(\theta_2)
\Omega_{\beta \alpha}(\theta_2) - P_{\alpha}(\theta_1)
V_{\beta}(\theta_2)\Omega_{\beta \alpha}(\theta_2)
\label{PP}$$
This equation has the structure $$\dot{W} = \oint d^2 \theta S(\theta_1,\theta_2)
\left(
A_2 \left[\frac{\delta}{\delta S} \right]W +
A_3 \left[\frac{\delta}{\delta S} \right]D^{-2}(\theta,\epsilon)W
\right)
\label{W4}$$ where $A_k \left[X \right] $ stands for the $k-$ degree homogenous functional of the function $ X(\theta_1,\theta_2) $.
The operator $ D^{-2} $ is also the homogeneous functional of the negative degree $ k = -1 $. It can be written as follows $$D^{-2}(\theta,\epsilon)W[S] =\int_{0}^{\infty}d \tau W[S + \tau U]$$ with $$U(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \epsilon^{-2}
\mbox{ sgn}(\theta+ \epsilon-\theta_1)
\mbox{ sgn}(\theta+ \epsilon-\theta_2)$$
Possible Numerical Implementation
=================================
The above general scheme is fairly abstract and complicated. Could it lead to any practical computation method? This would depend upon the success of the discrete approximations of the singular equations of reduced dynamics.
The most obvious approximation would be the truncation of Fourier expansion at some large number $ N $. With Fourier components decreasing only as powers of $ n $ this approximation is doubtful. In addition, such truncation violates the parametric invariance which looks dangerous.
It seems safer to approximate $ P(\theta) $ by a sum of step functions, so that it is piecewise constant. The parametric transformations vary the lengths of intervals of constant $ P(\theta) $, but leave invariant these constant values. The corresponding representation reads $$P_{\alpha}(\theta) = \sum_{l=0}^{N} \left(p_{\alpha}(l+1)-p_{\alpha}(l)
\right)
\Theta \left(\theta-\theta_l \right)\\;\; p(N+1) = p(1),\; p(0) = 0
\label{Thetas}$$ It is implied that $ \theta_0 =0 < \theta_1 < \theta_2 \dots < \theta_N <
2\pi $. By construction, the function $ P(\theta) $ takes value $p(l)$ at the interval $ \theta_{l-1} < \theta < \theta_{l}
$.
We could take $ \dot{P}(\theta) $ at the middle of this interval as approximation to $ \dot{p}(l) $. $$\dot{p}(l) \approx \dot{P}(\bar{\theta}_l)\\;\;
\bar{\theta}_l = \frac{1}{2}\left(\theta_{l-1} + \theta_l \right)$$ As for the time evolution of angles $ \theta_l $ , one could differentiate (\[Thetas\]) in time and find $$\dot{P}_{\alpha}(\theta) =
\sum_{l=0}^{N} \left(\dot{p}_{\alpha}(l+1)-\dot{p}_{\alpha}(l) \right)
\Theta \left(\theta-\theta_l \right) -
\sum_{l=0}^{N} \left(p_{\alpha}(l+1)-p_{\alpha}(l) \right)
\delta(\theta-\theta_l)\dot{\theta_l}$$ from which one could derive the following approximation $$\dot{\theta_l} \approx \frac{\left(p_{\alpha}(l)-p_{\alpha}(l+1)
\right)}{ \left(p_{\mu}(l+1)-p_{\mu}(l)\right)^2}
\int_{\bar{\theta}_l}^{\bar{\theta}_{l+1}} d \theta
\dot{P}_{\alpha}(\theta)$$
The extra advantage of this approximation is its simplicity. All the integrals involved in the definition of the spike derivative (\[DP\]) are trivial for the stepwise constant $ P(\theta) $. So, this approximation can be in principle implemented at the computer. This formidable task exceeds the scope of the present work, which we view as purely theoretical.
Uniqueness of the tensor area law
=================================
Let us address the issue of the uniqueness of the tensor area solution. Let us take the following Anzatz S\[C\] = f( \_C d \_C d r’\_ W(r-r’) ) When substituted into the static loop equation (with the area derivatives computed in Appendix A), it yields the following equation for the correlation function $W(r)$ 0=\_C d \_C d r’\_ \_C d r”\_ U\_(r,r’,r”) U\_(r,r’,r”)= W(r-r’)\^\_W(r’-r”) + \^\_ = \_ \_ -\_ \_ \[U\] The derivative $f'$ of the unknown function drops from the static equation.
This equation should hold for arbitrary loop $C$. Using the Taylor expansion for the Stokes type functional , we can argue, that the coefficient function $U$ must vanish up to the total derivatives. An equivalent statement is that the third area derivative of this functional must vanish. Using the loop calculus (see Appendix A) we find the following equation 0=\^\_ \^[’]{}\_[’’]{} \^[”]{}\_[””]{} U\_[’”]{}(r,r’,r”) which should hold for arbitrary $r,r',r''$. This leads to the overcomplete system of equations for $W(r)$ in general case. However, for the special case $ W(r) = r^2$ which corresponds to the square of the tensor area \_\^2 = - \_C d \_C d r’\_(r-r’)\^2 the system is satisfied as a consequence of certain symmetry. In this case we find in the loop equation 2 \_C d \_C d r’\_(r-r’)\^2 \_C d r”\_ ( r’\_ - r”\_) \^C\_\_C d \_C d r’\_(r-r’)\^2 The last integral is symmetric with respect to permutations of $ \alp ,
\bet$, whereas the first factor $ \Sigma^C_{\alp\bet}$ is antisymmetric, hence the sum over $\alp\bet$ yields zero, as we already saw above.
It was assumed in above arguments, that the loop $C$ consist of only one connected part. Let us now consider the more general situation, with arbitrary number $n$ of loops $C_1,\dots C_n$. The corresponding Anzatz would be S\_n= s\_n(\^1,…\^n) where $\Sigma^i$ are tensor areas.
This function should obey the same WKB loop equations in each variable. Introducing the loop vorticities \^k\_ = 2 which are constant on each loop, we have to solve the following problem. What are the values of $ \omega^k_{\mu\nu}$ such that the single velocity field $\val(r) $ could produce them?
We do not see any other solutions, but the trivial one, with all equal $
\omega^k_{\mu\nu} $ and linear velocity, as before. This would correspond to s\_n(\^1,…\^n)= s\_1()\
; \_=\_[k=1]{}\^n \^k\_= \_[C\_k]{} r\_ d r\_ The loop equation would be satisfied like before, with $ C = \uplus C_k $. This corresponds to the additivity of loops S\_n= S\_1Note, that such additivity is the opposite to the statistical independence, which would imply that S\_n= S\_1The additivity could also be understood as a statement, that any set of $n$ loops is equivalent to a single loop for the abelian Stokes functional. Just connect these loops by wires, and note that the contribution of wires cancels. So, if the area law holds for [*arbitrary*]{} single loop, than it must be additive.
This assumption may not be true, though, as it often happens in the WKB approximation. There is no single asymptotic formula, but rather collections of different WKB regions, with quantum regions in between. In our case, this corresponds to the following situation.
Take the large circular loop, for which the WKB approximation holds, and try to split it into two large circles. You will have to twist the loop like the infinity symbol $ \8$, in which case it intersects itself. At this point, the WKB approximation might break, as the short distance velocity correlation might be important near the self-intersection point. This may explain the paradox of the vanishing tensor area for the $\8$ shaped loop. From the point of view of our area law such loop is not large at all.
Minimal surfaces
================
Let us present here the modern view at the classical theory of the minimal surfaces. The minimal surface can be described by parametric equation S: = X\_(\_1,\_2) The function $ X_{\alpha}(\xi) $ should provide the minimum to the area functional A\[X\] = \_S = d\^2 where G\_[ab]{} = \_a X\_\_b X\_, is the induced metric. For the general studies it is sometimes convenient to introduce the unit tangent tensor as an independent field and minimize A= d\^2 (e\_[ab]{} \_a X\_ \_b X\_ t\_ + (1- t\_\^2 ) ) From the classical equations we will find then t\_ = \_a X\_ \_b X\_; t\_\^2 = 1, which shows equivalence to the old definition.
For the actual computation of the minimal area it is convenient to introduce the auxiliary internal metric $ g_{ab} $ A= \_S d\^2 . \[gG\] The straightforward minimization with respect to $ g_{ab} $ yields g\_[ab]{} = 2 G\_[ab]{}, which has the family of solutions g\_[ab]{} = G\_[ab]{}. The local scale factor $ \lambda $ drops from the area functional, and we recover original definition. So, we could first minimize the quadratic functional with respect to $ X(\xi) $ (the linear problem), and then minimize with respect to $ g_{ab} $ (the nonlinear problem).
The crucial observation is the possibility to choose conformal coordinates, with the diagonal metric tensor g\_[ab]{} = \_[ab]{} , g\^[-1]{}\_[ab]{} = , = ; after which the local scale factor $\rho$ drops from the integral A\[X,\] = \_S d\^2 \_a X\_ \_a X\_. However, the $ \rho $ field is implicitly present in the problem, through the boundary conditions.
Namely, one has to allow an arbitrary parametrization of the boundary curve $ C $. We shall use the upper half plane of $ \xi$ for our surface, so the boundary curve corresponds to the real axis $ \xi_2 = 0 $. The boundary condition will be X\_(\_1,+0) = C(f(\_1)), \[Bcon\] where the unknown function $ f(t) $ is related to the boundary value of $
\rho$ by the boundary condition for the metric g\_[11]{} = = G\_[11]{} = (\_1 X\_)\^2 = C\_’\^2 f’\^2 As it follows from the initial formulation of the problem, one should now solve the linear problem for the $ X $ field, compute the area and minimize it as a functional of $ f(.) $. As we shall see below, the minimization condition coincides with the diagonality of the metric at the boundary \_[\_2=+0]{} = 0 \[Diag\]
The linear problem is nothing but the Laplace equation $ \d^2 X = 0 $ in the upper half plane with the Dirichlet boundary condition . The solution is well known X\_() = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} The area functional can be reduced to the boundary terms in virtue of the Laplace equation A\[f\] = d\^2 \_a (X\_ \_a X\_) = -\_[-]{}\^[+]{} d \_1 \_[\_2 = +0]{} Substituting here the solution for $ X $ we find A\[f\] = - \_[-]{}\^[+]{}d t \_[-]{}\^[+]{} d t’ This can be rewritten in a nonsingular form A\[f\] = \_[-]{}\^[+]{}d t \_[-]{}\^[+]{} d t’ which is manifestly positive.
Another nice form can be obtained by integration by parts A\[f\] = \_[-]{}\^[+]{}d t f’(t) \_[-]{}\^[+]{} d t’ f’(t’) C’\_(f(t)) C’\_(f(t’)) | t-t’| This form allows one to switch to the inverse function $ \tau(f) $ which is more convenient for optimization A\[\] = \_[-]{}\^[+]{}d f \_[-]{}\^[+]{} d f’ C’\_(f) C’\_(f’) |(f)-(f’)|
In the above formulas it was implied that $ C(\8) = 0 $. One could switch to more traditional circular parametrization by mapping the upper half plane inside the unit circle \_1 + i\_2 = i ; = r e\^[i]{} ; r 1. The real axis is mapped at the unit circle. Changing variables in above integral we find X\_(r,) = \_[-]{}\^ C\_(()) (- ) Here () = f(). The last term represents an irrelevant translation of the surface, so it can be dropped. The resulting formula for the area reads A\[\] = \_[-]{}\^ d \_[-]{}\^ d ’ or, after integration by parts and inverting parametrization A\[\] = \_[-]{}\^ d \_[-]{}\^ d ’ C’\_()C’\_(’) | |
Let us now minimize the area as a functional of the boundary parametrization $ f(t) $ (we shall stick to the upper half plane). The straightforward variation yields 0 = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} d t’ \[NL\] which duplicates the above diagonality condition . Note that in virtue of this condition the normal vector $ n_{\mu}(x) $ is directed towards $ \d_2 X_{\mu} $ at the boundary. Explicit formula reads n\_(C(f(t))) \_[-]{}\^[+]{} d t’
Let us have a closer look at the remaining nonlinear integral equation . In terms of inverse parametrization it reads 0 = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} d f Introduce the vector set of analytic functions F\_(z) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} which decrease as $ z^{-2} $ at infinity. The discontinuity at the real axis F\_(+ i0) = C\_’(f) f’() Which provides the implicit equation for the parametrization $ f(\tau) $ d F\_(+i0) = C\_(f) We see, that the imaginary part points in the tangent direction at the boundary. As for the boundary value of the real part of $ F_{\mu}(\tau) $ it points in the normal direction along the surface F\_ n\_ Inside the surface there is no direct relation between the derivatives of $
X_{\mu}(\xi) $ and $ F_{\mu}(\xi) $.
The integral equation reduces to the trivial boundary condition F\_\^2(t+i0) = F\_\^2(t-i0) In other words, there should be no discontinuity of $ F_{\mu}^2 $ at the real axis. The solution compatible with analyticity in the upper half plane and $
z^{-2} $ decrease at infinity is F\_\^2(z) = (1+ )\^4P(); = where $ P(\omega) $ defined by a series, convergent at $ |\omega| \le 1 $. In particular this could be a polynomial. The coefficients of this series should be found from an algebraic minimization problem, which cannot be pursued forward in general case.
The flat loops are trivial though. In this case the problem reduces to the conformal transformation mapping the loop onto the unit circle. For the unit circle we have simply C\_1 + iC\_2 = ; F\_1 = iF\_2 = - ; P = 0. Small perturbations around the circle or any other flat loop can be treated in a systematic way, by a perturbation theory.
Kolmogorov triple correlation and time reversal
===============================================
Are there any restrictions on the circulation PDF from the known asymmetry of velocity correlations, in particular, the Kolmogorov triple correlation? The answer is that the Kolmogorov correlation does not imply the asymmetry of [*vorticity*]{} correlations.
Taking the tensor version of the $\frac{4}{5}$ law in arbitrary dimension $d$ v\_(0) v\_(0) v\_(r)= ( \_ r\_ + \_ r\_ - \_ r\_ ) \[KOLM\] and differentiating, we find that = 0 So, the odd vorticity correlations could, in fact, be absent, in spite of the asymmetry of the velocity distribution.
[99]{} A.N. Kolmogorov. [*The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large Reynolds’ numbers*]{}. C. R. Acad. Sci. URSS, 30(4):301–305, 1941. A. Migdal, [*Loop equations and $\inv{N}$ expansion*]{}, Physics Reports , 201 , 102,(1983). D. Gross, A. Migdal, Physical Review Letters, 717, [**64**]{}, (1990), and Nuclear Physics B340, 333,(1990), M. Douglas and S. Shenker, Nuclear Physics B335, 635, (1990), E. Brezin, V. Kazakov, Physical Letters, 144, [**236B**]{}, (1990). A.A. Migdal, [*Loop equation in turbulence*]{}, PUPT-1383, March ’93, hep-th/9303130. A.A. Migdal, [ *Turbulence as statistics of vortex cells*]{}, PUPT-1409, hep-th/9306152 Makoto Umeki, Tokyo University Preprint , July 93, hep-th/9307144
[^1]: see also where this approach was initiated and where its relation with the generalized Hamiltonian dynamics and the Gibbs-Boltzmann statistics was established
[^2]: This parametrization of the loop is a matter of convention, as the loop functional is parametric invariant.
[^3]: One could also insert any numerical parameter in exponential, but this factor could be eliminated by space- and/or time rescaling.
[^4]: As a measure of the loop size one may take the square root of the minimal area inside the loop.
[^5]: I am grateful to A. Polyakov and E. Siggia for inspiring comments on this subject.
[^6]: At the same time it tells us that the constant part of velocity if frame dependent, so that it better be eliminated, if we would like to have a smooth limit at large times. Most of notorious large scale divergencies in turbulence are due to this unphysical constant part.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Federated learning is gaining significant interests as it enables model training over a large volume of data that is distributedly stored over many users, while protecting the privacy of the individual users. However, a major bottleneck in scaling federated learning to a large number of users is the overhead of secure model aggregation across many users. In fact, the overhead of state-of-the-art protocols for secure model aggregation grows quadratically with the number of users. We propose a new scheme, named [[Turbo-Aggregate]{}]{}, that in a network with $N$ users achieves a secure aggregation overhead of $O(N\log{N})$, as opposed to $O(N^2)$, while tolerating up to a user dropout rate of $50\%$. [[Turbo-Aggregate]{}]{} employs a multi-group circular strategy for efficient model aggregation, and leverages additive secret sharing and novel coding techniques for injecting aggregation redundancy in order to handle user dropouts while guaranteeing user privacy. We experimentally demonstrate that [[Turbo-Aggregate]{}]{} achieves a total running time that grows almost linear in the number of users, and provides up to $14\times$ speedup over the state-of-the-art schemes with upto $N=200$ users. We also experimentally evaluate the impact of several key network parameters (e.g., user dropout rate, bandwidth, and model size) on the performance of [[Turbo-Aggregate]{}]{}.'
author:
- |
Jinhyun So, Basak Guler, and A. Salman Avestimehr\
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA\
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: '[[Turbo-Aggregate]{}]{}: Breaking the Quadratic Aggregation Barrier in Secure Federated Learning'
---
Introduction
============
\[1-Intro\]
System Model
============
\[2-ProbSetting\]
The [[Turbo-Aggregate]{}]{} Protocol
====================================
\[3-Algorithm\]
Theoretical Guarantees of [[Turbo-Aggregate]{}]{}
=================================================
\[5-MainResults\]
Experiments
===========
\[6-Experimental Evaluation\]
Conclusion
==========
\[7-Conclusion\]
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This material is based upon work supported by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under Contract No. HR001117C0053, ARO award W911NF1810400, NSF grants CCF-1703575, ONR Award No. N00014-16-1-2189, and CCF-1763673. The views, opinions, and/or findings expressed are those of the author(s) and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.